← Intelligence Squared
Intelligence Squared
Is it Game Over for Keir Starmer? Martin Wolf for The Intelligence Squared Economic Outlook 2026 (Part One)
00:36:58
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
Bea Duncan
I'm Bea Duncan, Executive Producer at Intelligence Squared. Here's a thought. We don't often connect our modern digital world with something as physical as water, but the two are deeply linked data centers. Food production, your morning coffee, the clothes you're wearing. Water is behind it all. Our world is held together by water in ways we rarely stop to notice. That's why we're proud to be kicking off 2026 by working in partnership with WaterAid to shine a spotlight on something that connects us all. Water journalist Coco Kahn speaks to Helen Rumford and Vera Klutchen about how water is shaping the future of innovation, climate resilience and global development. Because when water flows, so does opportunity. Helen Rumford is lead Policy Analyst for Climate Policy and Campaigns, focusing on inclusive, sustainable change and climate justice. And Vera Klutchen, WaterAid's climate and environment Lead brings over a decade of international experience working on climate, resilient water, sanitation and hygiene systems. Listen in to discover why investing in water is one of the most powerful ways to secure a sustainable, equitable future for everyone. This is the second episode in our series in partnership with WaterAid, both of which are available to listen to now on the Intelligence Squared podcast.
- [01:15]
Alex Honnold
I'm Alex Honnl, professional rock climber and founder of the Honl Foundation. I wanted to let you know about a brand new season of the Planet Visionaries podcast in partnership with the Rolex Perpetual Planet Initiative. This is the podcast exploring bold ideas and big solutions from the people leading the way in conservation. Join me in conversation with the likes of climate champion Mark Ruffalo, biologist and photographer Christina Mittermeier, and one of the most successful conservationists of our time, Chris Tompkins. Join us on Planet Visionaries wherever you get your podcasts.
- [01:46]
Mia Sorrenti
Welcome to Intelligence Squared, where great minds meet. I'm producer Mia Sorrenti. On today's episode, chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, Martin Wolff returns to the intelligence squared stage. 2026 opened with a bang. With Donald Trump's takeover of Venezuela and aggression towards Greenland, it's clear that this year will be another test of resilience for the global economy. What are the implications of American antagonism for the existing world order? Will Rachel Reeves economic plans finally bear fruit for an increasingly unpopular Labour government? And what does the rising wave of populism from left and right mean for the economic policies of incumbent parties in the uk, Europe, US and beyond? Wolff joined us at Smith Square hall in Westminster for a special edition of the Intelligence Squared Economic Outlook, made in partnership with Guinness Global Investors. For those who don't know. Guinness Global Investors is an independent British fund manager that helps both individuals and institutions harness the future drivers of growth to achieve their investment goals. Now let's join our host, Johnny diamond, with more.
- [02:57]
Johnny Diamond
Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much. Welcome to this Intelligence Squared event. I am Johnny Diamond. I'm delighted to be sitting down with Martin Wolff today to discuss the global economy. I think if you've come here this evening, you've made an effort on a cold February evening. You'll know Martin and you'll know his work. He is, of course, chief economics commentator for the Financial Times. His books include the Shift and the why Globalization Works, most recently the Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. And they have the great benefit of fizzing with ideas and being beautifully written as well. I can't recommend them highly enough. He's been awarded the CBE for his services to financial journalism, and in 2019 won the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Gerald Loeb Awards. Let's talk about the economy. 2026 has opened with a bang when it's come to geopolitics. The seizure of the Venezuelan leader, the threats towards Greenland, the threats towards NATO. It is clear that this will be another test of resilience for the global economy. And there may well be a test of resilience much closer to home here in the uk because of the political situation that is unfolding day by day and almost hour by hour. We'll talk about the implications of American actions, we'll talk about where we think American, the UK might stand economically after the political ructions that are happening. And we will talk about populism, the rising wave of populism from left and right, and what that means for economic policies of incumbent parties and what might come. Enough from me. Let's talk to Martin. Martin, can we talk first of all about the uk, since it's such an extraordinary period in political life? I think a fair number of people now see the departure of the Prime Minister as inevitable. Are you one of them? And what do you see as the potential impact?
