October 3, 2022

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to AMANPOUR AND COMPANY. Here’s what’s coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The threats that they make, we take very seriously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: The United States strategizes its response to Vladimir Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling after annexing for regions in Ukraine. How close are

we to the unthinkable? Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire joins me. Then.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUIZ INACIO DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (through translator): I’ve never won an election in the first round. I’ve won all

of them in the second round, all of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: A runoff in four weeks after Lula da Silva narrowly ageist out incumbent president Bolsonaro in Sunday’s Brazilian elections. I ask Lula

advisor and former foreign minister Celso Amorim about the battle for two very different visions. And.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT GALLOWAY, AUTHOR, “ADRIFT: AMERICA IN 100 CHARTS”: We can see land. It’s just a function of all growing in unison and getting back to where we

have been.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: A nation adrift, author and professor Scott Galloway tells Hari Sreenivasan about the reasons behind America’s social and economic crises.

Welcome to the program. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

Russia’s Duma unanimously ratified the annexation of Ukraine territory today. That illegal move and President Putin’s vow to defend those

territories with all available means represents a major escalation in his war in Ukraine. Not since October 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis has

the world seen so much nuclear saber-rattling.

Now, the United States and its NATO allies are swiftly warning of retaliation and catastrophic consequences for Russia. Moscow’s nuclear

doctrine, like that of the United States, allows for the first use of nuclear weapons to gain strategic advantage not just in retaliation.

And this has many wondering just how far Putin will push it as Ukraine continues to bust through Russian lines after weeks of a successful

offensive in the east and now toward the south. And the key city of Lyman in Donetsk is now back in the hands of Ukrainian forces. Correspondent Nick

Paton Walsh was the first TV journalist to visit the city.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICK PATON WALSH, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR (voiceover): It may not look like much, but this is where Putin’s defeat in Donetsk began. A

price from the last century, perhaps. But trains and tracks are still how Russia wages war today. Lyman, what’s left of it, is now freed of Russia.

WALSH (on camera): This is what it was all about, the central railway hub, here now in Ukrainian hands and devastated by the fighting. And this was

such a seminal part of Russia’s occupation of Donetsk and Luhansk. The concern for Moscow is a knock-on effect this is going to happen for their

forces all the way to the Russian border.

WALSH (voiceover): On the town’s edges, we saw no signs of the hundreds of Russian prisoners or dead that had been expected to follow Moscow’s

strategic defeat here, nor inside it either. Perhaps they have already been taken away. Instead, Utter silence. Only local bicycles on the streets.

Several residents told us the rather Russians actually left in large numbers on Friday.

TANYA, LYMAN RESIDENT (through translator): They left in the night and the day, people said. I didn’t see it myself but they say they sat on their

APCs and their bags were falling off as they drove. They ran it like this.

WALSH (voiceover): It would be remarkable timing that Russia fled Lyman in the very same hours that Putin was signing papers declaring here Russian

territory and holding a rally on red square. A similar story in the local administration where the only signs of Russia left are burned flags.

They ran away without saying a word to anybody, he says. It was bad. No work, no gas, no power, nothing. The shops didn’t work.

Outside, what’s left of the court, the constant change in violence is too much for some. Her husband just arrested.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): You want the truth? You put on a hat, you take off a hat. You put on a hat, you take off a hat. What life is

this? I am 72 years old. I’m like a rat in a basement, crawling out of the basement.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): You will not show this, the truth. Yesterday, Ukraine came check documents on a checkpoint. And took my

husband.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A man disappeared from the police station.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One hat, another hat.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: People are suffering. One beats us, another beats us – and we cry.

WALSH (voiceover): The Ukrainian troops we did see had already stopped celebrating. There is little time. They’re on the move again. Another

Russian target further east, Kreminna, in their sights.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Another strategic town down, how many more to go? Nick Paton Walsh reporting there. Jeanne Shaheen is a Democratic senator and a senior

member of both the foreign relations and armed services committees. She has just completed a visit to the Balkans, at risk there because of Russia’s

war in Ukraine and is now here in London for talks in this NATO ally hub. And she joins me here on the set.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): Nice to be with you.

AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program.

SHAHEEN: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: So, there you see the result of American and NATO support for your Ukrainian allies. It’s also very risky now and high stakes. What are

you thinking as you sit here? You just come back from close to that region.

SHAHEEN: Well, it goes to show why this allied partnership with the west and NATO in support of Ukraine is so important. Because the supplies, the

support we’re giving Ukraine has allowed them to take back Lyman, which is an important transportation hub. The Russians were planning to use it as a

logistics operation to supply Donetsk and Luhansk. So, this has been an important victory for Ukraine. But as the report pointed out, there’s a lot

more that has to be done.

AMANPOUR: There’s a lot more that has to be done to gain back the territory if they want to push Russia out. But the — how much more will

the U.S. and NATO tolerate beyond or before they think that it might spook Putin into doing something really inadmissible? Are you worried about that?

SHAHEEN: Well, I think we’re all worried about what Putin might do because he’s acting irrationally. Going into Ukraine in that unprovoked war,

thinking that he was going to take over the country just for his own expansionist dreams, I think that was irrational. But that’s all the more

reason why it’s very important for the west to stay united in supporting Ukraine.

