YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 經濟學人2026.10.24《封面及社論版Podcast》：歐洲溫和派爆發暴動，沙烏地與阿聯在中東爭霸引戰，AI泡沫與美國國債誰會先掀起市場崩盤？歐洲太空衛星自主困境，加上印尼民粹失靈與川普外交衝擊！

經濟學人2026.10.24《封面及社論版Podcast》：歐洲溫和派爆發暴動，沙烏地與阿聯在中東爭霸引戰，AI泡沫與美國國債誰會先掀起市場崩盤？歐洲太空衛星自主困境，加上印尼民粹失靈與川普外交衝擊！ — Transcript

by 海格讀書會(每周更新)專注財經及經濟學人分享 · 14,275 words · 2,494 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Welcome to the Hai Book Club Podcast.
0:02Today, we are sharing seven brilliant
0:04articles from The Economist's upcoming
0:06October 24th issue, covering the cover
0:08story, editorial, and international
0:11sections.
0:11>> That’s right, today’s content is
0:13truly fascinating. Just imagine: a dry
0:15cleaner in Mumbai, India, is making
0:18money using AI, while at the same time,
0:20the French government is on the brink
0:22of bankruptcy, and U.S. foreign policy
0:25is swinging around like a wrecking ball
0:27. These seemingly disparate events are
0:30actually driven by the same massive
0:32shifts in the global landscape.
0:34>> Exactly, so today we will help you
0:36understand this new world order that is
0:38reshaping both your life and mine. To
0:40give you a clear overview, I will first
0:42read out the titles of the seven
0:44articles in this issue. One: The agony
0:47of liberal Europe; Two: Saudi Arabia
0:49and the UAE are spreading chaos. Three:
0:52AI or public debt could crash the
0:54market, but unlikely both at once; Four
0:57: Europe must stop relying on American
0:59satellites; Five: Indonesia's populist
1:02president is losing his charm; Six: The
1:05surprising popularity of AI; Seven:
1:07Trump's foreign policy is a mess.
1:09>> Hmm, the scope of these seven articles
1:11is truly vast.
1:12>> It really is. If you want to find a
1:14specific article quickly, there are
1:16timestamps in the description box below
1:18, making it easy to jump to the content
1:19you want. We hope you like this
1:21arrangement.
1:22>> Let’s get started. Next, let’s move
1:24on to the first article, which is also
1:26this issue's cover story: The Agony of
1:28Liberal Europe.
1:29>> Hmm, the perspective of this article is
1:31truly stunning.
1:32>> Yes, if you have seen the news in the
1:34last few days, the scenes on the
1:36streets of Europe are simply hard to
1:38believe. France, Belgium, Italy, and
1:40Portugal have all erupted in extremely
1:42serious protests.
1:43>> That’s right, especially in France.
1:45>> We really are seeing masked rioters
1:47inciting exceptionally violent
1:48incidents on the streets; the
1:50destructive power is unprecedented.
1:52This reminds me of the British
1:53journalist George Dangerfield, who
1:55wrote that famous thesis before World
1:57War I.
1:57>> Oh, you mean that book, *The Strange
1:59Death of Liberal England*?
2:00>> Yes, that’s the one. He described how
2:02the public felt immense anger over
2:04falling wages and parliamentary
2:05incompetence, where the whole of
2:07society was a battle between reason and
2:08instinct. The author of this article
2:10applying that historical metaphor
2:12directly to today’s Europe is truly
2:14sharp.
2:14>> It is indeed very fitting. After all,
2:17we are living in 2026, and the European
2:19public is clearly feeling extremely,
2:21extremely angry about soaring prices,
2:23economic dysfunction, and those
2:24centrist politicians who seem to be
2:26doing nothing at all.
2:27>> What is most compelling here is that
2:29the author points out this is no longer
2:31the kind of protest we are used to,
2:33simply over a single policy or a piece
2:35of legislation.
2:36>> It’s not just about opposing some tax
2:37or something similar.
2:38>> Exactly, this is an existential crisis
2:41directed at the very concept of
2:42centrist politics. Just think about it:
2:44for the past decade or so, centrist
2:46leaders have been seen as the
2:47embodiment of rationality, promising to
2:49govern the country with that kind of
2:51mild, professional technocratic
2:53approach.
2:53>> Sounds very steady.
2:54>> But now, the state apparatus is failing
2:57on many fundamental levels. This
2:58article analyzes that these centrists,
3:00once seen as a stabilizing force, are
3:02now paying a very heavy price for this
3:04governance failure; the public's anger
3:06is directed at the incompetence of the
3:08entire system. Alright, let’s break
3:09down the roots of this anger, because
3:11there is currently a very mainstream
3:13and intense narrative spreading through
3:14the market, or rather, the political
3:16sphere.
3:16>> Mhm, that narrative about immigration.
3:19>> Right, as an analyst, I have to play
3:21devil's advocate for a moment.
3:22Objectively speaking, immigration to
3:24Europe has indeed increased
3:25significantly over the past decade. And
3:27we see the current U.S. President,
3:29Donald Trump, and the MAGA-right camp,
3:31like Elon Musk, constantly blaming the
3:33current turmoil in Europe on open
3:35borders. They say it’s caused by the
3:37influx of a large number of Muslim
3:39immigrants from Afghanistan, Algeria,
3:41and Syria.
3:41>> That’s right, the article mentions
3:43they even use apocalyptic terms like "
3:45civilizational erasure" to describe it.
3:47And this isn't just a tactic used by
3:49the American right wing, either.
3:51>> Even Europe’s own leaders are saying
3:52the same thing.
3:53>> Yes, even German Chancellor Friedrich
3:55Merz and Hungarian Prime Minister
3:57Péter Magyar have both publicly blamed
4:00the unrest this week on high
4:01immigration rates. To the general
4:03public, connecting these dots seems
4:05logical, but why does the author of
4:07this article strongly argue that this
4:10is a completely wrong diagnosis?
4:12>> Actually, this is the most critical
4:13point of the article; the author uses
4:15data and facts on the ground to point
4:17out that blaming this unrest entirely
4:19on immigration is either out of
4:20political cowardice or a narrative
4:22purely crafted for self-serving
4:24electoral interests.
4:25>> Just for the votes, then. Exactly.
