I'm gonna Sara non-saucy dope italiano English a necessay Al Kooper dar una una on this cone throw come on per millisecond terminology I catch Adichie shall we speak English or the Italian okay purfles gonna tell ya know a balance perfetto a la buona sera to t de nuevo grass suppressor una casa de ba Tito su globally the CEO national is my casa via hospital Sonata a presser Rafael detail K professor at Harvard a down along experience immaterial punto de globalization a Khmer because University good English a globalization and its this content Sherlock Robert deserve a shallow Malta gent in the eighth row if a most chittim ad Ankiel tree all tree gross category the personality special maintain bass industries that metaphor little Russia total a perverted the mineral the person anybody see India salute to the Shamu ich windy western problem IQ needn't antigen test content boy / gradius syllabus content to Citibank a Allah policeman to my discourse abbastanza not o M not Punta Punta de la grabación a certainly deserve aliens K NK sooner I meant at en el mundo on Cape air compressor detail espera de tat Amenti fiscally gasp oh no para cement a non-progressive II know Putin una década mente Shamu comedy de basanti um Kazama remarkable Isuzu a tea party both the sonority material pod represents entropy problem universities he probably pure finance public adele pesadilla pertinent question my problem okay can a global the / editor DC case oh no a punto molto complex root see only a man a man August appreciate in a tempo the venturi complicado resolved early Pirkei Avot tempo for a populist demagogic 1ks providers through mentally there was a problem in Bangalore Puteri a crayon or the filter will tell you and sigil is all very the questionnaire shatter a parity a comedy Gustavo more detail upon TripAdvisor the Argentine dinner schita element in unison cma bonus iris the celebrity win in economy Nia I'm going to say the bonus iris hey all in peony with the skier magazine negocio birthday time non interpolation TC we first do Olympia TV news we go per milligram the merito it pours to the economy and the episode so PhD at Oxford the residents inaudible deliver CNS especially the inquisitive at him Priscilla tell thank you very much the talk is the conference is organized around this very ambitious topic but then what I'm gonna try to do is to give you an example of how we approach studying these problems by focusing very narrowly on one specific set of issues okay so that's more or less what I will try to do I will try to present this project which is a very specific project and then I will open up hopefully soon for other questions more broader questions about the issues at stake okay so the the project I the title that Liz did we're studying together with Dani Rodrik also from Harvard from the Kennedy School this demand for protectionism which is one of the features of this populist backlash that we're getting one of the there are many aspects and I think in political economy we are interested in many of these aspects one of them of course is the rejection of expertise which i think is quite interesting and another one of course is this idea of rejecting globalization and trade and movements of capital and of labor okay so the the paper the specific paper I'm going to try to present today is it's called labor market shocks and the demand for trade protection and it's evidence from online surveys it's gonna be a very narrow survey that we did and I'll explain why we think this very narrow exercise is interesting more broadly that's more or less what I will try to hope not going too fast okay all right all right so it's a good good to start on what conventional economics says all right so conventional economics has this view that trade can have very sharp distributional effects in labor markets and there is evidence of this you know this shocks particularly that what's called the China shock having a very big disruptive effect in labor markets okay but and this is an important element other labor market shocks tend to quantitatively dominate okay so the skill-biased technology technological change automation demand shift account for a much larger share of the destruction of jobs in the US so there's a famous paper by David autor who's been doing this great set of P pay per on the China shock and that you know the best estimates we have is that off the job destructions that that took place during the 2000s approximately 10% is due to the to the China shock if you are like in going to allow for very indirect effects and you're very generous with your estimates you get to 20 percent but it's relatively small to other a compared to other shops so of course a let me just put my timer so I know more or less where I'm at on the talk we want to give time to questions of course there is no reason to treat a labor market displacement due to trade differently from other sources of labor market churn so economists have this view that when you get these shocks the way to treat it is with unemployment insurance or transfers and it's the same thing that when you have displacement due to other shocks so in general there is this sense that protectionism that is part of the populist response is a very distortionary deviation and economists have this you know long for a long time explained the protectionism as the result of interest groups that really push and pay Congress to pass protectionist laws okay but of course the evidence is increasingly on the side of the of the preferences of people being against free trade and that's what is interesting for us as an as economists why is it that we're so wrong so basically we know in economics we assume that people care about basically material outcomes so material and outcomes not the process in ways that are more or less stable and we know from psychology that priming and preferences over other dimensions not just the final outcome can be important okay so so it's kind of like a first contrast and the question specifically for trade