← The Monocle Daily
Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on the 6th of January, 2025 on Monocle Radio. Who does Iran's Supreme Leader fear? More internal protesters or an unhinged Donald Trump? Is Germany setting an example when it comes to tackling migration or just a less attractive place to live? And what sort of government freebies would you like to enjoy in retirement? Or would you prefer to get those freebies while still in your prime? I'm Chris Chermack. The Monocle Daily starts now. Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily, coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Chris Chermack. My guests Daniela Pellet and Robin Lustig will discuss the day's big stories. And we'll hear from the author of a book that boils down the rivalry between China and the United States to one between engineers and lawyers. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Chris Chermak and I'm joined today by Daniela Pelid, managing editor of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, and Robin Lustig, journalist and broadcaster, former presenter of the world tonight on BBC Radio 4. Daniela and Robin, happy New Year to you both. Yeah, we can still say it for a little while longer, maybe the end of this week. Is that about. Where do we sit on this? Like, what's the final part?
- [01:31]
B
I think you can say it. You can still say it as long as you have a tone of definite sarcasm in your voice.
- [01:37]
A
So welcome to frigid London. Danielle, I'm glad you made. I'm glad you both made it. Did you consider cancelling? I mean, I'm just impressed that you're here canceling Monocle Radio just because of the weather. Is this a sort of British thing? Do we, do we stick with it? Do we just. We stick to our plans? This is nothing.
- [01:54]
B
It's also an opportunity. Opportunity to come into another space and discuss the weather with, like, another half dozen people, which is an intense pleasure.
- [02:02]
A
Is that an exciting thing? Okay. Is that, is that a British column?
- [02:04]
B
It's a nourishing thing. I think I'm exciting. We just need to. I mean, there's. There's just no question about it. There's been every, every human interaction I have had today has discussed involved a discussion of weather.
- [02:15]
A
Robin, speaking of that, you were telling me just before the show this fascinating stat from the United States about the most trusted television channel in the US.
- [02:24]
C
The most trusted television channel in the United Is the Weather Channel. I Love it.
- [02:30]
A
I love it, too.
- [02:31]
C
Why wouldn't it be?
- [02:32]
A
We need to bring this to the uk.
- [02:34]
B
Moment of certainty in an uncertain world.
- [02:36]
A
Exactly. And speaking of that, we will start today's show with Iran, actually, because the aftermath of Donald Trump's military action in Venezuela has prompted a feverish debate around the world about which country or leader could be next to face a lightning strike from the United States. And Iran's regime is certainly among the candidates. The US has bombed Iran before, and the country is currently in the throes of a violent uprising that has drawn the specific ire of Trump, who warned just a day before his Venezuela operation that the US Would come to the rescue of Iranian protesters if any of them were killed. As of this show, at least 29 have indeed been killed. Daniela, could you perhaps first of all give us, I guess, something of a primer of what has been happening in Iran over the last nine days? I believe right now, Is this current uprising more serious than those of the past?
- [03:30]
B
Well, it's hard to tell. I mean, it's certainly growing, it's spreading in the regions. But we have been here before. There have been, I think over the last 15 years, we've had some very significant uprisings, widespread demonstrations, and that have not led to any sort of international support and that have dissipated. I mean, more most recently, just a few years ago, we had the, the huge public anger that followed the, the death of a young woman in custody, apparently for not have a wearing correct hijab, but that also dissipated. And these ones appear to be more focused on economic demands. Certainly the regime is concerned, and not only has there been a violent crackdown, but a sign really maybe, that they may take it more seriously as there has been some effort to engage in dialogue to introduce new subsidies for low income families. But the idea that the United States can intervene to save the protesters, I mean, it's a very, makes a very engaging tweet, but there is absolutely no clarity about what that might involve.
- [04:53]
A
There's no clarity. And yet, Robin, given what happened in Venezuela, whether there is clarity or not on Donald Trump's intentions, we never really know that. But as the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said over the weekend, this showed Donald Trump does what he says he will do. Is that something that you expect a regime like Iran to take seriously?