- [05:00]
Martin Wolff
So, first of all, it's a great pleasure to be here again. I've done this quite a few times. There must be a reason I'm invited back. I have no idea what it is. On the British story, I try very, very hard not to pretend that I'm an expert on politics. I'm an astounded bystander, most of the time, an observer. But I have tended to notice, particularly in the last 15 years or so, particularly since 2016, that when prime ministers get into the sort of situation in which they insist they're not going or the people around them insist they're not going. That means they are. You can't insist you're credible. You either are credible or you're not. So I think we have to, from the economics perspective, take the possibility that he will not be around for very long quite seriously.
- [06:05]
Johnny Diamond
And are you able to read an economic impact into his departure?
- [06:11]
Martin Wolff
I'm assuming. Let's step back. I think this has not been, how do I put it from an economics point of view, a very brilliant government. We can discuss that at great length, but it's been rather a small C Conservative one. It is, if you like, a post trust government and the treasury and the bank too. But certainly the treasury has frightened the government into trying to be quite orthodox in terms of the aggregate numbers, fiscal positions and so forth. And in turn the government has obviously tried to buy off certain very powerful interests within the party and that the party cares about with some policies which I don't think were terribly wise to offset it. But basically this has been a Conservative, small C Conservative government doing what the treasury would like it to do. The Treasury's hands are all over it and Rachel Rees very much embodies that. I'm going to assume that there is a non zero chance, I mean very much bigger than zero, that the next government wouldn't be quite large like that and will be inclined to do more of what the Labour Party in the House wants it to do, which is to spend more without taxing more, and if not that, spend more, but tax more, with a very clearly redistributive stance. And I can understand that, but I think it could create quite large risks. But because Britain is pretty vulnerable and I've discussed that before here, we have pretty high debt ratios by historical standards. They've gone up more than 60 percentage points relative to GDP since the crisis. So we're now close to 100% of GDP public debt, as opposed to just under 40. And the we are a chronic deficit country in terms of we run a chronic current account deficit, so that means our investment is financed from abroad and so is a very large part of our government debt. If you add those things together with a government that might look leftish, irresponsible, populist, I think that raises significantly the chances of disruptions in debt markets which would force the bank of England to raise interest rates and you could get into quite a mess. I'm not forecasting that, but that's clearly what people looking at the situation around the world will be asking themselves. Now, so far in the markets, it's been pretty quiet. So that may turn out to be not the risk that I think it is. But we won't know until we try. And it will depend, of course, if I'm right, that he's likely to go on who his successor turns out to be and what sort of program he or she puts forward.
- [09:21]
Johnny Diamond
Let's see if the audience has more on that when we come to questions. Let's talk about Donald Trump and the United States. You wrote in a recent column the US Is no longer predictable nor bound by any fundamental principles of action. I mean, it's an extraordinary statement to make about a nation that previously was bound by principles of action. Presumably there is one fundamental which is that which the administration thinks benefits the.