4:27Let’s take a closer look at the
4:28actual situation on the streets of
4:29France this weekend; according to
4:30statistics, the number of people
4:31participating in demonstrations across
4:33France this weekend reached 5 million,
4:34which is a truly staggering number.
4:35>> 5 million people, wow.
4:37>> And in the core protest area alone,
4:39about 500,000 people gathered. This
4:40article highlights that the vast
4:42majority of these 500,000 people were
4:43white, and they were not wearing masks.
4:45>> In other words, if this were a "clash
4:46of civilizations" as the far-right
4:48claims, the face of the crowd should
4:49not look like that at all. Exactly. So
4:51there is a massive discrepancy between
4:53the composition of the crowd on screen
4:54and the narrative pushed by politicians
4:56.
4:56>> So what is the core driving force
4:58behind these 500,000 people taking to
5:00the streets? It's very realistic issues
5:02like the cost of living and poor public
5:03services.
5:04>> It's just a matter of money and
5:05survival.
5:06>> Yes, what they are demanding is more
5:08fuel subsidies, increased spending on
5:10the education system, and better social
5:12welfare. The author further analyzed
5:15their political leanings and found that
5:17the largest group among them actually
5:19supports the left-wing populist
5:20Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
5:22>> Oh, Mélenchon's platform is actually
5:24more like Bernie Sanders 'in the United
5:26States.
5:27>> That's right; he advocates for wealth
5:29redistribution, not some kind of
5:31Islamic extremism. Therefore, the
5:33author believes that shoehorning the
5:35economic anxiety of these hundreds of
5:36thousands of people into a framework of
5:38"civil war sparked by immigrants" not
5:40only blurs the focus but also covers up
5:42the government's total failure in
5:43economic governance.
5:44>> Now, here is the really interesting
5:46part. If these 500,000 people are just
5:48ordinary folks who took to the streets
5:50for the sake of their families'
5:51livelihoods and out of economic anxiety
5:53, then this creates a huge
5:54contradiction. How so?
5:56>> We did see extreme violence on screen,
5:58didn't we? People smashing luxury
6:00boutiques like Louis Vuitton at night,
6:02burning police cars, and even acts of
6:04looting.
6:05>> Yeah, the scenes are really chaotic.
6:07>> If this isn't an "immigrant riot" as
6:08the far-right claims, then how does
6:10this article explain who the real
6:11mastermind behind this violence is?
6:13>> Actually, the article makes a very
6:15crucial distinction here. The author
6:17points out that the real violence is
6:19actually instigated and orchestrated by
6:21anarchists with a revolutionary
6:23political agenda. Anarchists? So they
6:25hijacked this protest?
6:27>> Yes, these rioters hijacked what was
6:29originally a peaceful economic protest.
6:31Their goals were very clear and carried
6:33a sense of nihilism; they not only
6:35attacked public buildings and police
6:37cars representing the state apparatus
6:39but also looted high-end boutiques.
6:41>> Like they were just looking to cash in
6:42on the chaos.
6:43>> And what is most ironic and directly
6:45shatters the right-wing narrative is
6:47that they even attacked small shops run
6:49by immigrants. Wait, they went to smash
6:51shops opened by immigrants? That is
6:53extremely counter-intuitive.
6:55>> If this were a riot started by
6:56immigrants, why would they go and smash
6:58the shops run by their own community?
7:00>> Exactly, that doesn't make any sense at
7:02all. The article even cites a very
7:04specific case that directly debunks the
7:06myth to support this.
7:07>> What case?
7:08>> In Limoges, in south-central France, a
7:10historic 19 th-century town hall was
7:12burned down by arson. Police
7:14subsequently arrested a suspect, and
7:16guess what?
7:17>> Don't tell me it was a white person. It
7:19turns out the suspect wasn't a refugee
7:21or an illegal immigrant as the
7:23far-right narrative suggests, but a
7:25white French citizen in his 30s.
7:27>> Wow, that completely shatters the myth
7:29that equates street violence directly
7:31with immigrant crime.
7:33>> Completely shattered.
7:34>> But this brings up another question: if
7:37these violent agitators are just a
7:38small group of anarchists, why couldn't
7:41the French police effectively control
7:43the situation? Has the country's entire
7:45security system failed?
7:47>> The author has a very deep observation
7:49on this; it has a lot to do with the
7:51current psychological state and
7:52situation of the French police. The
7:54article points out that the police were
7:56previously harshly criticized for
7:58excessive use of force when dealing
8:00with student protests.
8:01>> They faced a massive PR crisis.
8:03>> Yes, and the pressure of constant legal
8:05investigations. This led them to appear
8:07very hesitant and indecisive when
8:08maintaining order this time.
8:09>> Afraid of being roasted again, right?
8:11>> Exactly, they were afraid of triggering
8:13accusations of police brutality once
8:15more. As a result, this tactical
8:16retreat gave the anarchists an opening,
8:18ultimately leading to a complete loss
8:20of control over the streets.
8:22>> So what does all of this mean? As
8:24financial analysts, we must turn our
8:26attention to the macroeconomic aspect
8:28behind this, which is also a key point
8:29the article spends a lot of space
8:31discussing.
8:32>> Yes, the economy is the core issue.
8:34>> I recall when the Yellow Vest movement
8:36erupted in 2018-2019, French President
8:39Emmanuel Macron's response was to
8:41immediately pull out tens of billions
8:43of euros to appease the public.
8:45>> Right, increasing subsidies, raising
8:47the minimum wage, and so on.
8:49>> At that time, the French government was
8:51like having a credit card with a high
8:53limit; when a social crisis occurred,
8:54they would swipe the card, hand out the
8:56money, and the problem was temporarily
8:58solved. But looking at the data in this
9:00article, the government's current
9:02fiscal situation is as if the credit
9:04card has been completely maxed out.
9:06Facing the tangible economic demands of
9:08500,000 people, the centrist government
9:10seems to be out of options.
9:12>> That credit card analogy is truly spot
9:14on. If we connect this to the broader
9:15context, the author points out that
9:17France is now facing a fiscal dead end
9:19that is almost unsolvable.
9:21>> How so?
9:21>> First, there is a problem on the
9:23revenue side, which is the stagnation
9:25of economic growth. Under Macron’s
9:26recent governance, France’s annual
9:28economic growth rate has been just
9:30slightly above 1%.