- [05:16]
C
I have two rules when it comes to discussing anything to do with Donald Trump. First, don't believe a word he says. And second, never try to predict what he's going to do next because he is pathologically. Unpredictable. Marco Rubio is totally wrong when he says Donald Trump does what he says. Donald Trump has had all manner of things since he came to office just a year ago, particularly when it comes to tariffs on China, for example, when it comes to all kinds of other things. He has promised peace in Ukraine the day after tomorrow. He has promised peace in the Middle east after 3,000 years of conflict. None of it is true. As I say, I think it is a mistake to believe anything that he says. The Venezuela experience doesn't prove that he does what he says because it didn't actually say he was going to overthrow Nicolas Maduro, capture him and bring him to New York. He just said he had objections to why Venezuela allegedly was exporting illegal drugs to the United States, which it's not. But he did not say he was going to do this, and then he did it.
- [06:25]
A
Daniela, when you talk, when we talk about interventions like this from someone like Trump, I also wonder if they are even helpful or does it harden a regime's resolve when you look at a case like Iran's, put another way, I mean, will outside intervention of the kind that Trump offers be welcomed inside of Iran by these protesters? There were, after all, many Venezuelans who did cheer his actions there.
- [06:50]
B
Well, if we look at the example of the brief Israel, Iran war, remember that that's the kind of year that it has been. There's nothing like your country being attacked to make people rally around the flag, even if they're very opposed to what the regime might be doing. I don't think that many, from my talks with various colleagues in the region last year, there wasn't a lot of support for those attacks. And these attacks have unintended consequences. And also I think the threat of attack, the fear of attack, has a knock on effect. Today I was talking to colleagues about the discourse around this, and there's, you know, perhaps to my surprise, somebody who doesn't engage in conspiracy theories. We're saying there is much talk from respectable quarters that Israel is planning another attack. So Israel is now going to be the, you know, the, the, the method, the fulcrum on which this intervention rests. And so even talk like that becomes very destabilizing. I was just in Denmark yesterday in Copenhagen, and you don't see them all the way around the city, but there is an element of hands off gre, you know, flags. And the discourse is there. And I think for ordinary people in the public conversation, it takes on an energy of its own. It goes far beyond what might logically happen or might be predicted to happen, which, as Robin said, we have no way of knowing.
- [08:27]
A
None of this is predictable. But Robin, one thing that maybe is predictable than other things about Trump in this is that he has taken America first to another level. Even Venezuela, I would argue, certainly was not about democracy or liberal values in unseating Maduro. It was about, as Trump said, this is one thing he was honest about. It was about oil, it was about drugs, it was about being a US Friend. And I do wonder there. I mean, we've seen this with tariffs as well. Do you imagine some governments like an Iran, like a Cuba, changing their tact a little bit as a result of something like this to pretend that they are more of an ally of the US presumably it depends on whether you're sort of an ideological or a transactional guy, government, regime.
- [09:13]
C
That certainly seems to be the approach that a number of European leaders favor, particularly Keir Starmer of the UK I personally think it's a mistake because it is to treat Donald Trump as if he were some kind of conventional politician governed by conventional political calculations. I was struck the other day by something that his former advisor, admittedly fairly short lived, Anthony Scaramucci, said recently, which.
- [09:41]
A
Is that things we don't remember anymore.
- [09:43]
C
No, I know, what was it, 11 days or something, he was his press advisor. But he said that only two things really interest Donald Trump. One is money and the other is attention. So I think Venezuela, if we look at that, is about both of those things. Donald Trump has made no secret for the fact that his motivating ambition is to get his hands on Venezuelan oil, of which there is a huge amount, not so much for himself but for his buddies in the big American oil corporations. Whether they're so keen on it remains to be seen. As far as Iran is concerned, I don't for one minute believe that he has the interests of the people of Iran at his heart. I think he views Iran as an enemy of the United States because it is an enemy of Israel and also because he wants to control as much of this planet as he can and for which he believes America has legitimate national interests. So the whole of the Western Hemisphere and as much of the Middle east as he can get his hands on, as well Syria. He's obviously hoping he can do deals there with the new leadership. He would love, I'm sure, to get rid of the ayatollahs in Iran, as indeed have previous American presidents, let us not forget going back several decades. So I'm not going to try to predict what he's going to do in Iran. But I don't believe him when he says he's going to do whatever he does do or may do in order to help the protesters of Iran.