- [09:51]
Martin Wolff
U.S. well, I'm not even sure I'd go that far. There certainly is one guiding principle which is unambiguous. I don't think anyone could deny that which benefits Donald Trump and his family is very clearly a guiding principle. That which Donald Trump and people around him think is a good idea today is unquestionably a guiding principle. The difficulties predicting what they will think is a good idea a few weeks or months from now. He has gone through so many policies. I mean, as you mentioned a couple of weeks ago or so we thought he was about to invade Greenland. Then he decided he wasn't. One of the things we thought we knew is that he wasn't going to start more military interventions. That was one of the things that looked like then Venezuela. Is Venezuela a one off or is the first of many? He got himself into some extraordinarily extreme positions in trade, notably in, for instance, tariffs on India. Now he's got to deal with them. He is a the principle is that he will do what he thinks is of benefit to himself and his administration and his perception of his country. And that will change first and it will change in response to how he sees events changing. So there are these principles. That is a principle. There's no question that's a principle. But it makes it very difficult to predict what's going to happen. So at the moment, I would say of all the great powers, his most stable relations right now is with China. I don't think anyone a year ago could even imagine that would be the outcome. So where he's going in some sense, if you look at the man and the people around him is not unclear. And of course, the domestic political revolution he's making is not unclear. And he's Attitudes to NATO are not, that's not unclear. But where it will take him in any given moment and what it will imply for the future are, I think, really difficult to discern.
- [12:17]
Johnny Diamond
Can we talk about the economic impact? Because, I mean, last year as tariffs loomed, nearly every mainstream economist said, this will be a disaster. It will feed inflation, it will block up world trade, all the things that were laid out. Now, I know a lot of the tariffs were reversed or softened, but the impact on the American economy seems to be softer than perhaps most economists thought would be the case. And the economy seems to be, at least in headline figures, in quite strong shape. Can you look forward and tell me whether you think that continues?
- [12:59]
Martin Wolff
Well, my perception was slightly different, but also I think, incorrect. I thought in the short run, an increase in protection in the United States, given where inflation was so forth, the inflationary impact isn't colossal because the US Is a very closed economy. Its imports are a very low share of GDP compared to any other significant economy. So the inflationary effect, particularly of the final tariffs, not the original ones, but the final tariffs was not that large and there was very little retaliation. The only exception was China and that was managed. So the impact on the US economy of the protection in the short term, short run was likely to be fairly modest. That was my view. I expected it to be more negative for the rest of the world than it's turned out to be. And that's very interesting. Part of the reason is that US imports aren't actually that colossal in my memory is. I think they're about 17% of world imports. I can't remember exactly, but it's something like that. But the more important reason is that the demand effects of this were clearly offset by a colossal spending boom. And I think a year ago, though, I was aware that AI was going to be a big thing. The scale of the investment boom and its effect on demand in the economy combined with, again, not something that was quite so clear then, a very strongly supportive fiscal position. I mean, really expansionary budget created a demand engine in the United States. Of course, no reduction in external deficits and never likely. And that's been very beneficial for the rest of the world. So if you add these things together, particularly the fiscal policy and the investment boom from AI, which is quite extraordinary, you have find that the short run impact of those negative effects, which definitely are there, but I think more modest than we expected, more. Robert Armstrong calls the Taco principle. My colleague Trump always chickens out what he did to some degree. If you add all this together it's not that surprising and I wasn't somebody who thought that the short run effect would be dramatic. Now the long term effects are much more interesting. I do think we will see cumulatively changes in the patterns of world trade, which are complex and unpredictable and less trade. I think it's pretty certain that trade overall will shrink and that will affect the prospects for trade dependent open economies like our own.
- [15:51]
Johnny Diamond
We have also seen a slide in the dollar and ongoing sort of politicization of the dollar's role when it comes to the extension of sanctions, the movement of money around the world. We've discussed this before about the dollar's dominance. Do you see any sign of that shifting?
