it's off of the hour with all of today's top stories. hope see them with blue. since you started the military operation in ukraine, we were told the west is in lockstep unity. in this case, unity means following orders without question from washington. well, that unity has begun to unravel. new europe in old europe are clearly not marching in st. ah, i'm after a dancing welcome back to going underground, broadcasting all around the world from dubai in the united arab emirates here in the mid least economies. a booming, but the outlook for what some call the post ukraine dying us empire,

vassal states in europe. things may not be so rosy while 40000000 will go hungry tonight in the usa, the media may be talking about something called a debt ceiling. they probably shouldn't be, says one economist who advises congresswoman alexandria casa cortez, amongst others. amidst his fight to end the climate emergency. professor robert hawkins cornell, edward cornell, professor of law and professor public policy cornell university and senior counsel at westwood capital investment bank joins me now. from new york city, thank you so much for as all get for coming on. yeah, the world's financial markets. they've been concerned about the f o m. c monetary policy interest rate. so the doggie will affect the financial, the indices all around the world. but i mean, here maybe in the global south is de dollarization, the environment. and the issues of the impact of ukraine is bricks, bank and chang. i cooperation organisation movement occurs. what do you think the impact of ukraine will be on us economies?

things action basically with you. i think, i mean there are a number of to states. i think effects that are worth tracing. one is, as you suggested, there is a good deal more talk now about the dollarization than there used to be. i think largely going to the fact that a number of the britain, nations and other nations as well, are trying to kind of get out from under the us dollar as the sort of principal trans national currency. and of course, the reason for that in turn is that the role of the dollar in the global economy enables us to exert a good deal of leverage through a sanctioning activity of a kind. of course that's been fairly active over the last year. there is, however, one possible sort of itch to that, that might stand in the way. and i think what it's going to do as far as the brits in particular, china to essentially make some sort of so called hard choices as they say here in the u. s, so the thing about the dollars global role is that it's actually been in a certain sense helpful to china and other economies who's growth model has been an

export lead growth model. the reason being that the dollars of course, over valued in virtue of its role in the global economy. and that, of course, makes american exports more expensive than they would otherwise be. and it makes other nations exports less expensive to americans. at least they would otherwise be, and that's the course why the u. s. has been incurring current account deficits of large magnitude over the past decades. however, we also know right from the words of president g, himself and from other bricks leaders, that they are engaged in efforts to sort of move off of export growth strategies in the move more towards domestic demand generated growth strategies. and in so far as they succeed in doing that, the idea decoupling from a dollar or at least lessening their dollar dependence, will become much more realistic to put into practice. yes, some people estimate that china won't even be will to satisfy domestic demand. and

as regards planning, actually since you write so much about planning and your desire for planning actually in the united states, how can companies is how these dasia and the global south plan given this sanction regime that you allude to changing every other day. i mean, they say japanese electronic firms, you know, how to plan to make things given that they don't know when the next chinese chip is going to be sanctioned. yeah, that's a good point. i mean, i think the key for china and physicians that would like to be engaged in a, a kind of a long term. and indeed plan of all are predictable trading relation with china is concerned. the real key is to sort of heighten domestic autonomy. you might say, or something approaching on tarkey right, are self sufficiency when it comes to the capacity either to produce most or all of what you need right there at home. or to be engaged in tight trade relations with

other nations that can supply whatever needs are not able to satisfy domestically or domestic production or domestic supply. so you have a training block form, say between china, russia, maybe some other bricks. members, maybe all the other bricks members and maybe a few other nations is highly likely that you would actually have the makings of a kind of odd heart within that particular training block. as we know, russia has vast natural resources as well as a great deal of technical know how we also know, of course, that africa is very resource rich and china in particular. but also russia have been expanding their trade relations and their economic relations with africa. and, you know, between africa, russia and china, it would seem to me that you got the same sort of diversity of resource availability. indeed, maybe even a greater degree of diversity, resource availability and productive capacity than you have say, in north america,