- [11:11]
A
Well, Daniela, just a final word on that because one other aspect I suppose is there's an unchecked vigilante almost element to this, isn't there? You were mentioning Greenland. It's been so interesting that European governments at least initially were reluctant maybe to to condemn Donald Trump for this. Cautious because they have no love lost for Maduro presumably would be the same thing with Iran's regime. And yet it gives Trump carte blanche for something like Greenland. And that's what you saw in Denmark.
- [11:39]
B
I think there's a bit of a hop, skip and jump though, from Venezuela to Greenland. I mean, I may eat my words, but it's true that world leaders struggled really how to react or the ones that weren't automatic allies of Venezuela. Because also if we look at the reaction of Venezuelan people as well on the ground and the diaspora, there's mixed feelings. Maduro was a dictator. The fact he was unseated the way he was, it doesn't really have much to do with international justice, but it isn't such a black and white example for people actually living in Venezuela and deeply involved. And it also isn't the sort of easy swap that the apparently democratically elected opposition are now going to step in. And certainly, you know, you, as Venezuela showed you can't decapitate a regime by, by abducting the president. The ayatollahs, even if you take out multiple is not going to lead to the collapse of the Iranian regime. I would highly doubt it. And the answer to Greenland, I mean, what would be the sort of decisive strike on Greenland? I hate to think. I hate to think.
- [13:00]
A
I hate to think. And we will probably be talking about that more at other times. But let's move on to another topic within Europe because Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz is one of those conservative European leaders that has staked his leadership on limiting immigration to Germany, reintroducing border controls that had once been a thing of the past in Europe's Schengen Zone and attempting at least to take the wind out of the sails of the farther right. The alternative for Germany as he begins another year in power. The data suggests he's done a pretty good job with asylum claims at their lowest since 2013. Politically, the far right AfD remains top or close to the top of polls. If Germany were to hold fresh elections today. Robin, how do you Rate Chancellor Merkel, as we start, Chancellor Merkel. I even say Chancellor Metz. That's also going back to somebody we've forgotten, Chancellor Metz, heading into 2026, if.
- [13:53]
C
We just look at his record on migration, it is, I think, an extremely complex picture, because anything to do with migration is complex. It's very difficult, I think, to put your finger on exactly why the figures have moved in the way that they have. There are what the people in the business call push factors and there are pull factors. There are the reasons why people leave their homes to try and seek a new home, and there are reasons why they seek one home rather than another. Germany, until relatively recently, was thought to be an attractive proposition for migrants from many parts of the global south, partly because it had a flourishing economy. Well, it no longer has a flourishing economy. So that's one thing that has changed. There is no doubt that police action, government action must have played some part. But I was very struck by some figures that I saw suggesting that of all of the Syrians who arrived in Germany back in 2015, when Chancellor Merkel notoriously said, let them come, we can do this, more than half now are in work in Germany, and of them, three quarters are in skilled work. So they are contributing to the society where they made their homes. And that raises a very interesting question to me. The other figures that I saw today suggested that in this country, in the UK, this year, 2026 is likely to be the first when the number of deaths outnumber the number of births. So we may be not only in Britain, but throughout much of Europe on a trajectory to falling populations, which has all kinds of implications, one of which is we may need more immigrants.
- [15:37]
A
Well, and Daniela, I remember hearing Robin speak there of those days back in 2015 when Syrians came to Germany. I was in Berlin at the time. I remember there was a welcoming attitude initially to Syrians arriving, welcomed at train stations. All of that, I think, to Robin's point, maybe, or I'm reminded, it shows there could be. There is an inherent goodwill among people. We saw that also in Ukraine, for that matter. Could this have gone differently? If we point to things like Robin is pointing out that half of Syrians are in jobs, skilled labour and so on, could we have done better in convincing Western Europe that immigration is a good thing? Or was this just always going to lead to backlash?