I had an opportunity to meet with four women Ukrainian soldiers last week. And one of the things, one young woman sergeant told me, and she had been

fighting in the eastern region of Ukraine for years now. And she told me, you need to give us the weapons so that we can fight so that you don’t have

to.

And I think it’s important — and I talked to my constituents, and we in the Senate, believe that it’s important for us to continue — to keep our

support for Ukraine. To partner very closely with our allies and the partnership we have with the United Kingdom has been very important in

that. The partnership with NATO has been very important to ensure that we can help the Ukraine’s — Ukrainians defeat the Russians and hold Putin

accountable.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, you’re a politician. You just mentioned your constituents. Many political leaders are in a bind right now because

they’re saying, how much more of this can we inflict on our people? Inflation, food poverty, energy, you know, soaring energy prices because of

what Putin is doing. But you have come back believing that the alliance can stay together, as they say, for as long as it has to to push Putin back?

SHAHEEN: I do. And I think it’s important that we are able to do that. You know, what history tells us is that if we don’t stop this bully, this

authoritarian dictator now that he has other designs. Designs beyond Ukraine.

I was just in Bosnia, in the western Balkans, and you can see the evidence of Russia’s disinformation in the Balkans, of their meddling, of their

trying to separate the Republic of Srpska, part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And they will continue to do that. They will pick off —

AMANPOUR: So, they’re trying to fragment that area that’s been —

SHAHEEN: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: — sort of, stuck together since the Dayton Peace Accords after the war?

SHAHEEN: Absolutely. And it’s not just there. They’re also active in Serbia. They’re in Croatia now. We know that the Baltic States are

concerned about Russian intervention. So, it’s — in Albania, what we heard was that they’re concerned about what’s happening.

So, it’s something that we need to work on now because it’s in our allied interest to do that. It’s in the United States national security interest.

AMANPOUR: Well, I mean, it was the U.S., wasn’t it, back in 1995, that led a NATO mission to get rid of the genocidal forces of Serbia and the Bosnian

Serbs and then onward into Kosovo. And the U.S., you know, has recognized Kosovo as independent.

I spoke to the prime minister of Kosovo. And I know you were next door in Albania. But he said this to me. Albin Kurti, said that he was very

concerned about what, you know, about the Serbian government in Belgrade and about, you know, Russia through its Serbian proxies again seeking to

destabilize the region, including Kosovo. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALBIN KURTI, KOSOVO PRIME MINISTER: If it wouldn’t have been for the support from Belgrade, I think that Serbs in Bosnia, Serbs in Montenegro,

Serbs in Kosovo, they would all integrate in respective countries. But it is Belgrade who pays people in all these countries in order to sabotage

functionality of the state to disobeyed to the rule of law and so and so forth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Did you get that impression when you were there? That if it wasn’t for that kind of meddling, there would be, you know, a much more

cohesive democratic process there?

SHAHEEN: Well, obviously there’s a long history of ethnic tensions in the region. But having Russia there to exploit those tensions makes it much

harder to get things done. And we saw with President Vucic at the U.N. —

AMANPOUR: In Serbia. Uh-huh.

SHAHEEN: Well, when he was at the U.N. —

AMANPOUR: Right.

SHAHEEN: — coming to this agreement with Lavrov, foreign secretary — Russian secretary Lavrov on U.S. soil that was not designed to encourage

agreement among the countries and the western Balkans.

AMANPOUR: It’s pretty scary. But now, with the saber-rattling — I mean, really people are beginning to wake up and think many of this generation

weren’t even aware of what happened in 1962, the Cuban missile crisis. And thought that with the end of the cold war, this was a thing of the past.

But it’s so real now.

This is what the National Security Spokesman John Kirby said about the idea that Russia would be defending its territory in Ukraine. This is what he

said about the annexed territories.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, COORDINATOR FOR STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: It’s not an attack on Russia. It is Ukrainian soil. It

was Ukrainian soil. It is today. And it will be tomorrow. And we’re not in the business of telling President Zelenskyy how he goes about conducting

military operations. What we are doing is making sure he has the capabilities and assistance that he needs to do that effectively and he is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: OK. I’m going to get to he is in a second. I want to know what you think about the threat level. Where is it now in terms of the

possibility of tactical nukes or an attack, a conventional attack, on a NATO, you know, arms depot or anything like that?

SHAHEEN: Well, we know that Vladimir Putin is suffering losses that he doesn’t have a lot of options now. And so, I think it’s very concerning,

his rhetoric and his long-standing policy of Russia, to consider escalating to de-escalate this policy that they talk about. And their tactical nukes

that they say they’re willing to use.

Which is all the more reason why we need to stay united. We need to be very clear with Vladimir Putin that there are consequences for the kind of

action he’s talking about. An attack on a NATO country, I think President Biden has been very clear, and the NATO countries have been clear, an

attack on a NATO country is an attack on all of us. And I don’t think, at this point, it’s in Putin’s interest or Russia’s interest to attack NATO.

AMANPOUR: What would it look like? What are the catastrophic consequences for Russia if this happens as the national security advisor said over the

weekend, Jake Sullivan. The former CIA Director, former Sencon (ph) commander David Petraeus suggested that NATO, with conventional warfare,

would sink every, you know, every ship in Russia’s Black fleet — Black Sea fleet, would attack and eliminate Russian troop concentrations in Ukraine.