in europe. as of all, so if a walk of some sort were to form on those countries, there would be simply no need for them to rely on the dollar to be dollar dependence. and thus there would be no real danger posed to them by dollar related sanctions. but everything, of course, rides on whether they can actually do that. it of course, the resource capacity to do all of that. and they got the productive capacity. that's to say to technical know how to do all of that. the real key is going to be whether they have this or elliptical capacity to do it. i do, i mean, you advisor o'connor, elizabeth warren, a will see the progressive go guess what? what do they say when you say things like you just said to me because they all voted for more military, a to ukraine? a c voted $40000000000.00 and military aid. i mean they've, they've turned around the 1.3 trillion spending bill from 2018 that specifically said the, as all regiment with their nazi dies could be were the ones being sanctioned in

effect. what do they say to you when you say, look, some of these policies may unite and make for us declining bow basically the context in which subjects of that kind come up when i'm talking with these, these legislators is a little bit different than the current context that you and i are, are talking about these things in connection with. so in general, when i talking to american policymakers, progressive legislators, i'm talking more about the need for a kind of read diverse cation of, and a re, let's say autonomy or all tarkey, restoring set of policies for the american economy. right. i mean, the us itself used to have a very diversified economy and it used to be able to produce most of what it needed for itself. and in fact, it was the out sort of thing that was kind of carried on by, you know, capital here in the u. s. sort of essentially seeing lower wage labor abroad that

brought about the sort of hollowing out of the american economy. so when i talk to legislators here, i say, you know, actually a certain degree or greater autonomy of the part of non american bodies and closer relations among non american economies. that would accompany a sort of real conversation of the american economy would actually be good for everybody. it would be good for the world itself, right? there's been a great deal of dysfunction in the relations between the u. s. and other economies worldwide. and part of restoring health is restoring a certain degree of self sufficiency to all the economies, or, you know, reasonably size trading blocks worldwide. and in that context, i think they're quite receptive to what i'm suggesting. we haven't, i haven't talked with any of these legislators about the current war itself or about us sanctions or anything like that that, that i think all of their boats in that connection have to be sort of understood in relation to the politics of washington. and that's just not something that i'm very much engaged in, but there's something connected there because of course,

that money is being recycled through these big multinational weapons companies. and you want money to go into infrastructure. and if you want to create that order key that you speak of i'm, i mean, i don't know where to start or whether to be ironic about joe biden, talking about rail links on the east coast of the united states when i'm talking to you from dubai. and the whole of the middle east is engaged in massive solar projects. china to the east to the studio is, is, i mean, you can't underestimate the amount that they're working on, or whether president lula is stopping of all the deforestation in the amazon. what happy with joe biden, so little railway link he's talking about on the east coast. well, i'm somewhat happy with it. of course, i'm happier about it because it's part of a much larger package of initiatives that you'll be pursuing. it might be worth

noting in this connection, the part of, well, i'm not really engaged in the politics of washington. one thing i am aware of is that there is a kind of growing reading. there's some, are some republicans to sort of join forces with certain democrats on various infrastructure bills, various productive renewal type bills back and a major piece of legislation that i crafted for roadrunner on the one hand, and mark and ruby is a republican in the senate on the other hand is devoted specifically to that and we're getting republican support for that. but here's where the war comes into this got the war, but at least defense spending. one way to get republicans on board with restoration of americans, productive capacity. both in and infrastructural sense and an industrial sense is by pointing out to them that a country that loses its industrial capacity and it's productive capacity, becomes much weaker, right? than an economy that has a robust productive capacity. and so there's sort of appeal that you have to make

to these republicans a sort of adjacent to a national security or defense really, the tight rope at that present to us progressives of course, is you know, you don't want in any way to be encouraging militarism or imperialism, or adventure ism of a kind that the u. s. is engaging a lot in recent decades to its own detriment. but at the same time, you want to keep republicans interested in productive capacity. and the only way, at least initially to get their attention on that is to sort of point out the national security significance in fairness, in fantasy professor, it's the republicans, a few republicans voted against these tens of billions. what $66000000000.00 approved by congress last year. i don't know how many billions of public money it was. republicans anti war in ukraine, publicans know, can be only a few. the great majority, the great bulk of republicans are still very much very pro war, very pro defense,