- [16:23]
B
I think it was inevitable because the last 10 years of a migration debate have been dominated not by facts, reasonable strategy, statistics have been dominated by feeliness. It's been part of the culture wars it's left us incredibly open to be exploited by disinformation and malign influence operations. I mean, part of a huge part of Russians disinformation operations is about how Europe is being overrun by migrants and the clash of values and so on and so forth, and we're sitting ducks for it. I think if we look at it with the benefit of hindsight, what's happening now in Germany seems inevitable. And it's not just their admitted success in tightening their borders on. Is it, I, I don't like to say illegal, but, you know, unorthodox or.
- [17:22]
A
Or, well, rolling back certain provisions.
- [17:27]
B
Yeah, it's the rolling back certain provisions for Ukrainians, for instance, you have had their, their support cut drastically. And again, if we're looking at beyond feeliness, if you support immigrants fairly generously in the early years, it increases their likelihood of integrating and playing a more beneficial role to the country. But also with Afghans and with Syrians and, you know, sorry to say, Afghanistan certainly isn't safe to go back to, and Syria is still very much, you know, in the balance. So it's just, it is part of a wider political message that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with, like, who is going to be around to look after Germany's aging population or who is going to be around to deliver services. But what's going to be politically expedient in the very short term?
- [18:18]
A
Well, and even when it comes to that political expedience, Robin, it doesn't seem to work, does it? You look at somebody like you look at Germany and you look at plenty of other European countries where regardless, in a way, what Daniel was saying, regardless of the messaging, regardless of the success that someone like Friedrich Metz may have in cutting migration, the alternative for Germany is still right there. So what is in that sense the answer? Should a government like Merz's flip and put on more of a positive message? Is that the only way to go about it? You can't outdo the far right on immigration.
- [18:50]
C
Politicians down the ages have also always known that playing on people's fears can work very well politically. If you tell people that the way the country is going to, is going to damage their own prospects, then some of them at least will believe you and you can win power on the back of that. And what we've seen in many European countries is a whole series of what I will call ethno nationalist parties, populist parties, if you like, trading on people's fears, some of them fears which are well founded because there are people in Towns right across Europe who have seen those towns change very dramatically and very quickly, and they find it disquietening, they find it upsetting, they find it difficult to come to grips with. All that I understand. What I regret is that not enough politicians have sought to explain to people why what is happening is happening and why it is not in fact, a threat to their future well being, but can in many cases enhance their well being. Anybody in this country who has any contact with the health service will know what contribution people who were not born in this country make to our daily health. Anybody who's been on public transport and looks at the driver of the bus or the train will know what contribution immigration has made to this country. And I do regret that not enough politicians are prepared to purvey that message.
- [20:25]
A
Well, let's move on to something sort of related still in the government aid space, I suppose, because in the United States, among the things being cut by the Trump administration isn't just foreign aid abroad, but also disaster relief back home. The Washington Post reports that fema, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, could see its staff cut in half this year and that those cuts began on New year's Eve with 65 members of the agency's core response team, those that are first on the scene and among the last to leave, subjected to termination. Daniela, we wanted to talk here about the realities in the US and elsewhere. Are we seeing humanitarian aid, disaster recovery being privatized essentially at this point and essentially being turned into like a luxury good?
- [21:13]
B
I mean, certainly the starting point would be as a British citizen. This seems so overwhelmingly bizarre to me that I don't even know how to approach it. I'm trying to think of there being a natural disaster in the UK or we're seeing the effects of climate change and so on, and how that would be privatized. I suppose it has been in terms of we have seen more privatization of healthcare and of education and so on. But I guess this feeds into this very much a two tier system which we're seeing, which naturally grows as a, perhaps as a result of end stage capitalism, where the people who can have and the people who, who can't are really left to fend for themselves. And it doesn't really even out. I mean, I think we, if we look back, look at the, the consequences of Hurricane Katrina really, which was, I think, one of the most defining moments in recent history of, of that kind of. So the, how social inequality was revealed not only in, in the immediate impact of a disaster, but the immediate aftermath, how it plays out in international development is a different question, because as budgets are cut, there isn't really a great amount of money to be made. But I think certainly in America that looks likely to be a growth industry.