is the if there are particular Prime's particular ways of thinking about what's happening to us that are important in shaping preferences okay so that's more or less the idea and economists don't live with this idea that primes are important or that narratives are important we think that there are these preferences that are stable that are in the back and if you tell it to me as a story that you know in this way or another as long as the substance stays the same the the priming shouldn't really affect it specifically could be that people care about the process that generates displacement and could be that this conditions the preferred policy response that's kind of like the topic of the of the project so this is connected to our thought experiment that Danny has been running in his classroom for a long time which is as follows so he asks his students suppose we can engineer a social reordering that leaves Harry five dollars richer and John four dollars poorer should we do it that's kind of like the question the scenarios below describe different mechanisms that achieve those ends so it's the same thing in the end but it's going to we going to arrive to it through different paths and the question is should they be blocked or allowed to run the course so this is a standard one howdy works very hard saves and invests a lot and comes up with new techniques and products while John lags behind okay and that's what generates the difference a different scenario how he finds a cheaper or higher quality supplier in Germany at different scenarios Harry outsources for supplier in Bangladesh which employs child workers in 12 hours a day shift and under hazardous conditions and even there sometimes he includes this other scenario which is more extreme how he brings belong Bangladeshi workers to the US and their temporary contracts and puts them to work under conditions that violate domestic labor environmental and safety laws all right so economists kind of don't see a difference you know they don't see a reason to interfere but students starkly rank this scenario okay so of course they have they have less problems for the first one and this is a decreasing order but economists tend to see them equivalent and in fact they even CD there's a reason you know there's an argument for making D equivalent to B and C but for sure B and C are equivalent in the mind of economists and that's not what people react so there's something strange in the way we think or different in the way we think we as economists think from the general public so the the specific question for the project are these we want to know whether people respond differently to job displacement that is due to technological change versus demand shifts versus bad management versus trade shocks and within trade shocks we have three different types of shocks one is shock with a rich country second is rich with a poor country and third is trade with a poor country emphasizing the fact that live in a poor country has poor Labor Standards all right and the question for you is whether you know if you are in the scenario where you see a technological shock do you want something different that when you are under you think it's a demand shock or do you want something different when you think it's a trade show that's kind of like the general question being asked and how much do you want to trade off protectionism versus the preferred approach that economists have which is to give transfers or retraining broadly speaking how malleable our preferences for different kinds of color and poor response and of course we are going against what economists think which is this is a very stable thing we don't sound likely to be changed by this different frames ok so what do we do we produce like a survey which we call a minimal survey all right what is a minimal survey well it's a very short survey that we administer on this platform called MTurk and with it in June 2018 and it's we billed as a 10-minute anonymous survey about your opinions that's kind of how we've done it and we pay one dollar for this amount of that it's like seven minutes on average and it's very well compensated for this type of tasks so lots of people actually Wally when they're in their jobs take this service for money and they make up a fair bit of money by the end of the of the of the month all right we did lots of little tricks to ensure high quality okay so we're going to look at almost 6,000 7,000 people across the u.s. who are sitting in their offices in different states of the US and they are doing this very short survey for one dollar and then we do small things like for example they you know this this is an approval rate in previous tasks you saw you do a task or a survey then I approve it and then you get paid one dollar if in your previous task the employer approved you on 80% of them we let you take our survey if not we don't allow you so these are good workers so this is like a market for tasks for short tasks translations or little surveys which exist in the in this in the US and we tell them it's good to be very short and that we would just another like a technicality we think it's important that these things are short because you know people span of attention is not going to allow them to take on a very like a complicated survey and since we're thinking about primes we want them to to focus on something a for a short period of time we don't want other primes to get in the way and people don't think the survey was by as we have an attention check which is an another technicality to do this etcetera etcetera all right we also drop all the observations of people who take the survey fast so they have to take more than a certain number of minutes and we keep the 90% that take longer to serve so but sometimes they do it very very fast which is not likely that they're thinking about the answers etc bottom line we get five thousand eight hundred and six hundred eighty-five answers which are we think we are useable and they have a pretty good