What does it look like, a response from NATO?

SHAHEEN: Well, I think all of those are the kinds of potential responses and options that the United States and NATO has for an attack. And I think

leaving those to Putin ‘s imagination maybe important because we — I think we want to lay out for him what our options are. But we’re not going to

tell him exactly how we are going to respond.

AMANPOUR: When you were in the Balkans, including Albania, you met with Afghan refugees.

SHAHEEN: I did.

AMANPOUR: What did you come away with about U.S. policy that essentially has left those Afghans in Afghanistan, particularly the women, to literally

sink or swim? And they are sinking under the weight of Taliban edicts, not just the dress code, but not being able to go to work, to school, et

cetera.

SHAHEEN: The restrictions that the Taliban have reimposed on women are draconian. And I was there to tell the Afghan refugees in Albania that we

haven’t forgotten them. That we’re still working on resettlement for those people who have not yet been brought to the United States or another

country permanently. And that we’re not going to forget them.

And one of the former members of parliament, one of the women who was there who was — had been a member of that Afghan parliament, said to me when I

heard from the women of Afghanistan after we announced our withdrawal. She said make sure you amplify our voices. We want to be heard. There are

Afghan women in the diaspora who want to speak out and let people know what’s happening. And we need to make sure that happens.

And that’s one reason I was there. It’s one reason that I’ve worked in — with bipartisan senators to try and continue to keep the focus on the women

who need our help. The United States has been the biggest humanitarian donor in Afghanistan since the Taliban took over and we need to continue

that.

AMANPOUR: They believe that the United States is what provoked the Taliban from coming back by just unilaterally withdrawing. Did you — do you ever

feel a sense of contrition, a sense of humility, a need to apologize, particularly to these women who you meet face-to-face, who are just

desperate and have been sold down the river by the U.S.?

SHAHEEN: Well, I didn’t support the withdrawal at the time. And I was vocal about that. But I do try and reassure the women that we’re not going

to forget them. That I’m — that I and other people in Congress are going to continue to raise the concerns, continue to do what we can to make sure

that the Taliban don’t get recognized diplomatically, to try and make sure they can’t travel — their leaders can’t travel. And that they can’t access

the assets that are being held unless they’re willing to change their behavior.

AMANPOUR: Let’s just go next door to Iran because right now, the world is watching, it’s very difficult because they’re really, you know, restricting

access. They’re not allowing in foreign journalists in. But we see these women — I mean, take steps that many of us who know that place are just

amazed by how brave they are.

What would you think? You’re on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Service Committee. You still don’t have a nuclear deal with Iran. They have

just released a couple of American citizens —

SHAHEEN: Right.

AMANPOUR: — or at least lifted the travel ban. What should the U.S. be doing? What should a rational policy towards Iran to be because it’s never

been based on human rights?

SHAHEEN: No, and as you point out, the women who have demonstrated against the Morality Police and the killing of Ms. Amini just deserves so much

admiration. The courage that they’ve shown and they’ve been joined by students and by men demonstrating against the autocratic regime that has

repressed human rights for such a long time there.

And the United States needs to continue to look at Iran. That they’re a state sponsor of terrorism. They have, as you know, across the Middle East

and across other parts of the world, they are trying to destabilize democracies to the terrorist activities that they sponsor have been

horrific. And we need to factor that into our policies.

AMANPOUR: But I just wondered if, you know, that has been a policy of the western world forever. To deal with them on those issues. Never on human

rights. Never on supporting the people who go out regularly and demonstrate often in the face of terrible crackdown and they meet live fire and the

like. I mean, is there — did you ever think that there may be a different way that the U.S. could approach its relations with Iran?

SHAHEEN: Well, I would like to think that we could get a nuclear — get back into a nuclear deal. That means that they would be less threatening in

terms of future activities, and I think there have been ongoing negotiations to try to do that. And raising the concerns about human rights

is something that I — members of the Senate, members of Congress have tried to do to say we need to make sure that people in Iran know that we’re

concerned about what’s happening there.

AMANPOUR: About — I mean, all of this largely is about democracy, whether it’s about Ukraine and the rule of law and democracy, whether it’s about

the Balkans and democracy and the rule of law, Iran and Afghanistan struggling to have some kind of freedom and liberty and democracy. But of

course, the United States of America, finds its democracy in great peril and it’s not a great shining example right now.

I mean, we’ve even heard one of your Republican colleagues, Senator Susan Collins, saying that things are so bad in America, that she can foresee a

day when maybe one of your colleagues maybe get killed in these partisan battles. The idea of security, the idea of the, you know, false news about

your — how bad is it inside Congress right now?

SHAHEEN: Well, Congress has been a very divided. But we’ve taken some steps to try and address some of the challenges of our democracy. And as we

know, free and fair elections, human rights, those are all values that democracy shares and that we need to protect. And in order to do that,

we’ve got to make sure that citizens are involved, that people know what’s at stake.

One of the things we have just done in the Senate working in a bipartisan way is address the law that says how the transfer of power takes place from

one after an election. That law that former President Trump tried to get for the vice president to take into his own hands what was going to happen.

So, that Electoral Count Act, it’s called, is one that we have changed in a way that we thinks protects that peaceful transfer of power. But it’s an

ongoing challenge. And it’s something that those of us who care about democracy have to continue to work on.