very pro national security. even g, a smaller, i sort of marginal group of republicans who in voting against the war against defense expenditures. well, i mean, it's hard. i didn't really kind of say, you know what we should do, we should take the stuff where we're selling the saudis, and obviously saudi arabia, in the u, a refusing biden's calls to increase oil production, which is what washington white house wanted and broke on with used to be going ahead with the yeah, let's punish these countries when lowering prices an increasing production. and this is all in the context of the perez reforms of the democrats to be able to get lobbying from fossil fuel companies. i don't think that congress congressman kind of can be once together with those folk who want to penalize saudi arabia. i mean send this from that to ukraine. does the landscape which is what ro connor was

tasting? yeah, i think, well, there's a long standing of course, concert on the part of many democrats with those sort of ongoing support that we've been giving to the current saudi regime. and there's kind of growing concerned among some of the more progressive democrats about the sort of support that's being led to the more right wing elements of because really government as well. and of course, as we know, right, the more right elements of the israeli government are putting out feelers to and looking to sort of establish some kind of alliance with saudi arabia itself. so they don't think they don't see the relevance of the green new deal. i mean, just forgetting the fossil fuel emissions of the us military, which are unfathomable, in terms of how much will these aircraft carriers and miss up production to do what they do to the environment. they don't see that the exploitation of l. n. g gas refracting jo biden's, obsession with racking is attract, call it, sending it to europe and the cost of that to the environment. none of the progressive caucus understand,

i don't think it's true actually. i think they do see the relevance, but i think what they're doing is just thinking in terms of sequencing, right? they're all pushing, they're all, all in or a complete transition to renewables. but they also recognize that that's going to take about 5 to 7 years at the least, and maybe up to a decade. and so they're trying to keep energy prices down during that transition precisely because when energy prices go up, that gives 8 uncomfort republicans who are trying to sort of quash the move toward a green economy and trying to expand fracking and other things. and that's where you're in the u. s. i don't, by the way, see any obsession on job biden's part with ranking. i do see the protection of the mansion who joe biden has to kind of keep, you know, happy in order to keep them on board with various pieces of legislation. but i think the buying himself at this point is all in the green transition. there's simply a recognition that takes a while and the best way to, you know, kind of keep that transition under way, is to take away the strength that some republicans have when energy prices go up.

professor robert hawkins. l. you the more from the advisor to alex andrea cause your quote as in elizabeth warren after this break. ah ah ah. who's with

ah, welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with the edward cornell, professor of law and advisor to alexander kazi cortez and elizabeth warren. professor robert hawk it as an advisor to these progressive circle, the icons of the, an o m. s embassy, nazi and, and so what i like elizabeth warren and ro, connor and so on. at clearly you see them as making a difference and that there is a clear difference between the 2. but what do you make a fan of the criticisms from the left, which they know the fact that they are actively supporting the war spending trillions of public money while 40000000 go hungry. i know it's been said that you

can't find a bridge and i know you write about infrastructure and the need for more bridges. you can find a bridge in the united states without someone sleeping under it. and none of these progressive caucus people tried to put medicare and some kind of health care system into the massive spending bills that have been passed. the huge jumble of spending bills, i all made it as a, in terms of a, made it a veto, a position. what is the i don't, i don't know of anybody who would claim that the progressive element of the party is actively supporting any of this stuff. people like ro and people like a c will vote in favor of legislation that there are sort of massive majorities. alas, in congress pushing, but what you, if you actually follow a o c intermedia up here in cities or instagram post or whatever, or if you follow real content, they're all talking about renewed deal transformation. they're all talking about