9:31>> One percent—that’s really low.
9:33>> Exactly. Without a strong growth engine
9:36, the government simply lacks the extra
9:38tax revenue to address social crises.
9:40>> What about the expenditure side, then?
9:42Can't they at least try to cut spending
9:44to pay off the debt?
9:45>> That is exactly the most fatal point.
9:48This autumn, France faced a massive
9:50budget gridlock crisis. Do you know how
9:53much spending they could actually cut
9:55after countless painful political
9:56compromises in their budget proposal?
9:59>> How much?
10:00>> A measly cut of just 0.4 percentage
10:02points, meaning France’s fiscal
10:05deficit will remain at a dangerous 5%of
10:07GDP.
10:08>> Wait a second—5%deficit during
10:10peacetime, with no pandemic and no
10:12major war. That’s a completely
10:14unsustainable figure, right?
10:16>> Completely unsustainable. With a
10:18deficit that high, they could only
10:20squeeze out a 0.4 percentage point cut.
10:22What on earth is wrong with the
10:24mechanisms behind this, and why can’t
10:26they cut more?
10:26>> Because it’s a minority government.
10:28Under the current French political
10:30landscape, the parliament is in a state
10:31of extreme, fractured deadlock.
10:33>> In other words, nothing they do is
10:35right.
10:35>> Yes, any bill attempting to
10:36significantly cut pensions or public
10:38services would be immediately blocked
10:40in parliament by both the left and
10:41right, who might even join forces. And
10:43if they really slashed welfare with a
10:45heavy hand, there wouldn't just be
10:46500,000 people on the streets tomorrow.
10:48>> It could be 2 million.
10:50>> Exactly, so they are stuck in total
10:52paralysis.
10:53>> Even more seriously, to use your credit
10:55card analogy, the issuing bank—the
10:57bond market—has lost its patience.
11:00>> Yes, the bond market is the most
11:01cold-blooded machine for testing a
11:03nation's fiscal credibility. So, how
11:05did the market react to this 0.4
11:07percentage point cut?
11:08>> The market's reaction was merciless.
11:10The article points out that the market
11:12has completely lost faith in the
11:13ability of French politicians to solve
11:15the debt problem.
11:16>> Capital is starting to flee.
11:17>> Yes, this has caused the yield spread
11:19between French and German government
11:21bonds to skyrocket to its highest level
11:23since the Eurozone debt crisis.
11:24>> To make this concept clearer for
11:26everyone, what is the actual blow to
11:28the French government from this
11:29widening spread?
11:30>> Simply put, German bonds have always
11:32been seen as Europe’s safest haven.
11:34When the spread between France and
11:36Germany widens, it means investors see
11:38lending to France as increasingly risky
11:40. So they demand a higher risk premium.
11:42>> That’s right—they demand the French
11:44government pay higher interest as
11:46compensation, meaning every dollar
11:47France borrows in the future, or rolls
11:49over old debt, will cost much more in
11:51interest than before.
11:52>> Wow, that’s just adding insult to
11:54injury.
11:55>> Yes, these massive interest payments
11:56will further squeeze the funds they
11:58originally could have used for social
12:00welfare, education, or infrastructure.
12:02This is truly a suffocating vicious
12:04cycle. With economic growth at only 1%
12:06and a deficit at 5%of GDP that just
12:07won't come down, the bond market sees
12:09the red flags and immediately hikes
12:11your borrowing costs.
12:12>> It really is miserable.
12:13>> The result is that the government has
12:15even less money to appease the crowds
12:16in the streets who are angry over the
12:18soaring cost of living. This article
12:19points out that such economic
12:21helplessness will inevitably translate
12:23directly into a political collapse.
12:24>> That is certain. Data shows that up to
12:2680%of French people feel pessimistic
12:28about the future, especially regarding
12:29economic prospects, and this sense of
12:31despair toward centrists is not just
12:33fermenting in France; it's practically
12:34a contagion across all of Europe.
12:36>> Exactly. The article spends a good
12:38amount of space examining the situation
12:39in other European countries and finds
12:41that this is a universal phenomenon.
12:42>> For instance?
12:43>> For example, Spain's center-left Prime
12:45Minister Pedro Sánchez; current polls
12:47show it's highly likely he will be
12:49replaced in next month's election by a
12:52coalition of the center-right and
12:53populists. The rise of the right again.
12:56>> Looking at Germany, Chancellor Scholz's
12:58approval ratings are at rock bottom,
12:59and facing Alice Weidel, who leads the
13:01far-right Alternative for Germany, he
13:03seems unable to find any effective
13:05economic argument to counter her.
13:06>> So he just resorts to hyping up
13:08anti-immigrant rhetoric.
13:09>> Yes, trying to win back votes. Even in
13:12Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni,
13:13who originally took a far-right path
13:15but shifted toward the center after
13:17taking office, is now facing a crisis
13:19of being outflanked from the right by
13:21even more extremist forces. In other
13:23words, as long as you stand in the
13:25center, whether you are center-left or
13:27center-right, you are now the target of
13:29voter anger.
13:29>> That's right.
13:31>> But this article mentions that this
13:33intense political contrast is most
13:34dramatic and destructive in France,
13:36right?
13:37>> Indeed, that is the case. This is also
13:39what the author considers the most
13:41alarming development. When riots break
13:42out in the streets, and even when the
13:44myth that immigrants are the culprits
13:46—which the article considers
13:47completely false—spreads wildly on
13:49social media, it deals a heavy blow to
13:51the centrist government. But for the
13:53far-right, it's a huge boost.
13:55>> Yes, for the populist Marine Le Pen,
13:57it's essentially a massive political
13:59ATM. Recent polls clearly show that
14:01this week's street violence has
14:03significantly boosted Le Pen's support
14:05rate.
14:06>> Actually, the article mentions a highly
14:08symbolic contrasting scene that I found
14:10very striking.
14:10>> Yes, the author vividly depicts this
14:12scene: while France was engulfed in
14:14flames, violence was escalating, and
14:16the public was feeling extreme panic
14:18over law and order, current President
14:20Macron was flying to the Persian Gulf
14:22for diplomatic visits.
14:23>> The president is not at home.
14:24>> Right, and meanwhile, Le Pen stayed in
14:26the country and seized the opportunity
14:28to deliver a speech that was very
14:30presidential.