AMANPOUR: Do you think Trump will run again? Maggie Haberman, who’s one of the best chroniclers of Donald Trump since even before he was president,

said that he may have no choice. He may not win but he — his back maybe so far into the corner right now and he’s a big, big fundraiser that he may

run.

And if he does, what further damage, even if he doesn’t win, can he create to American democracy? Because understand that a lot of candidates, even in

the midterms around in the States are election deniers. His supporters were election deniers and could have an influence on future elections and the

count.

SHAHEEN: Well, that’s right. The three candidates for our federal delegation in New Hampshire on the Republican side are all election

deniers. And so, what we’ve got to do is to point that out to people. We’ve got to show people what the choices are. You know, do you really want

someone who’s going to continue the chaos of former President Trump’s years in office?

And I think that there are members of the republican party now who are beginning to point out that there are — is an alternative. We’ve heard

Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate who has not supported what Donald Trump is trying to do. So, hopefully, we’re going to see the

Republican Party leadership step up in ways that will help bring the party back from the abyss.

AMANPOUR: And yet, some people say that potentially it could be Ron DeSantis, who’s very Trumpian but very much smarter. And Ron DeSantis, the

governor of Florida, is now in this terrible situation for his people, with this terrible hurricane and the floods that have devastated so much in the

State of Florida. He, himself, voted against the kind of aid for people in hurricanes and the like, for instance, in New York and elsewhere. And has

been very ante confronting the climate root of these things. What if it’s somebody even more extreme than Trump?

SHAHEEN: Well —

AMANPOUR: How can America survive?

SHAHEEN: I think we need to make sure that people understand that government can work for them. And it will be interesting to see how

Governor DeSantis handles the hurricane — Hurricane Ian in Florida. Because I don’t think that most Floridians think that having emergency aid

come to help them in the middle of a hurricane is something that’s bad. And pointing out the difference that competent, committed leaders can make is

one of the things that we’ve got to do.

AMANPOUR: It would be interesting to see if you can win that message, win that communications battle. Senator, Jeanne —

SHAHEEN: I believe we can.

AMANPOUR: Senator Jeanne Shaheen, thank you so much for joining us —

SHAHEEN: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: — here in London.

So, pollsters it seems, can be wrong everywhere. After more than 100 million Brazilians went to the polls on Sunday. The result was much, much

closer than polls had been predicting for months. In what’s been dubbed the most consequential election there since the end of military dictatorship in

1985, pollsters and analysts had said right-wing incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro was all but doomed.

But while the left-wing candidate and former President Luiz Inacio da Silva lead with over 48 percent of the vote, Bolsonaro came a close second with

about 43 percent. This is what the candidates said of the results so far.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUIZ INACIO DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (through translator): I’ve never won an election in the first round. I’ve won all

of them in the second round, all of them.

What’s important is that the second round gives you the chance to mature your proposals and your conversation with society.

JAIR BOLSONARO, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): There’s a feeling among people that their lives are economically worse off. We

recognize that. But now we are going to put more emphasis on showing these people that there has been a fall but that the economy is recovering well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And now, there will be a runoff on October 30th for two very, very different visions of the future of Brazil. One of which my next guest

is betting on. Celso Amorim is Brazil’s former foreign Minister under Lula and he is his current adviser. And he’s joining me from Sao Paulo.

Welcome to the program, Minister Amorim. Are you surprised at the result? Because you all thought it would be much closer and that Lula would win

outright.

CELSO AMORIM, FORMER BRAZILIAN FOREIGN MINISTER AND ADVISER TO LUIZ INACIO DA SILVA: Well, Lula had more or less good votes that we aren’t expecting

to have within margin of error of the polls. Bolsonaro did a little bit better than I — we thought in the polls in the cases. But still, it’s six

million votes of a difference. And I’m very confident that the second round will confirm Lula’s victory.

AMANPOUR: So, apparently, 32 million Brazilians did not vote, even in a country where voting is mandatory, and there are probably some little fines

put on them. But why do you think that is? I mean, if it’s such a disaster and there’s just so much at stake, including democracy, why do you think

people are so turned off that 32 million didn’t even bother to vote?

AMORIM: Well, there are many people who live in very poor areas. They have difficult of transportation. And there are — maybe there are many that are

disillusioned by politics especially after these years of Bolsonaro and the years of Temer, also after the coup d’etat — parliamentary coup d’etat

against Dilma — Dilma Rousseff.

So, anyway, I think the number of people who came to the polls is more or less the same as it usually is. And I think Lula did a very — he got more

than 50 million votes, which is fantastic from any part of view.

AMANPOUR: What do you think Lula has to focus on in the second round? He has said, I’ve never won an election in the first round. All my elections

I’ve won in the runoff. So, he is saying that he’s used to this. What do you think he has to concentrate on to actually, you know, to win?

AMORIM: Well, I think — actually, he has to win some of the votes that went to other candidates, smaller — with smaller votes, had four or five

million votes. And I think he can have that because at least one of those candidates, it’s certainly against Bolsonaro more than — against Lula.

There are also some undecided people, when faced with a choice between Lula and Bolsonaro will come to Lula.