- [22:41]
A
Well, it is a growth industry, Robyn. Speaking of that, the Oscars last year highlighted this trend in a different way. They offered attendees a subscription to a private recovery service service. After Los Angeles was of course, hit by devastating wildfires. It did make me wonder if there's almost a devil advocate's argument here. Should the wealthiest have to pay for recovery instead of relying on the government and taxpayers?
- [23:06]
C
You've probably heard of something called taxes. The idea of taxes is that people who have a job or have wealth put some of that income or that wealth into a pot, which is then used to pay for the benefit of all. In other words, the haves help to pay for the have nots. I'm probably one of the last unreconstructed socialists on the planet, but I still believe that's a better way of doing it than saying to people, if you can afford to pay for insurance, if you can afford to pay for disaster relief, to have your house rebuilt after it's burnt to the ground or after it's been flooded away, then that's all well and good. And if you can't afford it, well, ain't that tough? That, to me, is not a proper, fair, just moral way of proceeding. And if in your goodie bag at the Oscars you find a year's subscription to private disaster relief, then there's something very wrong with the way that Hollywood is operating.
- [24:11]
A
And yet, Daniela, I guess somewhat incredibly, we are seeing this in so many different parts of the world. There's also stories from this week in New Delhi and India. Another example, smog, the worst they've seen in about 15 years. Doctors are basically telling citizens to leave the smog if they can afford to. I mean, how are we seeing governments abdicate their responsibility here? It shouldn't really be a vote winner.
- [24:39]
B
Well, it's who has the political. Who has the political power? If you have hybrid democracies or if you have systems which are very vulnerable to domination by the rich and powerful, which actually is almost all systems actually looking at it, looking at it cynically, then, you know, this feeds into the discourse that we've been talking about all the way through the program. Who is in charge? Who has the power, who can operate unilaterally, who benefits? I think the only circumstances in which this makes sense is if you have, you know, you know, the sort of, the sort of hobbyists who decide to gallop up Everest and cost a lot of money to, you know, the rescue services and, and so on. But like with immigration, you know, we are putting a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. So we're not talking about long term issues, we're not talking about long term planning or solutions, we're not talking about meritocracy. Well, this is a rather depressing way to start. I'm trying to think of something positive to say to end this item, but.
- [25:48]
A
I was just thinking that, as you said, we've really started this year off with a bang, haven't we? Everywhere around the world. It is a bit difficult, but we're going to try and bring some levity at the end here. Although sticking with the topic of government subsidies, because we've kind of done a trifecta of this government subsidies theme. Because finally here in London there is one that will revive the generational debate over who should get a free ride. Yes, a review has been launched that could see pensioners in the city lose their free travel passes for the London Underground, restricted to taking the bus. Robin, no idea at all why I'm starting with you. I just wonder if you care to weigh in, do those over 66 years of age, hypothetically speaking, again, I can't imagine.
- [26:36]
C
I will have to declare an interest, won't I? I use my freedom pass, so called my free travel, on the London Tube pretty much every day of the week. I used it coming in here this evening. I will use it again going home tonight. And I don't feel guilty about it. I regard it as a small reward for having lived in London for the best part of my adult life. I pay high property prices, I pay high property taxes. The London Underground is actually quite an expensive transport system. It is also a wonderful transport system. I find it bizarre that a government should be considering reducing older people's right to travel on public transport at the very time when we're trying to encourage people not to use private transport. Anybody who uses a car in London is a complete maniac anyway because the traffic barely moves. Travelling by tube is both environmentally friendly, it's very efficient, it's relatively comfortable, and I value my freedom pass not above everything else, but very highly indeed. And I will take to the streets before I allow anybody to take it off me.
- [27:50]
A
Daniela, I'm gonna throw you right in here as somebody who, like me, pays full price for the London Tube. Are you gonna take Robin on here?
- [27:58]
B
I mean, it would be quite fun to have a Bit of a ruffty tuffy. Sort of like the wars between the age wars. But actually, I mean, I kind of. I agree to a certain extent, but I think also it is also down to the system we actually do have in London where you have a 60 plus card which offers free or subsidized travel. And, you know, I mean, off peak.
- [28:20]
A
Hours, I believe, is off peak.