structure I'll show you what this means all right all right that's more or less our approach we're going to do is minimal survey so let me tell you what the survey actually does so it asks three questions very short questions like you know do you think the poor are poor because they are lazy or because they are unlucky standard questions two or three of these close questions and then immediately they'll they are asked the the key question of the survey so it's really a very simple survey so they are randomized into six treatments one is a control group and then there's this other alternative treatments okay this is the treatment number one now we're gonna have a problem reading this so give me two seconds here this is it the technology shock okay so they're going to be very similar look at so I'll show you visually this this is gonna be the demand shock this is a bad management shock but almost they look the same I make you read us any piece of news that we constructed it looks like a piece of news from the newspaper in fact it has the same format as the newer times and it varies by a very small set of words so I'll try to redo this one in full so it says 900 jobs are at risk at the yjf government plant in creeks town which is facing closure now ygf spokesman said as we continue our quest to serve our consumers better we have been making investments in automation and other new technologies this has required that we face out our Creek stone operation and consolidate manufacturing in our other plants in the country many industries have been affected in recent years by technological progress which lowers costs and raises productivity and it's an employee says an employee of the plant who has been employed there for 18 years said the closure of the plant would have devastating consequences for the workers many will become unemployed and the rest would have to accept lower paying jobs he added all right so from there we go to a to a question which I'll show you in a minute which asks do you want protectionism or do you want transfers this is gonna happen in two minutes but I want to tell you all the treatments so this one this is called the technology treatment look at the demon tree air shocks the same thing you know local government plant facing changes the same title nine hundred jobs are at risk at the yj4 government plant increased under it's exactly the same words everything is the same we have had to adjust to lower consumer demand for the type of products we make here that's the only difference here and then it continues this has required that we face out our creeks down so it's minimal the change from one treatment to the next let me show you the other treatment what is this bad management thank you so the bad management one is the same thing but there were management mistakes that means we have to face out the plant and there's a worker which says an employee of the plant who has been employed there for 18 years so the closure of the plan would have diversity exactly the same thing again so first one technology because of automation so second one there were demand changes so we have to change to adjust to a new demand third one there are management mistakes we face out the plant and then we get the trade shocks there are three of these trade chokes this one is here we go as we continue requests to serve a consumers better we have to ensure we remain competitive with other global firms this has required a face our tricks of operation and outsource the production to France this is the first of the trade shock let's trade a treatment this is the developing country treatment which is the same as that I read a minute ago but it changes the word France for Cambodia so it's identical except for one word now finally it's the same thing Cambodia but we added this little description here this is a bit more ambitious as a change and it says in this poor country sometimes they violate Labor Standards I said it rained forces this but let's again one sentence I'm close to done very very close to done what is this this is the control we have a control group where nothing happens there is this like you know the same story and instead of the title facing closure it's a plant facing changes and the changes is some changes but it says that they're going to be able to do it without really like changing you know adjusting employment etc all right so these are all these different groups we have these different treatments and then there is the question this is the outcome that we are interested in what if anything do you think should be the response of the government option number one government should do nothing second government should provide some financial assistance to workers who lose their jobs for example an employment compensation or training assistance three government should restrict imports of garments from overseas by placing import tariffs on such imports for example okay those are the the three options that people are given the economists favor the option number two the you know so that's kind of okay so let me summarize very short survey with this very minimal differences all right and there is like one presumption which is that most people like an economist think that across the board this should be expressing a preference for transfers rather than interfere with trade voluntary exchange what you want to do is just like deal with the ones that are affected by giving this transfers and you could you know tax the benefit the beneficiaries of trade all right these are the result so that this is it this is just the papers here you can see the first thing to note is that the Economist model so so let me just tell you what this is do nothing Blackie's do nothing the gray is transfers the blue is protectionism and you can see in the control it's still with the control group for a second that the answer that mostly that most people choose 70% of people choose is transfer so the economic model kind of does okay most people choose transfers there's a group like