14:31>> What did she say?
14:31>> She didn't spout extreme rhetoric like
14:33in the past; instead, she calmly called
14:35for the restoration of public order and
14:37strongly condemned the violence.
14:38>> Just imagine that scene. On one side,
14:40the incumbent president is abroad,
14:42seemingly distant from the chaos at
14:44home; on the other, the far-right
14:46leader is calling for law and order,
14:48projecting a sense of stability.
14:49>> That has a huge psychological impact on
14:51voters.
14:52>> Exactly, Le Pen has successfully
14:53usurped the mantle of the defender of
14:55order, which usually belongs to the
14:57centrists.
14:57>> Exactly right. This role reversal has
15:00helped Le Pen build a reliable image in
15:02the minds of voters. That will have a
15:05huge impact on the upcoming election,
15:06right?
15:07>> A massive one. This puts her in an
15:09extremely favorable lead for the French
15:12presidential election in May 2027;
15:14it’s no longer just a protest—
15:15it’s a real threat to the government.
15:18This forces us to broaden our
15:20perspective and consider a deeper
15:22question. As financial analysts,
15:24investors, or observers of global
15:26markets, why must we pay such close
15:28attention to the political turmoil
15:30happening within European countries?
15:32>> That brings us to a key question.
15:34>> Because it sounds like an internal
15:36matter for France or Germany. But we
15:38all know that in today's globalized
15:40world, markets are never isolated.
15:42It’s really not just a domestic
15:44affair. We are witnessing a clear chain
15:46reaction of disasters. The author
15:47describes it as a chronicle of a death
15:49foretold, which will affect the global
15:51stage through four dominoes.
15:52>> What is the first domino?
15:53>> The first domino is domestic politics.
15:55If European countries fall into
15:57persistent internal conflict and
15:58economic stagnation, the moderate
16:00centrists will inevitably lose power.
16:01>> Then the second domino will fall onto
16:03the EU itself. Correct. The second
16:05domino is the EU structure. Just think,
16:07if far-right or populist groups take
16:09power in major countries like France
16:11and Germany, the entire EU
16:12decision-making mechanism will be
16:14paralyzed.
16:14>> Because they are inherently anti-EU.
16:16>> Yes, these extremist factions are
16:18fundamentally opposed to supranational
16:20integration. They prioritize their own
16:21nations above all else. While other
16:23parts of the world, like the U.S. and
16:25Asia, are rapidly advancing in tech and
16:27the economy, Europe will be left
16:28completely behind due to internal
16:30strife.
16:30>> And the most direct impact on us as
16:32investors will be the third domino. The
16:34third card is the financial market. As
16:36we discussed regarding bond spreads, if
16:38the bond markets of core EU nations
16:39collapse due to political paralysis and
16:41an inability to push through fiscal
16:43reforms, the risk of such sovereign
16:45debt will spread rapidly.
16:46>> That wouldn't just be Europe's problem.
16:48>> Right, it's not just a European
16:49financial contagion; it would spread to
16:51global markets and trigger a liquidity
16:53crisis.
16:54>> And then there's the final, and most
16:56lethal, geopolitical card. Yes, if a
16:58paralyzed EU controlled by extremism
17:00begins to take a compromising, or even
17:02indulgent, stance toward Vladimir Putin
17:04of Russia,
17:05>> Because many far-right parties have had
17:06decent relationships with Russia in the
17:08past.
17:08>> Exactly, this would completely shatter
17:10the current strategic balance. The
17:12author warns that this would only make
17:13Putin even more aggressive.
17:15>> Wow.
17:16>> When Dangerfield wrote that book about
17:18the death of liberal England, most
17:19people of that era were oblivious to
17:21the impending catastrophe of World War
17:23I; they were sleepwalking toward the
17:25cliff.
17:26>> But the situation is different now.
17:27This article poignantly points out that
17:29today's liberal leaders, watching the
17:31street protests and the soaring bond
17:33spreads, no longer have any excuse to
17:34claim they don't see the crisis
17:36unfolding before them. That really is a
17:38chilling summary. The strange death of
17:41liberal England happened unknowingly,
17:43but this current ordeal of liberal
17:45Europe is unfolding with everyone's
17:47eyes wide open, stepping toward the
17:49edge—from the 500,000-person protests
17:52and the ashes of 19 th-century town
17:54halls to the runaway bond yields and
17:56that helpless 0.4 percent deficit
17:58reduction. Perhaps the greatest irony
18:00is that, to prevent extremism from
18:02taking power, European centrists are
18:04desperately trying to maintain the
18:06status quo and fiscal order; yet, this
18:08desperate grip on the status quo and
18:10economic incompetence have created the
18:12perfect breeding ground for the
18:13inevitable rise of extremists. They are
18:15trying to save the system by freezing
18:17it, but in doing so, they have made the
18:19entire system incredibly fragile—
18:21ready to shatter at the slightest touch
18:22.
18:23>> That covers the entire content of this
18:25article. Next, let's move on to the
18:27second article: Saudi Arabia and the
18:29United Arab Emirates are spreading
18:31chaos. You can imagine this scene: what
18:35if you woke up and found your house
18:37surrounded by a raging forest fire?
18:41>> You'd definitely rush to put it out.
18:42Exactly, a normal person's instinctive
18:44reaction would be to quickly hook up a
18:46hose and spray water desperately around
18:48their home, right? But we are now
18:50seeing that Saudi Arabia and the United
18:53Arab Emirates, these two major Middle
18:55Eastern powers, are instead turning
18:57around, picking up lit matches, and
18:59throwing them directly into their
19:00neighbors 'yards.
19:01>> Wow, that is a truly vivid metaphor.
19:04Exactly, today we want to break down
19:06why these two countries, previously
19:08seen as the so-called "anchors" of the
19:10Middle East, are now behaving in such a
19:12completely illogical manner. If you
19:14open the map, the direct threats they
19:16are currently facing are truly right at
19:18their doorstep.
19:19>> They are indeed surrounded by a sea of
19:21fire. That's right. On one hand, a
19:24hostile Iran has tightly gripped the
19:26Strait of Hormuz, the lifeline for most
19:28commercial activity and energy
19:30transport; and on the other, in Yemen,
19:33Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are
19:34constantly launching missiles at Saudi
19:37airports and oil pipelines.
