Does the U.S. Need a “Clean Energy Marshall Plan”? Harris Advisor Says Yes

>> AND NOW, TO THE U.S., WHERE THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO TOP THE POLLS AS A KEY ISSUE FOR VOTERS.

AND KAMALA HARRIS AND DONALD TRUMP'S RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, OUR NEXT GUEST IS ADVISING HARRIS AND HER CAMPAIGN, AND ALSO MAKING THE CASE THAT THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE CAN PAVE THE WAY FOR A NEW ERA OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP.

BRIAN DEESE PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS HEAD OF THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN, AND JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS.

>> THANK YOU, BIANNA.

BRIAN DEESE, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE.

>> YOU JUST WROTE A PIECE IN "FOREIGN AFFAIRS" MAGAZINE, THAT PLACE WHERE FOREIGN POLICY THINKES TRY OUT BIG IDEAS, AND IT'S CALLED "THE CASE FOR A CLEAN ENERGY MARTIAL PLAN."

SOME OF US ROLL OUR EYES WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS A MARTIAL PLAN FOR ENDING POVERTY, A MARTIAL PLAN FOR REBUILDING GAZA -- WHY IS THIS DIFFERENT?

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THE SCALE OF THE OPPORTUNITY, AND THE U.S. STRATEGIC POSITIONING IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.

BUT LET ME START BY JUST REINFORCING YOUR POINT.

I THINK IN GENERAL, MARTIAL PLAN ANALOGIES ARE OVERUSED.

BUT IN THIS CASE, WE'RE FACING A VERY COMPLICATED INTERNATIONAL ORDER TODAY.

A WORLD THAT WAS LARGELY DEFINED BY IMMIGRATION FOR SEVERAL DECADES IS NOW BEING DEFINED BY FRAGMENTATION.

AND THE U.S. IS FACING DIFFICULT QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT IS THAT WE MAINTAIN OUR LEADERSHIP POSITION IN THE WORLD, AND A LOT OF THAT IS COMING DOWN TO WHETHER AND HOW WE CAN SHOW UP AS A GENEROUS AND GENUINE PARTNER, WITH ALLIES AND PARTNERS AROUND THE WORLD IN REGIONS OF THE WORLD WHERE WE NEED TO SHOW UP MORE GENUINELY.

AND WHEN I WENT BACK AND DID SOME HISTORY READING ON THE MARTIAL PLAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS MOST INTERESTING AND OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD IS THAT BOTH MARSHALL AND TRUMAN AT THE TIME WERE MOTIVATED BY TRYING TO ANSWER AN IMPORTANT DOMESTIC QUESTION, WHICH WAS IN THE WAKE OF THE WORLD WAR II MOBILIZATION, HOW DO YOU EXTEND ECONOMIC GAINS THAT HAD BEEN BUILT ACROSS THE COUNTRY?

BUT ALSO DO SO IN A WAY THAT ADVANCED OUR STRATEGIC INTEREST GLOBALLY, AND WERE GENEROUS TO OUR ALLIES?

AND WHAT THEY HAPPENED ON WAS TO HAVE A SYSTEM OF VERY ACTIVE EFFORTS TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE U.S. PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES, PARTICULARLY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.

TO OUR EUROPEAN ALLIES, IN A WAY THAT WAS PRINCIPALLY COMMUNICATED TO THE U.S. PUBLIC AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY.

AND TODAY, I THINK WE ARE SIMILARLY POSITIONED WITH RESPECT TO THE ENERGY TRANSITION WHERE WE ARE SEEING EXTRAORDINARY GROWTH OF U.S. INDUSTRIES TODAY.

EXTRAORDINARY GROWTH IN NEW FRONTIER TECHNOLOGIES, BATTERIES, ADVANCED STORAGE.

AND THE QUESTION IS, HOW CAN WE EXTEND THAT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND DO SO IN A GENEROUS AND GENUINE WAY WITH OUR PARTNERS AND ALLIES?

>> WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS, TOO, FOR THE MARSHALL PLAN, WAS TO STOP THE SPREAD OF RUSSIAN-BACKED COMMUNISM IN EUROPE AND IT WAS FOR STRATEGIC REASONS LIKE THAT.

TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK A PLAN LIKE YOU PROPOSE IS PARTLY THERE TO COUNTER CHINA AND ITS BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVES?

>> LOOK, I THINK WE HAVE TWO VERY HIGH ORDER STRATEGIC CHALLENGES AS A COUNTRY THAT WE NEED A VERY CLEAR ANSWER TO.

THE FIRST IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO ACCELERATE AND CREATE ACCELERATED RISKS TO THE PLANET, BUT ALSO TO OUR SECURITY, THROUGH CONFLICT, MIGRATION, OTHER ISSUES.

THAT'S WHY NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERTS FOR YEARS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFYING THIS AS A SERIOUS THREAT.

BUT ALSO, WE ARE INCREASINGLY IN A PERIOD OF GREAT POWER COMPETITION.

AND SO, THE QUESTION IS, AS WE WORK WITH OUR ALLIES STRATEGICALLY, WHAT COUNTRY IS CAPABLE OF ACTUALLY SHOWING UP IN A GENUINE AND GENEROUS WAY, AND A WAY THAT ACTUALLY CAN SCALE SOLUTIONS THAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE LOOKING FOR?

AND SO, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY PRAGMATIC AND STRATEGIC IN ANSWERS THOUGH QUESTIONS.

>> LET ME READ YOU A COUPLE OF PHRASES FROM YOUR PIECE.

YOU SAID THAT CLIMATE WILL PRESENT THE GREATEST ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND IT WILL BE THE LARGEST CAPITAL FORMATION EVENT IN HUMAN HISTORY.

IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY NOT JUST LET THE MARKET AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR LEAD ON THIS?

>> WELL, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I THINK IT GOES EXACTLY TO THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHICH IS, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT IS NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY ACCELERATE THE ENERGY TRANSITION, IT'S IN MANY CASES WHOLE SCALE TRANSITIONS OF NOT ONLY THE ENERGY SECTOR, HOW WE PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY, BUT ALSO OUR TRANSPORTATION SECTOR.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WHERE WE LIVE, WHERE WE WORK, AND HOW THOSE SYSTEMS OPERATE AND INNER OPERATION.

THAT CREATES ENORMOUS NEED FOR CAPITAL, BUT ALSO OPPORTUNITY TO DEPLOY THAT CAPITAL AT SCALE, AND THAT IS COMPOUNDED WITH THE INTERSECTION OF A.I., AND THE ENORMOUS APPETITE FOR DATA CENTERS AND ASSOCIATED ENERGY NEEDS.

CREATING -- TURNING THAT CHALLENGE INTO AN OPPORTUNITY IS WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE AT THE CORE OF A CLEAN ENERGY MARSHALL PLAN.

BUT THE REASON WHY WE NEED -- WE NEED PUBLIC CAPITAL IN THAT CONTEXT IS BECAUSE THE PRIVATE SECTOR ON ITS OWN WON'T INVEST QUICKLY ENOUGH, OR AT SUFFICIENT SCALE, TO ACTUALLY HIT THE TARGETS WE NEED TO AVOID THE WORST IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

MANY OF THE OPPORTUNITIES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE CLOSE TO COMMERCIALLY VIABLE, AND THEREFORE, YOU COULD USE PUBLIC CAPITAL VERY EFFICIENTLY.

LOANS, LOAN GUARANTEES, OTHER RISK MITIGATION MEASURES THAT CAN FACILITATE MUCH LARGER QUANTUMS OF CAPITAL.

>> HAVING BEEN A TOP ECONOMIC ADVISER FIRST TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND THEN TO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, YOU ARE NOW ADVISING THE KAMALA HARRIS CAMPAIGN.

DOES SHE ENDORSE THIS THING?

>> I'LL LEAVE THE -- HER -- HER VIEWS AND HER ENDORSEMENT ON THIS SEPARATELY.