nineteen percent who chooses nothing do nothing so this will be no more extreme less affair more extreme like on the right more conservative and then there's nine percent who in the base line they want protectionism so it's kind of very good news for the economic model I think so what happens when you move to the treatments first they do not in category on average goes down quite a bit and protectionism increases quite a bit relative to this part here so that's like on but detecting the marginal effect here it's complicated etc so I've calculated I'd like you know our statistical analysis in a way that you control for all the differences of people here and there etcetera and you just just report the marginal effect so here's an even cleaner way of looking at it - just to summarize the effects so what is this these are the responses to labor market displacements shocks and this I am reporting are the marginal effects on the shares of respondents that respond favorably to the statement at the bottom of the chart relative to a control so here is technological change the treatment technological change and this is the people so what happens here is that the do-nothing category went down and where did it go more or less equally to transfers and to a protectionism in a technological story okay that's how to to read this thing so first finding is that for the demand shift and the technological change this broadly similar results that you get this increase in protectionism and an increase in transfers and a drop in the desire to do nothing this is more interesting this is the the fact that the trade shocks lead to the strongest demand for protectionism that's kind of reasonable I would say and interestingly enough this is completely contrary to the way that economists would would predict you just just changed one word France for Cambodia and do you get this much bigger increase in the the desire for protectionism okay these are percentage points so this is quite a chunk well this is a spectacular failure of the way that economists think about this which is that there's hot drop in the desired transfers relative to a control so in fact so you have to do nothing but it's all good it's all going to this increasing protectionism all right let me just check where I'm at okay so I have to speed up a little bit if I want to have some time for questions this is the bad management shock which is the only scenario where you don't have an effect on protectionism it's the only scenario where people actually don't want to give more protectionism to to these workers and this is the only scenario where you get a significant increase in transfers in all the other scenarios the drop in travel the change in transfers is insignificant so here is like an interesting treatment that we have to think more about how to interpret my preferred interpretation is the following which is that when is that people actually understand some of the trade trade-offs when you give protection in fact you're going to be giving protection to managers and to owners which were incompetent and drove the problem so in that case they don't want to be protection and they want to give transfers to workers so it tells us that the people are not answering these questions like you know and randomly they care about our putting a fair bit of structure I think to this and we have more work on this if you're interested I can talk about it afterwards now I want to put this in terms of persuasion rates the persuasion rate is this way of taking into account for baseline preferences so what I've shown you is it big or is it small okay so in propaganda when I am targeting these guys I'm gonna try to convince you that like you know the best thing in the world is like you know I don't know that Messi is better than Ronaldo so if I target you with this activity I have to first figure out how many people are not convinced of that obvious fact by the way to in here oh is this particular group so then I have to adjust the baseline length etcetera so people that are targeted you have to divide by that etc and that gives you the persuasion rate and the reason why it's interesting to do the persuasion rate is because the Lavinia and and gains cow have done this review where there are all these papers estimating persuasion rates of different propaganda campaigns all right and when you look at that at the range of estimates the estimates we get here are extremely large are at the upper range of this so it looks like this very tiny little minimal treatment the way that Leia and in one you if you want the more extreme one is focus on cap the word Cambodia versus the word France they carry an enormous amount you're getting a change in the persuasion rate like you've not seen in any of these other papers in the day Lavinia against cow project and you just you got that just by changing Cambodia versus friends so this is something that it's like really operational in the minds of of these people and you get this very large effects well as I should I say well they they look very large the transfer the the elasticity some transfers are smaller and the reason of course is that the transfer baselines were very high so there were very few people that remain to be convinced that's why even though the coefficient is small the persuasion rates are high almost as high as protectionism okay so even though they the point estimate for protection is the most six times bigger all right I want to say a couple of things about the setup I want to talk very briefly about the Trump supporters versus the Clinton supporters I want to show you something very surprising about the differences there and and I think I can conclude then all right and open up for questions so I've done that what is it this is how representative the data is it's a group of workers this this MTurk workers are a little bit more educated and a little younger than the American population so it's how much you can extrapolate this to the whole American it's not directly but it's not