- [16:07]
Martin Wolff
The perception I've had is there is going to be. There is and there is going to be a very long term diversification. Attempts to hedge in various ways. The Chinese are trying to hedge very hard by getting more and more of their trade invoiced in and settled in RMB in Renmin. And that's a very big part of world trade. China is an enormous trading power. The EU is behind in this, but is obviously trying to move in that direction. So I believe we are going to move in a more, somewhat more multi currency direction. But short of something colossal happening, it simply isn't feasible for everybody to move the dollar to something else because the other two both have huge disadvantages. I could describe them, but it's important to note they have huge disadvantages as trading currencies, as reserve currencies, invoicing currency, all the rest of it. And the US has all the advantages of the incumbent, which largest economy, the biggest financial sector, the one with which in which whose currencies everybody's familiar uses automatically. It's likely that its share, its role will diminish a little. But I would guess unless something really dramatic happens, the dollar will still be the world's dominant single currency 20 years from now. And I don't believe for a moment that cryptocurrency will replace it. Except, and this is one of the most interesting things I've heard written about in the last year I hadn't thought about so much before. Stablecoins emerge. But stablecoins are, as it were, a digital version of fiat currencies. And the US is pushing this harder than anyone else. And indeed that's part of the strategy of Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary, is to create a digital twin, as it were, of US dollars. That's one way of thinking about it, which are stablecoins, which everybody in the world will be able to hold as individuals and indirectly because the backing for the stablecoins will be US treasury liabilities mostly will fund the US government's deficit, which is going to yawn far into the future. But it will manage the problems associated with that. And it's really quite a clever idea.
- [18:46]
Johnny Diamond
Last year we saw wild swings in economic optimism, pessimism, policy, you name it. Do you see the same sort of thing this coming year or do you think it is a calmer period?
- [19:02]
Martin Wolff
I mean, I've been thinking about this. I expect because of the experience that Donald Trump will do an exciting thing every month. What it will be, I'm far too stupid to predict. Will they be manageable? Fireworks? The bark is far worse than the bite, as it were. Or will one of them turn out to be something really big? I don't know. I think his intention is that it won't be really big. It's pretty clear he doesn't want a catastrophe to happen. But there will be some exciting things happening. And I do think, I mean, going back to our earlier discussion, while I can't see the dollar's disappearance as a dominant currency, people are getting nervous about holding dollars and the deficits remain enormous. Fiscal and fiscal are enormous and external current account deficits and they have to be funded by creditors. Most of the creditors are allied nations, the big creditors. China has not increased his creditor position in dollars now for quite a long time. It's basically East Asians and Europeans. Well, I made this point in one of the podcasts I do as a general principle, you shouldn't go to war with your creditors. So he's got away with it because the creditors see no alternative. But you can see the wobbles, as you say, in, in. And one of the favorite things market specialists point to is we've got periods when the bond yield goes up that hasn't made us more desirable. It coincides with a weakening of the dollar. And that means there's a confidence problem when things are in trouble. Even when the US was in trouble, 2007-2009 was a very good period Example money poured into the dollar because it was the safest of all havens. The markets have not been behaving as if that creditors aren't behaving as if they thought when things get into trouble, the safest thing I can possibly do is go long dollars. That's not what seems to be happening. So there is a confidence problem whether anything will happen so big that the confidence is really broken. Well, it certainly wouldn't be over Scott Besant's body. He's working very hard to prevent that. And I presume they made Kevin Walsh Fed Chair as opposed to some of the more exciting candidates, because they think he will support the confidence. And I'm sure they persuaded Donald Trump that that's in principle a good idea. But this is a very It's a slightly exciting administration, and ultimately everything depends on what Donald Trump wants to do on any particular day.
- [22:04]
Bea Duncan
I'm Bea Duncan, executive producer at Intelligence Squared. Here's a thought. We don't often connect our modern digital world with something as physical as water, but the two are deeply linked data centers. Food production, your morning coffee, the clothes you're wearing. Water is behind it all. Our world is held together by water in ways we rarely stop to notice. That's why we're proud to be kicking off 2026 by working in partnership with WaterAid to shine a spotlight on something that connects us. Water journalist Coco Kahn speaks to Helen Rumford and Vera Klutchen about how water is shaping the future of innovation, climate resilience and global development. Because when water flows, so does opportunity. Helen Rumford is lead policy analyst for Climate Policy and Campaigns, focusing on inclusive, sustainable change and climate justice. And Vera Klotchen, WaterAid's climate and environment Lead brings over a decade of international experience working on climate, resilient water, sanitation and hygiene systems. Listen in to discover why investing in water is one of the most powerful ways to secure a sustainable, equitable future for everyone. This is the second episode in our series in partnership with WaterAid, both of which are available to listen to now on the Intelligence Squared podcast.