THIS REFLECTS MY OWN THINKING.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS POTENTIALLY POWERFUL ABOUT ADVANCING CLEAN ENERGY MARSHALL PLAN IS, IT'S ABOUT HARNESSING AND ACCELERATING THE VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE UNITED STATES OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WHICH, OF COURSE, VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS AND PRESIDENT BIDEN HAVE BEEN AT THE CENTER AT, WHICH IS, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN DECADES, WE NOW HAVE, IN THE U.S., A VIABLE INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY WHERE WE'RE PUTTING PUBLIC CAPITAL BEHIND INFRASTRUCTURE, CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEMICONDUCTORS AND MICROELECTRONICS, AND AS A RESULT, WE'RE SEEING A BOOM IN MANUFACTURING, CONSTRUCTION, A BOOM IN INVESTMENT IN SOME OF THESE FRAN TIER TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH POSITIONS THE U.S. FOR THE FIRST TIME TO ACTUALLY PLAY THIS LEADERSHIP ROLE.

>> A LOT OF YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT INFLATION, TALK ABOUT GREED-FLA T GREED-FLATION, OR PRICE GOUGING.

DOES THAT LEAD TO SOMETHING LIKE PRICE CONTROLS?

OR IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO FIGHT THAT?

>> NO, I DON'T THINK IT LEADS TO PRICE CONTROLS, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS HAS BEEN REFERENCING.

>> A LOT OF REPUBLICANS ACCUSING HER OF SAYING SHE WANTS PRICE CONTROLS, SO, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH SAYING NO, SHE'S NOT IN FAVOR OF PRICE CONTROLS?

>> NO, IT'S -- I THINK THAT'S EITHER A MISUNDERSTANDING OR A DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION.

I THINK WHAT SHE HAS SPOKEN ABOUT IS THE NEED TO HAVE RULES IN PLACE SO THAT IN PERIODS OF EMERGENCY OR OTHER PERIODS THAT THERE ARE BASIC CONSUMER PROTECTIONS IN PLACE.

SOME PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE PRICE GOUGING STATUTES AND FRAMEWORKS IN PLACE IN 40 OF THE 50 STATES.

THEY HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN VARIOUS MOMENTS, INCLUDING DURING THE PANDEMIC, TO MAKE SURE THAT AT THOSE MOMENTS, CONSUMERS ARE NOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY -- BY COMPANIES THAT ARE WILLFULLY TRYING TO USE THEIR MARKET POSITION TO RAISE PRICES.

THAT'S A SENSIBLE PART OF OUR REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT, AND THAT'S A SENSIBLE PART OF HOW YOU PROTECT CONSUMERS IN THIS PERIOD.

BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY, NEITHER VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS NOR, I THINK, THE PRESIDENT, HAVE FOCUSED ON THAT TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT POLICIES THAT WOULD HELP TO CONTINUE THE PROGRESS IN LOWERING PRICES.

>> ANOTHER PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN ATTACKED QUITE A BIT BY REPUBLICANS IS THE CONCEPT GENERALLY OF A WEALTH TAX, OF TAXING NOT JUST INCOME, BUT OF WEALTH, AND SOMETIMES UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS BEING TAXED.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT, AND WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE POSITION OF THE DEMOCRATS AT THE MOMENT ON THAT?

>> LOOK, I THINK THAT THE -- THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT, AS WELL, HAVE OPERATED FROM A PRETTY BASIC SET OF PRINCIPLES WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ISSUE.

THE FIRST IS THAT WE NEED TO REFORM THE WAY WE TAX CORPORATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.

TO MAKE SURE THAT CORPORATIONS ARE ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTING A REASONABLE AMOUNT TO OUR TAX BASE.

THE 2017 TAX LAW, THE TRUMP TAX CUT, VERY SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERMINED THAT, BROUGHT THE TOP CORPORATE TAX RATE DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY.