very far off okay so it's it's they're a bit more educated and a bit younger these are the basic effects of a covariate a I can these are like this is like a summary of all the tray or all of the shocks together which i think is useful to present for many reasons but given the problem of time let me just emphasize one thing when you put all the correlations between the characteristics of the respondents and their desire for protectionism it's extremely similar to other surveys that have been done so in particular women that women I can see very well so female the women are a bit more protectionist a man education uneducated it makes you a bit more protectionist and here it's the the it's exactly what you would expect with the correlation with whether you are leaning towards Clinton or towards Trump so it's it scales pretty well the structure of the data let me I can show you the the so I have like five minutes I have to make choices now I want to show you I want to show you this this is all very interesting but I want to get into the details I want to spend my time on I want to spend my time on on political ideology okay political preferences so what is this this is us so we are now trying to figure out the structure of this we are going to be looking at people who different in political inclinations so if you look here this is a Clinton supporter this is a trump supporter this is Center by leaning Trump and this is Center by leaning Clinton okay so it's called pretty a it's pretty logical and consistent with what people know remember we are not this is not artificial consistency on this psychological paper if I ask you are you a Clinton supporter yes and then the we know it is like you know a different thing where we are getting the effect from from this treatment so it's not that people are trying just trying to be consistent in their head all right what does this tell us it tells us that this is the black thing is a control this is the non trade shocks the demand the technology and the bad management these are here and these are the trade shocks the three trade shocks clumped together so what do we get so first you do get this this fact that Trump supporters are very susceptible to trade so the more you are a trade supporter sorry a trump supporter the bigger the increases here so you were treated and they react very very starkly there so this is another another part which is like pretty striking so but these guys are so so Clinton supporters when they are shocked they are asked protectionist as a standard Trump a supporter so this is this is pretty shocking I think because I've done nothing so we think of the Clinton supporters as being very different from the Trump supporters but they are giving us the same policy preferences with a minimal treatment so bottom line these guys are the Clinton supporters and these guys are the Trump supporters they hate each other they like you know they shout they say unpleasant things you know they think they are the worlds apart you should come to Harvard and you should see what you know my liberal colleagues think of the Trump supporters yet when I just treat them minimally they give me the same answer so that's a pretty striking finding this is by how they differ by the educational attainment here you get the people who are you know who are more educated to be a less protectionist but you can see that with the trade shocks there are these very big jumps so it seems that everybody with this minimal treatment end up being much more attracted to protectionism I have to finish but I want to tell you about one more results and I'm done and we can open it up for for talking for questions and about this and broader issues if you want okay so the one more thing I want to do let me think first okay so the way to present it is by looking at this so what is what is it that we are doing here so this is these are all the trade shocks and this are like you know the columns are the different activities okay these are this a marginal change and this is the prediction now these are the different groups these are the Clinton guys Center Clinton Center Trump Trump okay now what you're getting is that these guys are the Trump guys have higher numbers because they want more protectionism okay so this is bigger numbers than here the interesting thing this is a very cute little thing this is a developing nation okay and these guys want you know much more than these guys but when I emphasize the labor standards thing so the difference between this line this line and this line this is Cambodia and this is Cambodia but reminding you that in Cambodia there are dislike level standards each other so the Clinton guys want more protectionism because I have reminded you that there are this labor standard problems there but the trap guys kind of go the opposite way and it's I don't wanna make a big big deal out of this because they when you look at the difference is significant statistically speaking at you know it's borderline is like a die percent level so it's not like very strong but it is interesting that this Trump supporters don't like it a bit contrary and when you start reminding them of what what the way they should be thinking they start going the opposite direction and I am particularly interested in this because I think a lot of the problem in in populism and you know I leave this as my last comment a to open up for questions later on is that part of their reaction against populism is that they there is a group of people that are fed up with liberals I think and with this idea that there's only one way of thinking and that when we particularly economists I think we are particularly egregious here when we talk to some of these who explain trade or etc we kind of talk down to people we explain to to them what they should be thinking and I think that generates this as part of its backlash so let me just summarize what what I've done so we are being were thinking about the political economy of trade policy here we've been looking at