restoration of american productive capacity. restoration middle class, building jobs, restoration of, or bringing about of pretty health care in free, higher education as well as re entry level education, all americans. that's what they're actively pushing and actively supporting. and anytime they happen to join the democrats to vote in favor of some other piece of legislation that people like you were, i might be less inclined to support their doing that largely by way of sort of going along to get along in order to avoid having to fight over that, so i understand they retracted the letter o'connor, and i see that they tried to school for negotiations. a received from clips on youtube got walk around without being shouted. heck had saying that you're going to start world war 3. what is the role and you've been around, you know, you worked with your i, m f. you as well as being a scholar. what's it like the role of law being by big companies to

destroy and attack in effect, your scholar, he. we know that, as i said, don perez, in 2018 permitted fossil fuel lobbying to democrats. is it is a problem here that so many of the initiatives you want to happen, they will, they're all going to happen because your initiatives are aimed at making the united states more equitable and always to have those who are very, which, and lobbying clearly don't want to give away their money. well that's of course the struggle, right? i mean, yes, be the efforts of the lobbyists, the efforts of the various sectional interests that pay and or higher on and then pay the lobbyist are of course massive. and of course, as you know, own most of the industry media here in the u. s. as well. so they tend to not only to bobby directly, various members of congress, but they also shape the message and shape or determine the framing of the public discourse as conducted over most of the mean sort of social media sites and meet

mean media sites. and that's of course, right, and this is nothing new and this is not surprising, right? karl marx wrote, you know, almost 2 centuries ago at this point about how that's how it works, right? the particular class interests tend to purchase and dominate most of the sort of institutions of the culture as well as most of the institutions of the quality intend to make the job of those who are trying to fight for some kind of change. all of them were difficult, but be that as it maybe we keep, we persist and we every now and then have significant victories. i think we're probably headed for sort of a polar shift or us a significant change of the sort of new deal magnitude. we're not there yet, but i think we're getting there. and certainly the sorts of calamities that are being brought on by the right wingers are making our job a lot easier. frankly, it's a lot easier to appeal to folks when all you have to do is sort of point to what's

happening around them to make your case, which is what we do. well, tucker carlson on fox news news, tramping peace negotiations rather than war. i don't know when you mentioned the media, how many television sets you get through. i don't know whether you destroy them in the debt. ceiling is the issue congresspeople then reflected, mirrored by august in order for mainstream circle, mainstream media over there that is owned by 6 companies, just explained to his way. it's all nonsense in the main what we're hearing about the dead ceiling. this feeling is nonsense for a very straightforward reason. it's rooted in an old anatomy of congress. 19 that was passed in 1917 the liberty bond act. that particular act was passed at a time when the president was the only government official who actually formulated a budget. congress essentially conferred a great deal of budgetary discretion on the president in those days. and so the debt ceiling that was put into that liberty bond at which of course,

was an act during a time that the u. s. was spending a great deal more than it had previously done in preparation for the world war one was ation was a way for congress to sort of remind the president that it has some kind of oversight role. all of that changed mentally, almost 50 years ago in 1974. when congress passed a new, an accident, which essentially you totally changed the budgetary or the budget making regime here in the us, ever since 974. congress itself has formulated the budget, and that budget is been a legal inaccurate every year that it's passed. it's a legal and accurate and it includes not only all the expenditures or the federal government, but all the revenue raising and all the methods of revenue raising, including taxation and bond issuance id debt undertaking. and so in effect, the budget is its own dec ceilings. so all these journalists a stupid, then i'm not even the people you know either,

either they're stupid or they're wilfully ignoring this because they enjoyed the theater. it's hard to know why they're doing this. i can see why the politicians do it. they seem to enjoy the circus rice and they like to grandstand and this gives them a great opportunity to grams and on both sides. right. but i don't understand why journalists don't point this out because it's fairly straightforward. it's not particularly arcane or recondite or difficult to understand. right. it's very straightforward. it's been 1974 law supersedes the 1917 law. and in consequence, the budget is its own debt ceiling. that's a you made that boy very, very clearly. do you find yourself triangulating on the green? you deal with these people on, on the hill that again you, you advise eminent progressives as they don't. why some sell out by others. do you get triangulate between green wash? quite a bit. we had no less than an advisor to now king charles the 3rd on going underground