- [23:18]
Quince Brand Representative
Quince is really the go to place to build a timeless wardrobe that's actually made to last. Their pieces are elevated essentials that feel effortless. They're designed for layering and mixing, and they're really the kind of styles that you can wear again and again. Quince really is the place to go for quality wardrobe staples like 100% organic cotton sweaters. They have premium denim that's made with stretch for all day comfort. I'm usually pretty skeptical when it comes to ordering pants in general, but jeans, especially online. And both pairs of jeans that I've gotten from Quint I cannot stop wearing. They're so comfortable, they're so flattering, and they're definitely the highest quality jeans that I own. Plus they're incredibly affordable, which Quince is able to do because they work directly with safe, ethical factories and cut out the middlemen. So you're not paying for brand markup. You're just paying for that high quality clothing and everything from the stitching, the fit, the fabrics is really they're using the highest quality materials. So if you're interested in refreshing your wardrobe with Quince, go to quince.com intelligence for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com intelligence to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quints.com intelligence.
- [24:41]
Shopify Brand Representative
You didn't start a business just to keep the lights on. You're here to sell more today than yesterday. You're here to win. Lucky for you, Shopify built the best converting checkout on the planet like the just one tapping ridiculously fast acting sky high sales stacking champion at checkouts. That's the good stuff right there. So if your business is in it to win it, win with Shopify. Start your free trial today@shopify.com win right now.
- [25:12]
Martin Wolff
Get up to 20% off select online storage solutions put heavy duty HDX totes to good use, protecting what's important to you. The solid impact resistant design prevents cracking and the clear base and sides make items easy to find even when the totes are stacked. Find select online shelving and tote storage up to 20% off at the Home Depot. To organize every room in your home from your garage to your attic, visit homedepot.com how doers get more done this.
- [25:42]
Indeed Brand Representative
Episode is brought to you by Indeed. Stop waiting around for the perfect candidate. Instead, use Indeed Sponsored Jobs to find the right people with the right skills fast. It's a simple way to make sure your listing is the first candidate. C According to Indeed data, Sponsored Jobs have four times more applicants than non sponsored jobs. So go build your dream team today with Indeed. Get a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply.
- [26:14]
Johnny Diamond
We have discussed a much less predictable world, and in that world, obviously there are risks, but there are opportunities and we want to hear if we can, from you and then we can chew over what you think. Let's bring the global picture in the UK together with an audience poll if I may, and you'll see a QR code up there. And a question in a more unstable world economy, where does the UK have the greatest potential advantage? I think if you scan the QR code, you'll get your options there and then once we have happily processed that, your choices will get the answers up on one of the screens as well. And just a reminder, Martin and I will talk for another half an hour or so. And then we'll take your questions and we will take questions from those who are watching online as well. You can send your questions in. They come to a screen to me here. So let's wait until we have that moment, until we get the poll. I should say Martin is not polling, but I should say the options. Where does the UK have the greatest potential advantage? Leadership in science, technology and AI. Trusted institutions and the rule of law. A global financial and investment hub or the ability to build new trade and diplomatic partnerships. And the numbers are sort of up and down a little bit, but at the moment a very clear favorite of the audience. I'm interested by what your favorite is, Martin is trusted institutions and the rule of law. 37% against 25, 27 and 10. What do you make of that? Do you agree with our audience? First of all, try not to be too rude to them.