- [28:23]
B
I mean, I think the thing is that the London Underground is only really a comfortable way to travel off peak in general. So I wouldn't call that too much of a loss. But the thing is, if we're looking at 60 is not really old, I would, I mean, I certainly, I've got a few years to go before I'm 60, but not that many. And I think most 60 year olds will still be in work, will still have, have a wage. So I think there is, there is a middle ground to be found here. But obviously no one is interested in the middle ground. They just want to have a big old argument.
- [28:57]
A
Well, Robyn, I just wonder if you ever had an argument with yourself on this. I wonder if we all sort of reach this point as we, as we grow older, where we all switch side in that sort of generational debate. Is there a moment where we go from sort of seeing pensioners as undeserving freeloaders to saying, I worked hard, I deserve a free ride?
- [29:18]
C
I have a friend who's roughly the same age as I am, who served as a local town councillor for some years here in London, and he very much resented the fact that the people who actually pick up the bill for all my free tube journeys are the local councils where I live because they are charged by London Transport for all the free trips that we take. And he said that people who are comfortably off, as I fortunately am, should not be taking money away from other services that councils would like to be able to provide. Libraries, swimming pools, social care and all of that. And yes, that did give me pause for thought. I took that on board. But I do think that what makes a successful society is a system in which, which everybody feels that they contribute to it, but they also get something from it. I've contributed to London society for a very long time. I am now getting something back from it, for which I'm extremely grateful. But I think it would be a huge mistake for all kinds of reasons to take it away.
- [30:24]
A
Daniela, Finally, Robin will use happily his free pass at the end of this show. Is there something that you imagine when you do reach retirement age, that you would want to get free something you're particularly excited to see. I'll give a personal example from my family. My mother loves the senior menu in American restaurants. It's a little less food and it's obviously cheaper as well. That's like, that was, she was so excited.
- [30:49]
B
But easier to chew maybe. I mean, I'm gonna, you know, I'm gonna, you know, I think of the words of my, of my late grandmother who used to say forever take if they offer you something, my goodness, I'm gonna take advant. So that would be, I guess, lunch clubs, free bus passes. Free, free, free museum entrance. Could they bung on a few discounted theater tickets? I'll be very, very happy. And of course, cheap old age pensioner days at the hairdresser to get my blue rins.
- [31:25]
A
Robin, you want to throw anything finally in there on that list?
- [31:28]
C
The tube pass comes pretty high up on my list, actually. Is, is probably the most valuable benefit being ancient confers upon me. I have free health care, which is wonderful. I can't think of anything else. People get up for me on the tube and on the bus, which is lovely. No, I'm pretty content, I have to say.
- [31:47]
A
Daniela Pellet and Robin Lustig, thank you so much for joining us today. And finally on today's show, the growing rivalry between China and the US Is a story of one nation catching up with the other. A Western power that once built gleaming highways and was the king of manufacturing, now a nation of bureaucrats and lawyers slowly becoming eclipsed by an Asian power full of the next generation of engineers and technocrats. At least that is the story told by Dan Wang, technology author and Canadian, who's lived in both the US And China and recently wrote the book China's Quest to Engineer the Future. I spoke with Dan recently here at Midori House and began by asking him whether there was something different about China that will lead it to remain a nation of engineers even as it becomes a developed economy like the US I.
- [32:36]
D
Understand China in part as an engineering state because it has engaged in these vast spasms of construction over the last few decades, building so many highways, railways, solar, wind, nuclear, all sorts of new homes, all sorts of big projects. And this is something that the United States used to build. So in this hundred year period between roughly the middle of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century, the US built a lot of major infrastructure. It built the Manhattan Project, it built the Apollo missions, and then it mostly stopped throughout the 1960s and the 1970s. And I think that China will at some point have to stop Building a lot of its highways. It already has more than twice as much highways as the US. It has something like 2/3 of the world's clean energy projects under construction. It has a much, much more high speed rail than the rest of the world put together. And so at some point it's got to stop building all of this infrastructure, especially since the population is already in decline. But I think that there is something unique about China relative to other East Asian countries, even in which the regime really derives a lot of its non democratic legitimacy from delivering big projects for the people. Because it feels monumentalist and it feels like a major prestige project in order to have people do all these big things.