AND ALSO CHANGED THE INTERNATIONAL INCENTIVES IN A WAY THAT IF WE DON'T ACTUALLY WORK GLOBALLY, IT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGES COMPANIES TO SHIP PRODUCTION AND ALSO IP ABROAD AS A WAY OF AVOIDING U.S. TAXES.

SO, WE NEED TO HAVE AN APPROACH THAT BOTH TAXES LARGE CORPORATIONS MORE, BUT ALSO SMARTER, SO THAT WE ARE NOT -- WE'RE DISCOURAGING THAT TYPE OF EFFORT TO MOVE PRODUCTION AND -- >> BUT WHAT ABOUT AN INDIVIDUAL WEALTH TAX OR UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS TAX?

>> YEAH, I THINK THE SECOND CORE PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE VERY WEALTHIEST AMERICANS SHOULD BE PAYING A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF THEIR INCOME IN TAXES, SO THAT WE CAN AVOID THE CURRENT DISPARITY WE HAVE IN OUR TAX SYSTEM, WHERE -- WHERE THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS ACTUALLY END UP PAYING A MUCH LOWER TAX RATE THAN TYPICAL PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS COMING FROM -- FROM WORK AND THEY'RE PAYING THAT ON THEIR W2 EVERY PAY PERIOD.

>> WAIT, EXPLAIN TO ME, WHEN YOU SAY INCOME, DO YOU ALSO MEAN CAPITAL GAINS, UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS?

THE INVESTMENTS PEOPLE HAVE IN EITHER THEIR BUSINESSES OR THEIR HOMES?

>> WELL, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT HAS PROPOSED FOR SOME YEARS THE CONCEPT OF A BILLIONAIRE MINIMUM TAX, WHICH WOULD IMPOSE A MINIMUM TAX RATE ON THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS, THOSE MAKING OVER 100 MILLION -- THOSE WITH OVER $100 MILLION IN WEALTH.

AND WHAT IT WOULD DO IS, IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE SURE THAT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THEY WERE PAYING SOME MINIMUM RATE.

I THINK THAT THAT STRUCTURE, THAT CONCEPT, IS REASONABLE.

AND IS THE KIND OF THING THAT WE NEED TO WORK TOWARD A SOLUTION TO IN THE U.S., BECAUSE THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS NOT ONLY UNFAIR IN THE SENSE THAT THE VERY WEALTHIEST SHOULDN'T BE PAYING AN EFFECTIVE TAX RATE THAT IS MUCH LOWER, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT ALLOWING US TO FUND THE KEY PRIORITIES THAT WE NEED TO AS A COUNTRY, WHETHER IT'S TO MEET OUR NATIONAL SECURITY NEEDS, OR TO PROVIDE MORE SUPPORT AND RELIEF ON CRISIS TO LOWER INCOME FAMILIES.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS BEFORE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS HAS TALKED ABOUT IS WANTING TO PROVIDE MORE TAX RELIEF DIRECTLY TO WORKING FAMILIES, FOLKS WHO ARE MIDDLE INCOME, THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, AN EXPANSION -- A PERMANENT EXPANSION OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT.

THAT IS AN ECONOMICALLY SMART THING TO DO, IT WOULD DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE COST PRESSURES THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE FACING.

AND WE SHOULD FINANCE THAT IN A RESPONSIBLE WAY.

SO, THERE'S A NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF TAX REFORM, IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS THAT WE NEED AS A COUNTRY, AS WELL.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT THESE TAX CUTS, I THINK THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA WHARTON SCHOOL HAS DONE STUDIES, SAID THAT VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS' PLAN WOULD ADD MAYBE $1.2 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, AND, OF COURSE, TRUMP'S, THEY SAY, WOULD ADD $5.8 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

HAVE WE AMERICANS QUIT WORRYING ABOUT THE DEFICIT AS MUCH AS WE SHOULD?

>> WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY -- I KNOW THAT VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS IS QUITE FOCUSED ON IT.