people can look up the interview and rumble. he was horrified. he told us that it was the whole thing. the big corporations are basically just lying and presumed king charles knows, but he's been told in britain that he can ever talk about it. is that why you'll hear that? sometimes something that you say is accepted and then you realize that you written it in a vague enough way that those who are powerful in those corporate lobby's actually think what you are saying something different can make money out of it. i haven't experienced that option if it's happening. i'm not aware of it and i but i would like to be made aware of it if it is happening, but happily thus far i haven't been made aware of any such thing. and i don't know of any such as it might be. partly because my role is fairly limited, right? essentially what i'll do is provided by policy matters to certain progressive congress members if they want, if they asked me or if they want to know. and then they'll just sort of focus on that. and i focus on the merits of the thing and only to

a very minimal degree on the politics. like if a choice of word looks less likely to raise red flags in the eyes of some republican congress. members, i might choose a different word, but essentially i just sort of work on the merits of these things and don't pay that much attention to the public discussion about them or how various other politicians might be using them. i know that i've seen myself, you know, sort of caricature to airbus by right wing media. and that usually just is more amusing than anything else. well, i should just finish on crypto currency because you, we started on sanctions and you've written that. you're not that enamored by, by it all, but actually crypto argue be, i mean, devise a one of the centers of crypto as being an amazing method for companies and individuals to get round these a us sanctions and de la free trade to a girl across the global south, you, you think crypto is on the way out? you know, you don't think it as a future. i think crypto has

a future within very small circles, but crypto is not going to become a beach reform of currency. and i think it's going to go the way of the old wildcat bank notes that used to be the primary form of paper currency. here in the us, in the 1900 century. and what happened was, was, every bank issued its own paper currency. all the people who spent paper currency had to use all these different paper currency, some of which were discounted, a great deal relative to face value, others which were discounted less. they constantly fluctuated wildly in value and so forth. there were just lots of them in the same with us. but as soon as the us issued its own paper dollar, notice the green back during the civil war. all of that stuff sort of went by the wayside for the most part. and the only people who retained are using those guarantees were relatively small circles. i think when the fed begins issuing a digital dollar, maybe a little dr. plan that i put before it over the last 5 years. maybe it won't, but whenever it does, once it does that, i think wildcat crypto will go the way of the wildcat bag. what will the point that

he if, what will the point me if the buddy sanctions sees a type sanctions is applied to syria, say, are applied across the global south is led to america. africans have these dasia and most eurasia does business with countries. the washington sanctions and has, does it. and obviously in cars, the roth of the us sanctions acts. and just as we'll, we'll trade in somebody else will. then we're then we're back to where we were before. right. that's back to the question whether the dollar will repeat its dominant. i think the dollar real reason it's done is precisely or as long as other countries depend on us citizens buying their product for their robots. but as soon as they become less dependent on american consumer markets where their growth, at that point, the dollar ceases to be a global currency and goes back to being a national currency, which is what it should have been all law in, which is what it was right before the 1940s, robert hawk it. thank you. great,

thanks so much. i am going to be with you. that's for the show will be back next saturday with another brand new app. so, but until then you can still keep in touch my role as social media. it's not sensitive in your country, but you can always had to watch out or going underground tv on rumbled dot com to watch new and old episodes going undergrad. so right now look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence and the point obviously, is to create trust rather than fear we'd like to take on

various job with artificial intelligence. real summoning with a robot must protect this phone. existence with rattle had now a bundle and they've got them numbered with for those of those did you do not actually show switch him? you please go to finish. to move your go to just use the where you of course, are you able to know what it was, you know,

a and india plans to increase trade has the russian trade minister visits new delhi. that's as the india considers buying russian oil over the g 7 price cup. i made an output codes by opec plus and western sanctions with $100.00 dead and hundreds more wounded in saddam as cautious between the national army and the rapid support forces. power, miniature group, and today the date we have from an eye witness. we were sitting downstairs when suddenly a big explosion occurred right in front of us was so building collapse and got very scared. after that, the only thing was, so what is it breed, we didn't see the rocket itself today, this colossal ship is answering.