- [33:59]
A
Is there a benefit to being an engineering country now compared to 50 years ago? That's one thing. I also wonder reading your book because you talk about technological prowess, where we've arrived at now compared to 50 years ago, AI, everything that comes into that, is that a benefit or a curse? That this is the moment that China are the engineers compared to the US 50 years ago?
- [34:24]
D
In part a curse. But I would understand it mostly as a benefit that China right now is still connecting a lot of villages to bigger cities as well as to bigger markets that they are able to very plausibly deliver what the people want. In terms of if you're living in urban areas, more parks, more subway connections, and China brings all sorts of advantages to artificial intelligence. So if the AI is going to be everywhere, it's going to be in our roads, in our cars, in my coffee, then we're going to use a lot more power throughout the entire process. And China is really building a lot of power. This year China will build about 300 gigawatts of solar power. The US will build about 30. So that's a 10 times difference. China right now has 33 gigs nuclear power plants under construction. The US has zero. And so there's all sorts of advantages that if the technology is the present, if we like them, and if we want more of it, and a lot of this demands more infrastructure, then it is a good thing to have more infrastructure in place. Especially if there's a lot of housing unaffordability in places like New York and London where we're chatting from now on.
- [35:30]
A
The economics, what I find interesting is there's really two sides to an economy. Contradictions through this book. When you look at China, on the one hand you talk about its ability to build things, the resilience that's in there, the fact that they focus on shock buffers and building up rations Food security, energy security, all of that. But at other times this book reads like China is on the brink of a massive financial crisis because of overbuilding and all of these other aspects, which just leads me to wonder, can it be both?
- [36:02]
D
Yes, many things are both. And I think that this is always one of these big things that when we think about China, I think we have to understand two central facts. The first is that it has achieved pretty astonishing economic growth, lifting about over a billion people out of poverty, a few hundred million people into the middle class, a few million people into the global elite. That is an achievement. At the same time, we have to understand that it has, has been engaged in all sorts of new and novel forms of repression, a highly repressive state in the 21st century. So I see political tightening as well as economic growth happening at the same time, that this is in parts contradictory. And so these things could happen all at the same time.
- [36:44]
A
Now to bring it to the US because so much of your book is also focused on kind of comparing the two. Currently Donald Trump wants to bring back manufacturing capacity in the US Here. He admires Xi's ability to get things done in this respect. Obviously critics would say he leans towards autocracies with that, but it is very much a subject of your book and there are positives to the ability for politicians and governments to get things done. And with that in mind, then tell me about your impressions of what could be brought over to the U.S. are there elements of the kind of central planning style of, of China that the US could adopt without slipping into an autocracy?
- [37:27]
D
I hope so. So I definitely see that Donald Trump is admiring Xi Jinping quite extensively. He has said something like Xi Jinping is brilliant, nearly perfect. There's no one in Hollywood quite like this guy, implying as if Xi is Tom Cruise levels of handsome or something. It's a very odd thing for Donald Trump to say, and I've written a of piece piece in the Economist to say that what the US right now is getting is sort of authoritarianism without the good stuff, without the good stuff of orderly cities, without the good stuff of a vital manufacturing base, without the ability to build extensive public works. I don't think that the US should become like China. To be very clear. I think that there are some things that the Chinese might be able to teach in terms of building high speed rail at cost and without being something like 15 years later, as is the case in California. But for the most part, I think that the US should look towards Europe as a place that has managed to build public works on the continent at pretty reasonable cost. It doesn't have to go fully Chinese. But there are still a couple of things that I think Americans ought still to be curious about with China.
- [38:37]
A
Dan Wong, technology analyst and writer, speaking to me earlier at Midori House. His book breakneck China's Quest to Engineer the Future, is out now. And that's all for this edition of the Monocle Daily. A big thanks to my panelists today, Daniela Pellet and Robin Lustig. Today's show was produced by Monica Lillis, researched by Anneliese Maynard, and our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Chris Chermack here in London. The Monocle Daily is back at the same time tomorrow. Goodbye and thanks for listening. Sam.