THAT STUDY THAT YOU MENTIONED WAS INCOMPLETE, AND IT LEFT OUT A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS THAT SHE SUPPORTS THAT WOULD ACTUALLY RAISE REVENUE AND SO, IF YOU LOOK AT HER APPROACH AS A WHOLE, HER PLAN WOULD ACTUALLY REDUCE THE DEFICIT, BUT I THINK THE THING THAT IS STRIKING THAT YOU JUST RAISED IS HOW LARGE A GAP THERE IS BETWEEN THE APPROACH THAT THE VICE PRESIDENT IS PUTTING FORWARD, WHICH IS TO INVEST IN MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, TO RAISE TAXES ON CORPORATIONS AND THE VERY WEALTHIEST AMERICANS AND DO SO IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T INCREASE THE DEFICIT, AND WHAT DONALD TRUMP IS PUTTING FORWARD, BECAUSE THE -- THE DEGREE TO WHICH HE IS PREPARED TO EXPAND THE DEFICIT IS BREATHTAKING.

AND UNPRECEDENTED FOR A MODERN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

SOME, YOU KNOW, THAT ANALYSIS FOUND BETWEEN $5 AND $6 TRILLION YOU SOME HAVE IT $7, $8 TRILLION.

I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES ECONOMICALLY IN THIS ELECTION IS THAT APPROACH TO FISCAL DISCIPLINE.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS IN YOUR PIECE IS THE NOTION OF USING TARIFFS VERY STRATEGICALLY.

BACK TO TALKING ABOUT TARIFFS AGAIN.

AND YOU HAD A PLAN IN WHICH YOU WOULD BASE A TARIFF ON THE CARBON CONSUMPTION THAT WAS CAUSED BY WHATEVER PRODUCT THERE MAY BE A TARIFF ON.

EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WOULD WORK.

>> WHEN I THINK ABOUT WHERE WE SHOULD EVOLVE THIS CONVERSATION, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT USING TARIFFS IN A MORE STRATEGIC WAY, AND I THINK THERE'S TWO WAYS TO DO THAT.

ONE IS TO MULTILATERALIZE THAT.

TRY TO WORK WITH PARTNERS AND ALLIES TO HARMONIZE TARIFF RESPONSES, IMPORTANTLY WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT CHINA, SO WE'RE BRINGING TO BEAR A BROADER COALITION TO TRY TO HELP CHANGE CHINA'S BEHAVIOR WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE NONMARKET AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS THEY'RE TAKING, INCLUDING IN TRYING TO BUILD THIS EXCESS CAPACITY.

AND WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THAT EFFORT TO MULTILATERALIZE HAPPEN.

WE'VE SEEN THE EU AND CANADA MOVE TO HARMONIZE THEIR APPROACHES TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES, WITH THE UNITED STATES.

WE'VE SEEN COUNTRIES AS DIVERSE AS BRAZIL AND CHILE AND VIETNAM RAISING CONCERNS DIRECTLY, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT CHINESE STEEL OVERCAPACITY AND DUMPING.

SO, THAT'S ONE PIECE, AND THE SECOND IS, I THINK, WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT REFLECTING THE CARBON CONTENT WHEN WE THINK ABOUT TARIFFS.

THIS IS A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD IDEA, WHICH IS, IF CHINA IS PRODUCING STEEL, FOR EXAMPLE, AND DOING SO IN INCREDIBLY DIRTY AND EMISSIONS-INTENSIVE WAYS, WE SHOULD REFLECT THAT IN THE TARIFF RATES THAT WE'RE IMPOSING ON CHINESE -- CHINESE STEEL.

BECAUSE -- FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE, TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, BUT THE OTHER IS TO ENCOURAGE CHINA TO PURSUE MORE -- LESS ENERGY-INTENSIVE AND MORE EFFICIENT MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

>> YEAH, BUT BOTH PARTIES ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT TARIFFS A LOT MORE THAN THEY DID BEFORE, AND YOU GREW UP, AND I CERTAINLY GREW UP IN AN ERA WHERE FREE TRADE WAS ALMOST A GOSPEL, AND YET, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE PROBLEMS YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT IN YOUR PIECE, PART OF IT IS, WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH MANUFACTURING HERE, WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY FACTORIES IN THE UNITED STATES.