But anyway, Lula — I’m sure — I’m quite sure that Lula will increase the margin of the advantage in relation to Bolsonaro. But anyway, if he keeps

this advantage, that will be enough. And I can’t imagine — I mean, supposing that those who voted for the two other candidates who have some

five percent, four percent of the vote split in the middle, Lula will — would win. But I’m certain people will be better than that. And then he’ll

have more than that.

AMANPOUR: So, we remember and we keep saying that when Lula left office, when he did, he left with an 87 percent approval rating. And during his

time in office, President Obama called him the most popular politician on the planet. And then came the corruption scandal. He went to jail for

nearly two years. Then he was allowed to be free on appeal. And then the court just threw out his conviction based — they said it was politically

motivated.

But how much does that affect people, and for sure, Bolsonaro is using that in his campaign. And how, do you think, that still affects people?

AMORIM: Well, Bolsonaro is still using that because Bolsonaro is not committed to the truth, that’s the simple thing because Lula has been

cleared of all of the accusations which were very unfair. I think we have talked about that. He, himself, talked to you about that before.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

AMORIM: I think there is a very strong Brazil, although being very much poorer. A country very much like the United States. I never thought that

Trump would win an election in the United States because I think that a country cannot be ashamed of its own ruler. But he won. And actually, the

difference between him and Biden, it was (INAUDIBLE) was much smaller than we thought. Well, this is an international phenomenon of growth of an

extreme right. We just what happened in Italy (ph).

So, I think the fact that Lula is ahead is already better in that respect in our universal fight in favor of dealing well with climate, with human

rights, with respect for relations with other countries. So, no, I was not really disappointed. Maybe I might be disappointed with the fact that some

of the acolytes of Bolsonaro were elected from the Senate, but, you know, this happens.

The quality of politics, unfortunately, in some quarters has — they declined, as I think also it has the United States, to be quite honest. But

I think the fight of Bolsonaro is more or less like fight of Biden. And I think — because our voting system, in a way, is fairer than United States,

in my opinion, just to have all of these complications of the college, the electoral college and so on, I think Lula will have a straightforward

victory.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, that’s really interesting because Bolsonaro already is – – I don’t need to tell you, he is out on Twitter, he is saying, we won, we did so much better. They all — you know, all of these left-wing radical

elitist pollsters predicted that I was going to lose by much more. So, he’s obviously rushing ahead with that. But he has also already casts dispersion

and telegraph that he may do a Trump, you know, challenge the election. He’s already talked about fraud and the like and we know that he’s had

American Trumpian advisers who have walked him through the Trump 2020 playbook. Do you expect that kind of political crisis, maybe even violence

if Lula wins?

AMORIM: Well, he may raise questions, yes, as Trump, who is his model actually. Bolsonaro is a little worse than Trump, I think, but he is his

model. He may try to send — to throw doubt about the election and the electoral process but I don’t think this will have any effect. I think

Brazilian institutions are strong enough, the electoral part of — and the eyes of the world. I mean, we are seeing today, we are talking about this,

the eyes of the world are on Brazilian elections. So, I don’t think any of them are trying to disqualify the elections to be successful.

And I think that Lula will win, and be normally inaugurated and I’m quite confident with that. And that will be very important not only for Brazil

but generally speaking, not only because of the policies (ph), inflation, let’s say on the climate change, human rights, Latin-American integration,

relations with Europe and all the countries, as we did in the past.

So, I think — I’m — and for the Brazilian people especially, because you know that Brazil was taken out of the map of (INAUDIBLE) and now, we went

back. So, it’s not only a question of the economy growing, it’s a question also in distributing wealth, the wealth of the economy and tackling the

problem of poverty and inequality, these are the other biggest problems in Brazil together with the problem of the entire world (ph).

AMANPOUR: Right. I’m glad you put all those issues on the table, because that is what matters, and the environment is a key one. I spoke, as you

mention, to President Lula about a year or so ago, and we talked about the environment. And that Bolsonaro, under his rule, I think the slashing in

the burning of the amazon preceded 70 percent faster than before. And this is what Lula told me about how people want the climate and the environment

to be high on the agenda. Here is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, FORMER BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I can reassure you that there’s a lot of people here in Brazil that are

fighting to advocate and defend the rainforest in the Amazon. And that is why we need to call — to reelect or reelect someone that has the mindset

that is different from Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is — makes — is an evil for Brazilian democracy, he’s an evil for the economy, and for democracy, for

education, and for peace. He is an evil in all of these issues.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, Mr. Amorim, you know, here is Lula saying that Bolsonaro is bad and evil on all these major issues. Bolsonaro, as you know, is popular

because of the economy. How would you advise Lula and a new administration to protect the environment, as they say they have to, and be able to jump-

start the economy?

AMORIM: Well, let me say one thing, we believe in sustainable development. We believe the same way that Biden movies in green development. So, I think

it is perfectly possible to — that happened actually during Lula’s government, perfectly perfect possible to develop the country and still

protect the environment and still — we don’t need to burn the Amazon to do that. I think the Amazon is very rich and biodiverse, and we will continue

to have programs as we had in the past, respecting Brazilian sovereignty, of course, but also accepting international cooperation.

We have some cooperation with countries like Norway and Germany based on projects that were developed in Brazil. So, we hope we can have the same

with the United States, and I don’t see any problem. And I think that we can grow, and at the same time, preserve the environment. There is no

contradiction in that.