19:39>> They are even threatening another
19:40critical waterway, the Bab al-Mandab
19:42Strait.
19:42>> Yes, this doesn't just disrupt regional
19:44traffic, it directly threatens global
19:46shipping—which is to say, they are
19:48truly beset by enemies on all sides.
19:49Actually, your metaphor of the fire
19:51perfectly pinpoints the core
19:53contradiction of this article. Facing
19:54such a massive existential crisis, any
19:56rational strategist would expect these
19:58two Gulf powers to focus all resources
20:00on dealing with the threats at their
20:02own doorsteps first.
20:03>> Strengthening their own defenses, right
20:05?
20:05>> Exactly, but the reality is the
20:06complete opposite. Not only have they
20:08not reined things in, they have chosen
20:10to light fires in even more distant
20:11foreign lands, even getting deeply
20:13involved in some of the world's most
20:15brutal civil wars. Why on earth would
20:16they do this? It's so counterintuitive.
20:19To understand this seemingly insane
20:20behavior, we must first grasp the
20:22underlying logic of geopolitics in this
20:24current year of 2026. Under the
20:26leadership of current U.S. President
20:28Donald Trump, American foreign policy
20:29has become very clear.
20:31>> Meaning the role of the United States
20:32has changed.
20:33>> Yes, for the past few decades,
20:34countries have always treated the U.S.
20:37as their most reliable, unconditional
20:39security bodyguard. But that era has
20:41come to an end. Amidst this anxiety
20:42over losing absolute security
20:44guarantees, Saudi Arabia and the UAE
20:46have fallen into a panic; they feel
20:48they must rush to build their own
20:49alliance networks within and outside
20:51the region to ensure their survival.
20:53Wait, building one's own alliance
20:55network—that sounds strategically
20:56quite reasonable. Since the bodyguard
20:58has quit, it should be fine to make a
21:00few more friends on my own, right? Why
21:01would this evolve into the spreading of
21:03chaos that you mentioned in the article
21:04? Are they not looking for allies
21:06abroad, but rather looking for trouble
21:08for each other?
21:08>> That is where the absurdity of the
21:10whole situation lies. They are indeed
21:12expanding their influence abroad, but
21:14if you observe closely, you will find
21:16this is by no means a well-thought-out
21:18strategy.
21:18>> Then what is it?
21:19>> To put it bluntly, it is more like an
21:22extremely impulsive, deeply personal
21:24power struggle between the two leaders:
21:27Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
21:29and UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed.
21:31>> It’s just a battle of egos between
21:33two alpha males.
21:34>> Exactly, they are all competing to see
21:36who will be the undisputed hegemon of
21:38the Middle East in the post-US era.
21:40Vying for foreign investment, regional
21:42influence, and even control over ports.
21:44And this individual competition is
21:46having devastating consequences for
21:48other fragile nations. Speaking of
21:50devastating consequences, the article's
21:52mention of the civil war in Sudan is
21:54truly chilling; Sudan is practically a
21:56living hell right now.
21:57>> The situation is extremely tragic.
21:59>> An armed group called the Rapid Support
22:02Forces, or RSF, is fighting against the
22:04Sudanese regular army; you have to
22:06understand this isn't just a typical
22:08military clash, as this RSF is
22:09committing genocide and mass rape on
22:11the ground.
22:12>> Their methods are incredibly brutal,
22:14and what's even more appalling is that
22:16they specifically hunt down local
22:18doctors. Why? Because when doctors
22:20treat the wounded, they see the
22:21horrific evidence and can testify to
22:23their war crimes, so they just kill the
22:25doctors to silence them.
22:27>> That's right, and this is exactly where
22:29the intervention of the Gulf states
22:30makes things incredibly absurd and
22:32bloody. In this inhumane battlefield,
22:34the UAE is actually backing the brutal
22:37RSF by providing them with weapons.
22:39>> Wow, supporting a force like that. Of
22:41course, the UAE officially denies it,
22:43but evidence held by the international
22:45community shows they are indeed
22:47involved, while on the other side,
22:49Saudi Arabia, in order to prevent UAE
22:51dominance, has chosen to support the
22:52relatively less brutal Sudanese regular
22:55army.
22:55>> It essentially amounts to a proxy war.
22:57Just imagine, these two wealthiest
22:59nations in the world are pouring vast
23:01amounts of money and advanced weaponry
23:03into the hands of sides that have
23:04already spiraled out of control. This
23:06not only makes the conflict deadlier
23:08but also makes it nearly impossible to
23:10end the war through negotiations,
23:12because both sides have endless
23:13resources backing them.
23:15>> The cost of using other countries as
23:17their own personal battlegrounds is
23:18simply too high, and this destructive
23:20power doesn't stop at Sudan; if we
23:22shift our perspective back to their own
23:24backyard, Yemen and the Red Sea region,
23:26this domino effect of sabotaging each
23:28other is even more obvious.
23:29>> It is very obvious indeed.
23:31>> In Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were
23:33originally supposed to stand on a
23:34unified front to jointly counter the
23:36Iranian-backed Houthi militant group.
23:38Instead, the two countries had a
23:40falling out over the struggle for
23:41control in southern Yemen, which
23:43ultimately led the UAE to just pack up
23:44and withdraw their troops. This is a
23:46strategic backfire; the UAE's
23:48withdrawal created a massive power
23:50vacuum in Yemen, and who happily filled
23:53that vacuum? The very same Houthi group
23:56that keeps them up at night.
23:58>> This is basically handing the territory
24:00over to the enemy.
24:01>> And their ambitions continue to spread,
24:03as they court different local factions
24:05along the Red Sea coast to vie for
24:07control of key ports in the Horn of
24:09Africa. This reckless intervention
24:11could now even further deteriorate the
24:13already tense situation between
24:15Ethiopia and Eritrea.
24:17>> These two countries are already on the
24:18brink of war.
24:19>> Exactly, this kind of brinkmanship
24:21could push tens of millions of people
24:23into another catastrophic war at any
24:25moment.
24:25>> This sounds like completely reckless
24:27gambling, but let’s return to the
24:29most realistic question: won’t these
24:31actions eventually backfire on them?
24:32There is one part of the article that I
24:34found truly shocking. Which part?