WAS IT A BIT OF A MISTAKE TO HAVE A TARIFF AND FREE TRADE REGIME THAT ALLOWED THE OFFSHORING OF OUR MANUFACTURING CAPACITY AND SHOULD WE RETHINK THE WHOLE NOTION OF HAVING SOME TARIFFS THAT PROTECT OUR OWN MANUFACTURING?

>> WELL, LOOK, I THINK WE ARE -- WE'RE FUNDAMENTALLY RETHINKING THAT IN REAL TIME.

I THINK THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE AS A COUNTRY LOST SIGHT HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY TO INVEST IN SOURCES OF ECONOMIC STRENGTH AND BUILDING OUR OWN CAPACITY DOMESTICALLY.

SO, THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

AND WE'VE MADE A TON OF PROGRESS TO CORRECTING THAT.

WITH HISTORIC INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND CLEAN ENERGY.

THE SECOND IS A MORE CLEAR-EYED RECOGNITION THAT ALLOWING CHINA TO ASCEND INTO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY BY USING A DELIBERATE STRATEGY OF CREATING OVERCAPACITY EXTERNALLY AND ACTUALLY INVEST -- UNDERINVESTING DOMESTICALLY, IS NOT A -- IS NOT BENIGN.

THAT DISTORTS THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.

WE NEED A MORE BALANCED REGIME WHERE WE HAVE DIVERSIFIED SUPPLY CHAINS, AND THAT DOES REQUIRE A STRATEGIC EFFORT TO TRY TO USE TARIFFS, BUT HARMONIZE THEM, IN AREAS THAT ARE STRATEGIC, BUT I THINK THE THIRD POINT THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT IS, WE NEED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE GOAL OF THAT IS A BALANCED REGIME, WHERE WE ARE -- WE ARE TAKING RISK OUT OF SUPPLY CHAINS, AND WE ARE CREATING MORE DIVERSIFICATION.

AND THE GOAL IS NOT SOME VIEW OF THE WORLD IN WHICH WE CAN FUNDAMENTALLY SORT OF RIP APART ECONOMIES AND, FOR EXAMPLE, DECOUPLE CHINA FROM THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.

AND MAINTAINING THAT BALANCE AND GETTING OURSELVES TO A NEW PLACE IS CHALLENGING, BUT I THINK IT IS THE STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE FOR THE COUNTRY, AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO BACK TO A REGIME THAT JUST SORT OF PRESUMES THAT WITH THE REDUCTION OF BARRIERS AND THE REDUCTION OF INVESTMENTS IN OUR OWN CAPACITY, THAT WE WILL END UP IN AN ECONOMICALLY ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME.

I THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING BACK THERE.

>> BRIAN DEESE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS, WALTER.

>>> AND FINALLY, FROM THE PARIS PARALYMPICS, THE STORY OF A RUNNER WHO FAILED TO EARN A MEDAL, BUT STILL WON THE REAL PRIZE.

AFTER LOSING IN A QUALIFYING ROUND FOR THE 100-METER FINALS, ITALY ASKED HIS GIRLFRIEND TO MARRY HIM IN FRONT OF 40,000 FANS.

SHE SAYS HER ONLY THOUGHT WAS, HE'S TOTALLY CRAZY!

BUT SHE SAID YES.

HE LOST HIS LEFT LEG IN 2015 MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT IN WHICH HE ALSO LOST HIS FIRST WIFE.

HE SAYS SPORTS HELPED HIM COME BACK FROM A VERY DARK PERIOD.

>>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WATCHING "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY" ON PBS.

JOIN US AGAIN TOMORROW NIGHT.

>>> "AMANPOUR AND COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE SYLVIA A.

AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS.

MARK J. BLECHNER.

THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION.

SETON J. MELVIN.

THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS.

AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

♪♪♪