- [27:57]
Martin Wolff
So I suppose my answer, I've got to the stage in my life where I don't trust very much. I think that's what the world has thought about Britain, no question. And I think relative to most other countries, we are peers. We are mostly sort of still there. But there are some quite exciting possibilities in British politics over the next few years. And I am not going to stay here that I know how a reform government, if we had one, would behave and because I don't think they know. But among the things that matter, what are we talking about? Trusted institutions, the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the coherence of the government institutions. For all their problems, I frequently find the civil service very irritating. But the consequences of doing what the United States Trump has just done to the American governing services are very, very radical in terms of the stability of fundamental institutions. There are very obvious dangers here, too. So I think it's unbelievably important asset of this country, and I hope very much it is an enduring asset. But I'm not completely sure.
- [29:31]
Johnny Diamond
What do you make of the other three which didn't make the top? As I say, leadership in science, technology and AI. The fact that it's global financial and investment hub and the ability to build new trade and diplomatic partnerships. Is that one of those that you would choose yourself as a. As a. As a great potential advantage?
- [29:49]
Martin Wolff
Well, the thing that excites me most is the first that may be wrong. And I've written some pieces about that. I mean, there are very few opportunities in this world. But I do regard the assault of the American administration on American science, technology and universities as a pretty spectacular opportunity for this country, we do have the same language, very, very similar intellectual tradition. Pretty obvious. And some of the world's foremost academic institutions are ranking in terms of the position of our universities, the great universities, we all know who they are, is extraordinary. So my view is if we had any imagination and any fiscal flexibility, we would have doubled what we spend in these areas and built a far more dynamic system of turning scientific and technological ideas into businesses than we've managed so far. So I think if you think of biosciences, physical science, all the rest of it, we have a tremendous, and this is fairly unique asset. There is no other middle sized country that really compares with us in the underlying strengths. And I think this is to my mind more attractive than the financial hub stuff, though it is clearly going to be a very important part of it, not least because I think it can generate very important new economic opportunities across the country. So that is something I think where we should show some imagination, realize a unique opportunity has been opened for us. And I don't think we are really responding.
- [31:35]
Johnny Diamond
Thank you very much for your votes. We have one more poll towards the end of the evening which we'll trouble you with, but thank you very much for that. You mentioned spending. I want to talk to you about the squeeze in Britain because what seems clear is that three things will drive the need for further spending. Defence, demographics and probably climate change as well. We'll see on the third one, it's a more tricky one that will suggest the need for tax increases, but at the same time you will not see as a result of those tax increases any particular improvement in the public sphere because they'll all be going to feed these secular trends. That leads into greater discontent, doesn't it? Have I got anything wrong there on spending?
- [32:25]
Martin Wolff
No. I think the only thing you've missed there, obviously crucially is the underlying rate of growth. I mean demographics, defense. And the fact is that the economy is growing weakly. It's growing a little, but it really is growing very weakly. We've had essentially the last 20 years have been as far as we can see, the slowest growing period and the slowest rise in living standards across the country, particularly for people in the middle and lower parts of the income distribution since the early 19th century. Now something like that. Obviously the figures are guesstimates for that. But this is what it looks like if gdp. This is a point I've made frequently in columns. Managing public spending problems is vastly easier if most people are just getting better off automatically, as it were, because the economy is growing. If the economy is stagnant or near stagnant. That means a lot of people are actually falling behind one way or the other, almost by definition. And usually that starts showing itself up in social problems which are affecting not just the classic parts of your society. You want to help the old, for example, people with children, but young adults. We can see that very clearly in the welfare spending on young adults. So that's slow growth. Stagnation becomes a vicious circle. And the response of the government, since it can't slash spending dramatically, has to be over time, given the pressures on spending, that the tax burden rises. And that's exactly what's been happening. And that further lowers the growth of household real income. So it's a very vicious circle.
- [34:21]
Johnny Diamond
We said that we would discuss populism. Do you see populism, an economic base to the rise of populism, both here and in other places?
- [34:31]
Martin Wolff
Yes, that's a core part of my book, the Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, which obviously everybody should read, but otherwise they haven't. They don't need to read now because I'm just writing a new long chapter about what's happened since I finished the book, which was in 2022. And to cut the story short, everything's even worse than I thought it would be. But there will be a new edition later this year. But anyway, the point is, can you leave them?