24:36>> It’s the war in Sudan and Yemen,
24:38which has already claimed hundreds of
24:40thousands of lives, displaced nearly 20
24:42million people, and pushed millions to
24:44the brink of famine. What possible
24:46tangible benefit does creating such a
24:48disaster hold for Saudi Arabia and the
24:50UAE?
24:50>> The answer is simple: none at all. This
24:53is completely shooting themselves in
24:55the foot. This inflammatory diplomatic
24:57adventurism is eroding the very
24:59foundation of their own survival. How
25:01so?
25:02>> First, the ongoing chaos on both sides
25:04of the Red Sea directly threatens the
25:06trade routes they depend on; you can't
25:08dream of becoming a global commercial
25:10hub while turning your own doorstep
25:12into a war zone.
25:13>> That logic makes absolutely no sense.
25:16>> Furthermore, we can look at an
25:17incredibly absurd blind spot in the
25:19UAE's strategy. The UAE has had a grand
25:22plan for years to control Sudan's
25:24fertile farmland through investment and
25:26turn Sudan into their national
25:28breadbasket. To solve the food security
25:30issues of their desert nation.
25:32>> Right, but look at what they are doing
25:34now. They are supporting the RSF
25:36militants who are currently
25:37slaughtering farmers and burning fields
25:39across Sudan. As long as these people
25:41are destroying farmland, the UAE’s
25:43food security dream will never be
25:45realized.
25:46>> It’s true; you can’t pay
25:47mercenaries to burn fields while
25:49expecting that land to grow wheat for
25:51you next year—it's madness. So, in
25:52the face of this out-of-control
25:54situation, the article finally offers a
25:56solution.
25:56>> The only, yet most difficult, solution.
25:58Yes, the solution sounds simple, but it
26:00requires a massive political awakening.
26:02>> Saudi Arabia and the UAE must
26:04immediately stop supporting the warring
26:06parties in Sudan; specifically, the UAE
26:08must cut off arms support to the RSF
26:09and substantially push for a ceasefire.
26:11>> It’s the same for Yemen.
26:13>> Exactly. In Yemen, they must set aside
26:15their personal pride and competition to
26:17cooperate once again against the
26:18Houthis. If they don't, this fire will
26:20sooner or later burn into their own
26:22oases.
26:23>> It absolutely will. Actually, the
26:25geopolitical chaos in the Middle East
26:27and the Red Sea isn't just some distant
26:29international news. Think about it:
26:31when Red Sea shipping is disrupted by
26:33Houthi militants, global supply chains
26:35break, and the resulting surge in
26:36transport costs directly fuels global
26:38inflation.
26:39>> That creates a chain reaction.
26:40>> Exactly, and high inflation forces
26:42central banks to keep interest rates
26:44high. This hits the very nightmare that
26:47every investor fears right now. Next,
26:50let's move on to the third article: AI
26:52or public debt could cause a market
26:54crash, but they likely won't happen at
26:56the same time.
26:58>> That title is very interesting.
27:00>> Indeed. In this year of 2026, if you're
27:03an investor following the financial
27:05markets, you probably aren't sleeping
27:07well because the market is haunted by
27:09two giant specters. The first specter
27:11is a sovereign debt crisis; because of
27:13high interest rates, the rates on bonds
27:15issued by governments keep soaring,
27:17which could cause the public finances
27:19of many developed nations to collapse
27:21entirely. That is a massive time bomb.
27:23>> Then the second specter is an AI bubble
27:25burst. The market is now starting to
27:27worry that the AI revenue needed to
27:29sustain the global data center building
27:31frenzy is failing to meet targets. If
27:33this bubble bursts, both credit markets
27:35and stock markets will face a double
27:37crash.
27:38>> Both of these risks sound like they
27:39could trigger a financial tsunami.
27:41>> Right, but interestingly, this article
27:43offers a very counterintuitive comfort.
27:46These two disasters are almost
27:47impossible to happen at the same time.
27:49This poses a question for us: if they
27:51won't happen at the same time, then
27:54which specter is the true "big boss"?
27:56>> To answer this, we first need to
27:58understand why they cannot happen
27:59simultaneously.
28:01>> There is a sophisticated economic logic
28:03behind this, and we can use a simple
28:05metaphor to explain this seesaw effect.
28:08>> How does the seesaw work?
28:10>> You can imagine the capital in the
28:12global market as a giant swimming pool
28:14with a fixed amount of water; in the
28:16current environment, two super-beasts
28:18are fighting frantically to drink the
28:20water. One is the various governments
28:23that keep issuing debt to cover their
28:25fiscal deficits. The other is the AI
28:26tech giants, which are madly raising
28:28capital to buy chips and build data
28:30centers.
28:31>> Everyone is fighting for the water.
28:32>> Exactly, everyone is fighting for it.
28:34So the price of the water—interest
28:36rates—will skyrocket. But if the AI
28:38investment frenzy suddenly cools down
28:41today, and the AI beast stops borrowing
28:43to expand—if it stops drinking—what
28:45happens?
28:46>> Capital becomes available.
28:47>> Right. The funds in the market suddenly
28:49lose their destination, and facing the
28:51economic slowdown caused by an AI crash
28:53, central banks would inevitably choose
28:55to cut rates to save the economy. At
28:57that point, not only do governments
28:59lose a competitor for funds, but the
29:00interest on borrowing also drops
29:02significantly.
29:03>> Their pressure to repay debt was
29:04reduced. Exactly, that is why the AI
29:07collapse inadvertently saved the bond
29:09market.
29:11>> I see, and this logic of a capital safe
29:13haven is already very clear in current
29:15market data. For instance, whenever
29:18there is news of tech stock volatility,
29:20the 10-year US Treasury yield actually
29:22drops by 0.2 percentage points, showing
29:24that when investors panic, their first
29:25reaction is still to put money into
29:27relatively safe US Treasuries.
29:29>> This is classic risk-averse behavior.
29:31>> But we must not think government debt
29:33is safe just because of this; in fact,
29:35if you look closely at the bond market
29:36this year, from late February to early
29:38October, the 30-year US Treasury yield
29:40rose by a full percentage point. This
29:42magnitude is actually quite significant
29:44.
29:44>> Extremely large; for a bond market
29:46dealing in tens of billions of dollars,
29:48a one percentage point rise in yield is
29:50a terrifying surge in costs.