preferences rather than interest group pressure and buying both etc this is more on the demand side of protectionism and here we have isolated different shocks different types of shocks to labor market and they we have tried to understand the the demand for protection giving them always the option of transfers which is the preferred policy by economists all right and then we have this finding that ideas versus material interest seem to matter a lot there is a role for persuasion worldviews and there is this very big malleability of interests which I tell you some story about what's going on even if it's the same thing it's the same outcome the same plant closure it's said there but if it's something that you perceive as unfair or something it's a very different story than if you think it is fair and this is consistent of course with populist sand the anti-globalization crowd have been against against the so-called the gauche caviar is common to many countries including Italy and this big explains him in part the good part the victory of and of absolute salvini just to mention their attacks also finding the most edited a sort of sole protectionist spirit lies build a suit face in any one of us and because and finally is interested to remark that do you mean you know insisted that changing the war cambodia but assuming it will be the same affection to laos vietnam even China immediately reacts reaction to its triggers a reaction because Campbell is seen as a danger because for sure it can manage lower pay is bad condition and despite these which is disturbing the is endure for the better price policy ok demand a peg on that's thank you for representation very interesting I was wondering about one aspect the scenario you proposed to the respondents was a scenario with production which is quite easy to understand I mean choice between a different scenario of firm a firm that goes with problems what about if it would have been financial protection which is a very hot topic I mean also in populism or orientation in terms of economic reaction if the option was if I ask instead of a proposal article instead of an article about the firm that goes there because about the management demand problems about buying stocks stocks of derivatives and other types of financial products that also are related to global globalization and to economic shocks especially in the mean and in the Western countries so it's a great question we haven't thought too much about it with this we're just starting and as you can imagine in economics this is seen as not like the most obvious you know they don't understand why you know one unkind way of putting it is that we are like you know justifying publish which is not what we're doing which is trying to understand it but to your point I think you're exactly right it is super interesting question two to two dimension to study we haven't thought about it but off the top of my head I can I can see two different things that I would have to study it's a great question one of them for sure is the interest rate so in some countries the way it the economy operates with extraordinarily high interest rates Brazil is one classic example but and then like you know in in countries with very high levels of debt when you get these bad periods of confidence not that long ago it happened to you know the southern Europe you get these big spikes in interest rates and I I wonder you're exactly right I wonder how people react to to displacement caused by something that is obviously not the fault of the of the workers all of the firm's so I would have to think about how to structure that let me say one extra thing which I think you're also right which is on capital flows capital flows we have you know in economics we there's been this like movement towards more globalization trade etc and towards capital flows and capital flows the the benefits that exist from capital flows the evidence on it is much smaller than on trade on trade it's already pretty small by the way but but economists have exaggerated how good trade is and how much evidence we have etc but with capital flows there is a big backlash I think when the country you get a capital a run on the on the on the currency etc so we would have to think about how to frame it and we have to be different setting this is the beauty of this project is that the MTurk thing is fantastic to do it but you cannot use it in developing countries because they don't you can't really pay people with a torque so we will have to think how America they won't understand anything about capital flows or salary they won't try to relate to in any developing countries you tell them there's a run and every single person understands what it means so it would we would have to do it in a in developing countries but it's a great idea the financial dimension we haven't thought about it at all so I don't have a lot interesting to answer there when I can the currency evaluates the value goes down if it's a positive thing most of times for advance of the counties because I can export more easily is a tragedy for developing countries because they have highly indepted in dollars for instance and they have immediately a capital ran from the country I do something like this informally with my students like have them compare technology-based change and trade based change and a common response is the technology change is okay but they object the trade because the other country gains for some reason the fact that the other country games is a negative do you find that kind of effect so I think you're right there is something strange in what people think is going on with trade so it we never got the in the debris if you know what we've studied it's not that the other countries gained well you're right yes it is in impact they have this strange theory that they are selling to you goods very cheaply now and then they will raise prices or something they are they are doing dumping and when you present to them the evidence that the prices have been