- [35:03]
Johnny Diamond
Let me. Is there a thing called populism? Because it's a label thrown around remarkably lazily, not by you, but by many people.
- [35:12]
Martin Wolff
Have you got a definition for it? I think this is the best way of looking at it. It's not universal, but many political scientists and economists use this because you want to include the left and right varieties and to explain what they have in common. And obviously otherwise they have lots of things that are radically different. I discuss that in my columns and in my book. But I think populism is a style of politics. And the essential style is actually captured perfectly by the founder of political theory or political science, Plato. The demagogic style and the essential art of the demagogue is to say you are suffering, you ordinary people are suffering, you are suffering because predatory, corrupt, vicious elites are exploiting you. And if you trust in me and give me all the power needed to get rid of these people, and obviously I need a lot of power because they're so powerful, I promise you your lives will be much, much better. So give me absolute trust. So it's a style of politics whose core is anti elitism. Now, the elites vary in the pretty obvious way from the right wing populism tends to have the style in which the relevant elites are intellectuals, institutions dominant by intellectuals, governing institutions and foreigners, outsiders. The left obviously focus on the rich, the plutocrats, the exploiters, the predatory exploiters, as the elites and the politicians that are their servants and the bureaucrats that are their servants. Essentially, it's the way Karl Marx viewed things. But they share this idea. Give us limitless power, get rid of the constraints upon our action imposed by these elites, like law and so forth. Give us the power to do whatever we want and we will solve all these problems.
- [37:33]
Johnny Diamond
So is there such a thing as populist evil economics?
- [37:37]
Martin Wolff
Yes and no. I think the essence of populist economics tends to be the idea of fiscal constraints and monetary constraints, an idea of the elite, to prevent us from doing what is obviously right, which is to spend more and spend more on you and print money. So the left and right, this sort of right, very different from the liberal right of Thatcherite. I mean, we're talking about something quite different. It's Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a perfect expression of this complete indifference to fiscal balances, fiscal policy and a belief that the central bank is his piggy bank. That's right. Left people on the left tradition. The greatest number of left wing populists that have been around in the last 20, 30, 40 years have been in Latin America. And you can go through and see them. Those tend to be the common thing. They are often economic nationalists, pretty universally, that is protectionists anti trade or at least very, very suspicious of trade. And they believe that it is crucial that the government has absolute discretion or very near absolute discretion to do what it wants to fix any problem that comes along. Again, that seems to be a commonality. So Peron, a left wing populist, and Trump, in my view, a right wing populist in that respect, are quite similar.
- [39:12]
Mia Sorrenti
Thanks for listening to Intelligence Squared. This episode was created in partnership with Guinness Global Investors. It was produced by me, Mia Sorrenti and it was edited by Mark Roberts. For more information on Guinness, just head to guinnessgi.com or see the link in the episode description. You've been listening to Intelligence Squared. Thanks for joining us.
- [39:50]
Martin Wolff
Well, the holidays have come and gone once again, but if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch limited time.
- [40:10]
Indeed Brand Representative
50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for a 12 month plan. Taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy.
- [40:19]
Bea Duncan
See terms.
- [40:20]
Indeed Brand Representative
You know that goal you set at the start of the year? You can still do it. Whether you're committed to a thru hike with friends, lifting heavier or simply walking more. It's not too late to stick with it and make your future self proud. Especially with the all in One Nutrition Shake from Kachava. Because quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated. Just two scoops of Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens and so much more. Plus it actually tastes delicious. No fillers, no nonsense, just the good stuff your body craves. So instead of adding to your backstock of supplements that over promise and under deliver, simplify your progress with just two scoops of the highest quality ingredients. Stick with your wellness goals. Go to kachava.com and use code NEWS for 15% off. That's kachava.com and use Code News K A C h a v a.com code news.