29:52>> We have already mentioned part of the
29:53reason behind this. Regional conflict
29:55in Iran has driven up inflation, the
29:57central bank is struggling with a
29:59strong economy, and the AI building
30:01boom has created intense competition
30:03for government borrowing.
30:05>> Indeed, and to see the most real and
30:07brutal face of a sovereign debt crisis,
30:09you don't even need to look at the US;
30:11just look at Europe right now, look at
30:14France.
30:14>> France is in a really bad spot lately.
30:17>> France is currently mired in a severe
30:19political crisis, with constant riots
30:21over budget cuts, and investors looking
30:23at the French government are wondering
30:25if they can even manage their domestic
30:26situation. Do they truly have the
30:29ability to repay this snowballing debt?
30:31>> Confidence has been completely shaken.
30:33>> Yes, this deep-seated fear is clearly
30:35reflected in France's skyrocketing
30:37borrowing costs. This is why the risk
30:40of sovereign debt has been weighing on
30:42the market all year. However, in recent
30:45weeks, the market's focus of fear has
30:47begun to shift.
30:48>> Because there is trouble on the AI
30:50front.
30:51>> That's right, the surface of AI has
30:53shown very obvious cracks. These cracks
30:56are becoming harder to hide; the
30:58article gives a very specific example:
31:00a new cloud company called CoreWeave.
31:03Their business model is basically
31:05spending huge sums on Nvidia chips,
31:07building data centers, and renting out
31:09computing power to AI developers.
31:11>> It's just infrastructure leasing.
31:13>> Exactly. But as of 2026, the yield on
31:16five-year bonds issued by this company
31:18has skyrocketed from 10%in July of this
31:21year to 15%.
31:22>> Wow, 15%.
31:24>> Yes. For listeners who aren't familiar
31:27with bonds, let me explain what 15%
31:29means. Large, normally operating
31:31companies might only pay a few
31:32percentage points in interest. If you
31:34go to borrow money and investors demand
31:3615%interest, it means the market thinks
31:38you could go bust at any moment.
31:40>> That’s practically loan-sharking in
31:41the financial world.
31:42>> Exactly. It shows investors have deep
31:45doubts about the company's ability to
31:47repay, and meanwhile, CoreWeave’s
31:49stock price has plunged by about a
31:51third in just the past month. A
31:53crashing stock price combined with
31:55soaring bond yields is definitely a red
31:58alert from the market, and it’s not
32:00just a problem for CoreWeave; it means
32:02the funding chain for the entire AI
32:04ecosystem is tightening.
32:06>> Is the domino effect about to begin?
32:08>> Yes, we’re seeing that even prominent
32:10AI model provider Anthropic is starting
32:12to see its revenue growth rate slow
32:14down. It has triggered a deep, panicked
32:17chain reaction: if model developers
32:19can’t make money, they won't rent
32:21compute from CoreWeave; if CoreWeave
32:22can't collect rent, they won't be able
32:24to pay back the massive debts they took
32:26on to buy chips.
32:28>> This pain definitely won't stop at
32:30these cloud companies; it will spread
32:32like a virus throughout the entire AI
32:34supply chain, potentially even hitting
32:36the credit and insurance firms that
32:38provided those massive loans.
32:40>> That's right, the impact would be
32:42widespread.
32:42>> Wait, speaking of spreading, I have to
32:44bring up a question that many people
32:46have on their minds. The article says
32:48that an AI collapse and a debt crisis
32:50won't happen at the same time. But
32:52couldn’t an AI collapse trigger a
32:54global financial tsunami like the one
32:56in 2007?
32:57>> That is a very intuitive concern.
32:59>> Right, think about it: if the AI bubble
33:02bursts, triggering mass layoffs in the
33:04tech sector and a global recession,
33:06government tax revenues would
33:08inevitably collapse. At the same time,
33:10expenses like unemployment benefits
33:12would skyrocket, so wouldn't government
33:14deficits become even more terrifying?
33:16In that case, wouldn't investors
33:18completely lose confidence in a
33:19government's ability to repay, causing
33:21both crises to erupt simultaneously?
33:24>> I have to say that’s a very sharp
33:26deduction, and it’s exactly what many
33:28investors are afraid of right now, but
33:30this article very steadily dismantles
33:32that myth, clearly explaining why the
33:34current AI crisis is not a repeat of
33:362007. What’s the difference?
33:38>> To trigger a financial tsunami of that
33:40scale, there must be a kind of opaque,
33:42structural fragility within the
33:44financial system. Recall that in 2007,
33:46banks were packaging a bunch of junk
33:48mortgages that could never be repaid
33:49into extremely complex mortgage-backed
33:51securities that even they didn't
33:53understand, and then selling them to
33:54the whole world.
33:55>> Right, the financial products at the
33:57time were far too complex. But while
33:59the financing network behind the AI
34:00industry today totals tens of billions
34:02of dollars, its structure is much
34:04clearer by comparison. Everyone knows
34:06exactly who is borrowing money to buy
34:08servers, and global bank balance sheets
34:10are much safer today with stricter
34:12regulations, not to mention that the
34:13industry's source is backed by the
34:15massive cash reserves of chip giants.
34:18>> So the financial system itself is
34:20relatively healthy. What about the real
34:22economy for us average citizens?
34:24>> That is the most crucial difference,
34:26which is the share of the wealth effect
34:27. The wealth effect.
34:29>> Exactly. What burst in 2007 was the
34:31housing bubble; you have to realize
34:33that for most families, their home is
34:35their greatest lifetime asset.
34:38>> When housing prices collapsed, ordinary
34:40people immediately stopped all spending
34:42, which was a devastating blow to the
34:44real economy. Everyone instantly felt
34:46like they were bankrupt. But looking at
34:48today, although AI-related assets make
34:49up a huge portion of the current stock
34:51market, if you look at the structure of
34:53actual household wealth, the AI stocks
34:55held by the average person are far from
34:57the core status real estate held back
34:58then. Even if AI stocks dropped by half
35:00, people's retirement accounts might
35:02look terrible, but most people wouldn't
35:04face the crisis of being homeless, and
35:06consumer spending wouldn't freeze up
35:07instantly.
35:08>> I see. In other words, it's inaccurate
35:11to scare ourselves by using the 2008
35:13financial crisis. So if we were to look
35:16for a historical comparison, what
35:18period should we refer to?