The important thing is also to be able to ensure that the poor people have access to wealth, actually not even wealth, to have access to food. And

that respect to have protect also small units, more familiar agriculture, which is, by itself and by nature, more respectful of environment and part

of the agribusiness. Not all of the business, part of the agribusiness, which really was responsible — illegal mining, all things like that. Total

disrespect for indigenous population. All of these things will be high in Lula’s (INAUDIBLE).

AMANPOUR: All right. Celso Amorim, thank you so much. Former foreign minister adviser to Lula. Thank you. We will be watching closely.

AMORIM: Thank you very much.

AMANPOUR: Thanks.

AMORIM: OK.

AMANPOUR: And we continue to invite President Bolsonaro on the show to discuss these important issues. But today, we have not heard back.

Now, while the current social and economic crisis in United States seemed complex, our next guest believes that it can be fixed. Marketing professor

Scott Galloway examines the future of this America in his new book, and joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the dangers of a shrinking middle class.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Scott Galloway, thanks again for joining us.

My favorite kind of book, lots of pictures, lots of graphs, lots of charts. This is called “Adrift.” First of all, what’s the title about?

SCOTT GALLOWAY, AUTHOR, “ADRIFT: AMERICA IN 100 CHARTS”: Well, we are not lost, I would as a country, I would argue we are adrift, and that, as we

can see, land I think all of the problems or most of the problems with ALS are fixable and we can see land, it’s just a function of all growing in

unison and getting back to where we have been. So, I thought about the title. I would say we are adrift or a bit unmourn, unmoored, if we will,

but I do not think that we are lost.

SREENIVASAN: You know, you kind of singled out a period in the early ’70s that you think was one of the points where we kind of turned. Why then?

GALLOWAY: There’s entire websites and studies around this. But essentially, wage growth and productivity were inextricably linked and

wound up together pretty closely. And then, something happened in the 1970s where they disarticulated. And since then, over the last five decades, wage

growth has essentially gone flat while productivity is up into the right.

So, in between those two, that delta, you have trillions of dollars in surplus value that’s mostly been captured by shareholders. So, essentially,

in the early ’70s where there was shareholder rights, activism or kind of an embrace of Milton Friedman economics where the shareholder kind of reign

supreme, we have optimized almost everything we do for shareholder value. And there’s some benefit to that, we have the best capital markets in the

world, companies have more access to more capital here. We’ve built amazing companies, but there’s just no getting around it. If minimum wage had kept

pace with productivity, it would be $23 an hour right now.

SREENIVASAN: You know, your economic kind of pieces here isn’t a radical one, it is to say that we have done well, one we have invested in the

middle class. And what has happened to our real middle class versus our perception? I mean, so many people, when you asked them, do you feel middle

class? They say, yes. But when you actually look at what is the middle class versus what is the top and what’s the bottom, what is happening to

the country?

GALLOWAY: So, we have lost several million, maybe like 10 or 20 million people from the middle class as the cohort, as defined by the middle three

quintiles economically. But in contrast, if you look at China, they’ve brought half a billion people into the middle class over the last several

decades, which is arguably one of the biggest feats in mankind. And I think a decent proxy for the power and health of a nation is how robust its

middle class is.

And what you’ve seen in the U.S. is that essentially, I would argue, that we are just optimize for the top 1 percent, for the first time, we have a

regressive tax structure.

What’s interesting about tax structure that’s a bit of an unknown is it’s convenient to say that while the poor and middle class are doing really

poorly, and the rich are doing great, but it is the near rich or the workhorses that have actually been the big losers from a tax standpoint,

and that is take the couple that is making say between $300,000 and $1 million a year. Played by the rules, great college degrees, who works

really hard, super successful, mom is a partner in a law firm, dad is a chiropractor. They are actually playing upwards of 50, 53 percent in taxes

now because they usually have to be in an urban area that’s usually in a blue state to maintain that type of income trajectory. And people don’t

feel sorry for them, but it’s not until you make millions of dollars and then can invest and get the majority of your income from capital gains,

where your tax rate plummets.

So, it’s kind of 98 to 99 percentile are paying the highest tax rate. And once you get above the 99th, it drops. So, we truly do have a regressive

tax system.

SREENIVASAN: One of the charts you have is income growth — or wage growth by income level, there’s a massive gap here in how the rich have seen in

the last 25 or 30 years and how their wages are going up versus everyone else.

GALLOWAY: Yes, I think. So, what I’m trying to do with the book is there’s a lot of known knowns. And I think income inequality gets a lot of

warranted attention. What doesn’t get as much attention is age inequality, and that is people over the age of 75 are 70 percent wealthier than they

were several decades ago, and people under the age of 40 are 22 percent less wealthy.

The percentage of GDP, as evidenced by the wealth, that people under the age of 40 command, has dropped from 19 percent of GDP to 9 percent. And a

lot of people will throw up their arms, and typically, it’s the incumbents or people who are already rich and claim that these are forces beyond our

control, which is just not true. There’s an illusion of complexity here and that is, if you look at the two largest tax deductions in America, capital

gains and mortgage interest, who owns homes and owns stocks, people my age. Who rents and who gets majority of their income from current income and

salary Young people.