declining for like alone in in tray will trade with Japan or whatever that the prices keep going down they have something about what you're saying which is that they this they have something up their sleeve or they're either gaining something more than what is there so in a generous interpretation it has some thing to do with some other externalities or something but but I think it's it's more of like something we don't understand either a fairness for example look at France versus Cambodia why why do you have like a lower is this an exactly same thing suddenly if it's France I kind of think well we have it deserves we are kind of like the French how come that we can't compete with the French we still get an enormous increase in protectionism desired by the way but why is it not as high as with Cambodia well because there's something like fair or something so but you're right that we don't we haven't understood what is it that people think about the other country we don't we don't have like a lot to say but but probably there is the key yeah yes this thing he was just saying something that shocks me more or less could it be connected to the control I can face a technological change I cannot face a worker that do the same thing as I do for 1/3 of the price so I can control because I can improve myself but I cannot control and accept to be paid less than a Cambodian that might be a way of thinking about it that there is a if it's something that is hidden under my control I like no I arrived at the technological part it's well the bad management one is the one that is more clearly under the control and we screwed up and that's where people are more or less willing to increase protectionism so I think I am I am I I think that that should be that we could study that more yeah but again it's interesting that we have like a fantasy about how much control we have things and like you know we I I don't know what to make off like the fact that sometimes like you know how come the Germans keeping who improving productivity year after year after year it's like extraordinary I've never seen anything like it and why is that like you know we would have to do it with Germany we haven't tried that and but perhaps at some point people like to think that I have a theory of justice and I am but at some point it's like also tainted by self-interest and at some point with the Germans you just give up like you saying I'm not going to compete with these guys this is ridiculous so so that would be like a good setting to test to go further with what you're saying thing to think about it with with Germany because it is actually part of the data that they have this year in year out increasing productivity over and above the increasing productivity of any other country in Europe so it's pretty extraordinary don't be like the setting to study that further may I ask you a question presser yes giving it going to assume the current fact the the threat the threat innate or even implemented tariffs by against China maybe I guess Europe the breaking news of this morning even against Mexico because of his reasons part what can be the consequences for for Italy for instance for a country like Italy direct consequence is inside the economy of the country first of all I presumed the trade and the world decreases but when the consequence is the practical analysis for a very country like Italy particularly bad position I think because they are it's of course it's it's fun to make fun of the Italians it's a terrible economy a lot of debt etc but you guys forget that you're one of the world's largest exporters for a long time and of like pretty good good very high-end goods lots of so today Italy has been a spectacular success in terms of when you think like only you isolate the fact that you're able to export in very high-end places for a very long period of time in in spite of very high costs and lots of regulations so anything that is gonna bring us away from a world where we are trading a lot it's gonna hurt Italy on the biggest strength that Italy has I don't you know nobody has the future the ball for the future but it is very puzzling where this is gonna lead us and I think it's the one with Mexico is particularly sorry but it's much more for Italy because of course the Mexicans opened up and they have all this you know investment strategy that is complementing to to trade with one country so it's pretty extraordinary that this is going to happen sighs it's a big default on on their international responsibilities if you it's not the first time the Americans sometimes forget about this part but the US has a tradition of breaking up the promises to the international community the Bretton Woods is the most unilateral removal of the u.s. from the Bretton Woods arrangement in the in the 70s is the most striking one but this is another one we all organized our economies to wither in a world regime which had some rules and the first ones to violate it is the the u.s. so with this very disappointing because of course with in Italy with in Argentina with in Mexico there are people who think that the US is the evil etc and and you know this gives them a lot of material even though I think it's like you know happening for accidental reasons in their arm in terms of Trump I think it's a pretty pretty big I won't say a tragedy but it is a big step back from where we were going so I guess it's for you know particularly for big exporters Argentina is a very unsuccessful exporter so we are very closed economy we export like you know nothing of very high value tariff so it's a completely different ballgame then for you guys so because Italy is directly affected not only for the export but also for the pars the parse it makes for other productions evolution is consequences okay another question what time is it now so maybe that we can close our conversation right now someone sati bravura be offended SATA meant a commercial mr. shikou meds that's a recession on to the party it has three - a - t thank you