Social Security is the largest transfer payment in history of mankind. A trillion after a year, mostly funded by young people, is transferred to the

wealthiest generation in the history of the planet, old people. So, whether it was PPP, the bailout programs, where the majority of money ended up in

the older, wealthier households, whether it’s skyrocketing education, what we have seen is a concerted effort, and we have made these decisions, it is

not network effects, to transfer wealth from young people to older people.

And the result is for the first time in our nation’s history a 30-year-old man or woman isn’t doing as well as his or her parents were at the same

age. And that is really the fundamental compact in any society, and that compact is broken down.

SREENIVASAN: You know, we’ve had previous conversations about your views on higher education and education, and as a society, we feel like investing

in ourselves, giving ourselves that education is a way to have that social mobility. And one of the charts that you point out is how — what you make

with that college degree, it is just the return on investment is poorer and poorer.

GALLOWAY: Yes. So, 40 years ago, one in three jobs needed a college degree, now it’s two and three. And me and my colleagues and academic

institutions all over the nation, we are capitalist, but I think for the most part you could argue that every morning we wake up and ask ourselves

the question, and that is, how do I increase my compensation and reduce my accountability?

And we found the perfect strategy. We’ve embraced this luxury brand positioning where we artificially constraint supply, deans get rewarded,

alumni get very excited when we reject 70, 80, 90 percent of our applicants. And it is part of a larger problem across of America as led by

universities where we’ve entered into this rejectionist, exclusionary nimbus culture. But once I have a degree, I don’t want other people getting

into my alma mater. Once someone has a house, they show up to board meetings or local review boards and make sure that no one else can get a

development approved. And once someone has a tech company that is working, they spent a lot of money on lobbying to try to ensure that there are no

new insurance.

And so, I think we need to go back to — I will call it the ’80s. When I applied to UCLA, the acceptance rate was 76 percent, this year, it will be

6 percent. So, we talk a lot about skyrocketing admissions — or skyrocketing tuition, but what about just plain accessibility? So, if you

just make it harder and harder for people to fine on ramps into the middle class and then, you don’t have the same vocational infrastructure that

Germany has where 50 percent of its citizens have vocational training and it’s less than 5 percent in the U.S., you are creating just fewer and fewer

opportunities.

America used to be about finding unremarkable kids who grew up in single parent households, and giving them unbelievable opportunities. Now, it’s

about trying to identify the top 1 percent by income or by freakishly remarkable achievements and turn them into billionaires. That’s not

American. We need to fall back and level the unremarkable.

SREENIVASAN: So, what happens then if this trend continues and you see — another one of your charts talks about how basically the world is investing

more in R&D than they used to compare to us. I mean, we have enormous number of Nobel laureates in every sort of sector. But how long until

everybody else starts to kind of reap the rewards of putting in that investment?

GALLOWAY: Well, you’re saying it. I mean, we referenced China. China spends per capita, as a percentage of its GDP, 10 times more on

infrastructure. And where you’re seeing these things start to creep up in American life is that we have record levels of depression, we have record

levels of deaths and despair among young people, especially young men. So, we’ve had tremendous prosperity but a lack of progress.

I mean, you know, what’s the point of any of this? We get on the show and we talk about politics and the NASDAQ, but what’s the point of any of this

if our kids are depressed? Where if people aren’t finding partners and mating or finding jobs or attaching to work or school? So, America is

becoming a very prosperous place with a lot of people who are very depressed.

Yes. We’re also enduring a crisis of loneliness. The number of people or the number of high schoolers that see their friends every day has been cut

in half. One in five people say they don’t have a single friend. We’re a social species. And we need to bump off of each other. And the really

unfortunate thing here is if America — if you were to equate our problems to a horror movie, the calls is coming from inside the house.

You could argue that relatively speaking, we’ve never been stronger. We’re food independently, we’re energy independent, we still attract the best and

brightest, but a third of each party sees the other party as the mortal enemy. A quarter of Americans are — would accept an autocrat if it was

their autocrat. 54 percent of Democrats are worried their kids are going to marry Republicans.

And what Americans need to, I think, realize is that they have some of the most successful companies and brightest people who have a profit incentive

to put us against each other, and I think some of those platforms are weaponized by bad actors outside of the United States. And that Americans

will never have better allies than other Americans. We’re not each other’s enemy. Our enemies are pouring over the border in Ukraine.

So, you know, just as I started the book before as a sort of a love letter and it turned out being a cautionary tale, I started this as the glass half

empty. But I think all of these things can be fixed. And I think there’s an illusion of complexity put on us by tech leaders and incumbents and the

people already rich pretending or imagining that these problems are intractable. We can fix absolutely all of this. We faced much bigger issues

than any issues facing us today.

SREENIVASAN: So, how do we start? I mean, let’s kind of attack just the idea of a shared reality and a shared set of facts. And you have several

charts in here about misinformation, and one that was fascinating to me is how fast a lie can spread on Twitter versus the actual truth.

GALLOWAY: I think there’s some basic things we could do. The first is, Americans need more connective tissue again. And the reason why we had so

much great legislation in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s was that our elected leaders had served in the same uniform and saw themselves as Americans well

before they saw themselves as Democrats or Republicans. I believe we should implement some sort of natural service.

Especially for young men who, quite frankly, need to register and probably sit out a year in between high school and college, a chance to meet each

other, a chance to build something American with other people, with other strangers, meet people from different ethnic, demographic and income

backgrounds. I think we need to dramatically expand freshman seats that are great public universities to provide more opportunities. And also, demand

that these universities implement nontraditional one and two-year degrees that fit into our economy, whether it’s cybersecurity or construction.

Recognizing that a lot of kids just don’t want to or not cut out for college.

33 of every thousand workers in Germany and the United Kingdom are called the prenosis (ph). In the U.S. it’s three. So, we need to break out of

this. We have a notion that you failed as a parent if your kid isn’t at MIT or going to work for Google and KKR and start creating many more on ramps

in the middle class and also, just a massive investment in leveling up young people who have seen their wealth dramatically decline at the — kind

of what I’ll call the weaponization of government and tax system by baby boomers.

SREENIVASAN: You also point out in several different ways how our heroes have changed and who we look up to has changed and how they make their

money and what we see as acceptable.

GALLOWAY: I think there’s a basic phenomenon, and that is, as nations become wealthier and more educated, their reliance on a super bing (ph) and

church attendance goes down. But we need new idols. And into that void has stepped in tech innovators. And it’s understandable because technology is

the closest thing we have to mysticism or magic or religion as, you know, we have an iPhone, we don’t understand how it works.

And I would argue that Jesus Christ of our information with Steve Jobs and perhaps Elon Musk, and that is they aggregate incredible wealth, they build

unbelievable things that it’s hard to understand. But the downside is they end up not being held to the same standards as previous leaders or previous

companies.

If you are the wealthiest tax person in the world, Hari, that would mean there’s a one in three chances a year you would be at times person of the

year. So, I think this idolatry of innovators has infected us. And I think the tech community has a terrible virus, and that is they conflate talent

with luck. It’s no accident that Elon Musk didn’t start an EV company in South Africa or begin shooting rockets out of Vancouver. The moment you

leave U.S. borders the likelihood you’re going to be able to establish this type extraordinary wealth or technological traction, diminishes

dramatically.

And yet, these individuals are the ones that are most likely to criticize the government or just say that the government should get out of the way.

So, I find it hardening that are most patriotic citizens or our veterans, because they’ve invested the most and anybody who has kids knows what it’s

like to be invested in someone because of your investment. But the people who are most fortunate, our technology community tend to be the least

patriotic or the least appreciative or sober of their blessings.

SREENIVASAN: So, how we do change our own focus here? It’s kind of both a supply and demand side question, I guess. The people who are creating the

news and information for others to see. How do you change their focus on saying, you need to be paying attention to bigger picture things and not

just the shiny object? And at the same time, how do we change our expectations where, you know, our most pressing question is not who Trevor

Noah is or not dating?

GALLOWAY: Yes, I don’t know. I think it’s difficult to try arbiter or be an arbiter of what people find interesting. What I think you can do though

is say, all right, if you have misinformation on election or vaccine in misinformation, yes, the dissenter voice is important.

What is dangerous about our current media environment is that through technology, the dissenter — the dissenting opinion that creates the most

enragement, gets the most sunlight. So, should you be able to say that the vaccine alters your DNA? I believe, yes. I think one of the hallmarks of a

democratic society is that pretty much anyone can say pretty much anything about pretty much anybody.

But should these companies have a profit incentive to give more sunlight, more circulation, more oxygen to the most enraging things, because as a

species were like a tyrannosaurus rex, were drawn to movement and violence? So, these conspiracy theories would just not organically get this kind of

interest or legitimacy unless they enraged people. And unfortunately, we now have a profit incentive around enragement because enragement equals

engagement.

So, I think certain carveouts to Section 230 around medical information or election misinformation that would make these platforms subject to the same

viability that you and I are subject to when we do a podcast or write a book makes a lot of sense. But in terms of telling people what they should

or shouldn’t be interested in, I think just as parents we need to do a better job of telling the history of the U.S., exposing more people to more

civic workers to stop being so critical of our government.

I believe the U.S. government is the most noble organization in history. And just telling better stories to our children about just how America is

responsible for 50 percent of philanthropy globally. It starts here. The most important product over the last hundred years isn’t their iPhone or

TikTok, it’s the vaccines that have saved 1 to 2 million Americans. And by the way, no one is lining up to get a Chinese or a Russian vaccine.

So, I think it’s incumbent upon us to tell the stories. And I do think we have to do something to ensure that the most incendiary misinformation does

not get unnatural organic reach.

SREENIVASAN: The book is called “Adrift.” Scott Galloway, thank you so much.

GALLOWAY: Thank you, Hari. Good to see you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, a truly towering achievement, the largest human tower competition and, yes, there is such a thing. It happened in

Spain yesterday, with 11,000 spectators packing a stadium in the City of Tarragona.

The towers or castells, as they are known locally, are a key part of Catalonian identity dating back to the 18th century. The event is held

every two years and it sees teams of catellers (ph) climbing and standing on each other’s shoulders, risking the very real danger of the towers

crumbling, as you can see there. Organizers said that 71 people receive medical attention this weekend, 13 of them taken to hospital.

That’s it for now. Remember you can always catch us online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and on our podcast. Thank you for watching. Goodbye

from London.