35:20>> The Economist points out in the article
35:22that the most appropriate comparison
35:23now is actually the dot-com era of the
35:25late 1990s.
35:27>> Oh, around the year 2000? Yes, when the
35:29dot-com bubble burst back then,
35:31although tech stocks saw a historic
35:33collapse and countless internet
35:34companies vanished, it actually only
35:36caused a relatively mild and brief
35:38impact on the overall macroeconomy,
35:39accompanied by central bank rate cuts
35:41that actually eased borrowing pressure.
35:43More importantly, the internet at that
35:45time brought real productivity growth,
35:47and it continued to drive subsequent
35:49economic development after the
35:50reshuffling.
35:51>> The current situation with AI is truly
35:53very similar. So let's bring our focus
35:55back to today's investors. Since these
35:58two crises won't erupt simultaneously,
36:00what is the article's final conclusion?
36:03Which crisis is the real "big boss"
36:04that could overturn everything and that
36:06we should fear the most?
36:08>> The article provides a very clear
36:10bottom line: a sovereign debt crisis is
36:12the truly fatal ultimate boss.
36:14>> Why?
36:15>> Think about the difference. If we
36:17encounter an AI bubble burst, to put it
36:19plainly, it's just a large-scale asset
36:21repricing and industry reshuffling;
36:22tech giants get hit hard, but the
36:24economic machine can still function.
36:26Hmm, that's manageable.
36:28>> But if a sovereign debt collapse occurs
36:30, it would shake the very foundations
36:31of the entire global financial system.
36:33Just think, if investors lose
36:35confidence in U.S. Treasuries, the
36:36dollar’s status as the world’s most
36:38precious safe haven would face a
36:40devastating threat.
36:41>> That would be a catastrophe.
36:43>> And the most insidious scenario is that
36:45under immense pressure, the government
36:47might choose to fire up the money
36:49printers to avoid default, using
36:50artificially induced hyperinflation to
36:52dilute the debt. Once things reach that
36:55point, whether it’s stocks, bonds, or
36:57cash, the stability of value that all
36:59investments rely on would be completely
37:01destroyed. The real purchasing power of
37:03assets would simply vanish into thin
37:04air.
37:06>> Right, so to summarize the danger
37:07levels of these two scenarios: if a
37:09sovereign debt crisis hits a major
37:11advanced economy, investors would
37:13absolutely prefer to face nothing more
37:15than a bubble-bursting AI crash.
37:18>> Choosing the lesser of two evils—that
37:20is truly the most realistic portrayal
37:22of the current market. That concludes
37:24the content of this article. Now,
37:26let’s move on to the fourth article:
37:28Europe must break free from its
37:29reliance on American satellites.
37:32Everyone, imagine this scenario: if
37:33your nation's national security
37:35lifeline, or perhaps its life-or-death
37:37defense systems, were not in the hands
37:39of your own democratically elected
37:41government, but instead controlled by
37:43an uncontrollable private entrepreneur
37:45who might throw a tantrum on social
37:46media at any moment—that sounds like
37:48the plot of some dystopian sci-fi movie
37:50, doesn't it?
37:51>> It really does; it sounds so surreal.
37:54>> Yes, but this is actually the real
37:56nightmare that Europe is facing right
37:57now. We see an American civilian named
38:00Musk who has been able to limit
38:02Starlink satellite network services in
38:03Ukraine, directly cutting off or even
38:05weakening Ukraine's ability to defend
38:07against Russian drones and launch
38:09counterattacks against Russian
38:10occupying forces. It’s like handing
38:14the oxygen valve your life depends on
38:15directly to an emotional private
38:17landlord.
38:18>> That analogy is spot on, and I think
38:21the political reality behind this is
38:23actually more concerning than Musk's
38:25personal actions. If you have been
38:27following the current global
38:28geopolitical landscape in 2026, you
38:30must have noticed a startling
38:32phenomenon.
38:33>> Hmm, what phenomenon?
38:34>> It is that in the face of Musk’s
38:36actions—which clearly lean toward the
38:38Kremlin and have even effectively
38:39interfered with the defense of an
38:41allied nation—our current U.S.
38:42President, Trump, has maintained
38:44complete silence.
38:45>> Wow, not saying a single word?
38:46>> Exactly. In international politics,
38:49such inaction from a top leader is in
38:51itself a chilling political signal.
38:53Well, this really woke European nations
38:55up from their dreams, because just
38:57think: when Europe truly faces a
38:58missile threat in the future, can you
39:00unconditionally trust that the current
39:02U.S. government will selflessly provide
39:04space communication systems to protect
39:06you?
39:06>> Absolutely impossible.
39:08>> Exactly, so this forces Europe to
39:10finally face the slogan of "space
39:11autonomy" they've been shouting for
39:13decades. But when we actually lay out
39:15the situation, Europe's current state
39:17is simply unbearable. It really is
39:19unbearable, and if we look at it from
39:21the perspective of economic and
39:23industrial development, this is a
39:25massive institutional disaster, you
39:27know? Europe's main heavy-lift launch
39:29vehicle, Ariane, has suffered such
39:31severe development delays that Europe
39:33completely lost its independent launch
39:35capability for nearly an entire year
39:38between 2023 and 2024.
39:40>> This is a strategically fatal gap.
39:42Right, can you believe it? The EU,
39:43which fancies itself a major global
39:45political and economic power, couldn't
39:47even launch a single one of its own
39:49satellites into space for an entire
39:51year. What exactly went wrong? Is their
39:52technology not good enough?
39:54>> Actually, technology is definitely not
39:56the core issue; the real sickness lies
39:58in their system. Let's break down the
40:00internal operating logic of the
40:02European Space Agency, or ESA. Think
40:04about it, if you were a business owner
40:06and had to issue a multi-billion dollar
40:07project, you would definitely look for
40:09the firm with the best technology and
40:10the most cost-effective solutions,
40:12right?
40:12>> Of course, that's just business logic.
40:15>> But ESA doesn't operate like that at
40:17all; they use an extremely distorted
40:20political spoils system. The official
40:23term they use sounds very nice: "
40:25geographical return." Simply put, if
40:28France's contribution to the ESA budget
40:30this year accounts for 20%, then ESA
40:33must award 20%of the contracts
40:35precisely to French companies.
40:38>> Wait, do you mean that when ESA awards
40:39contracts, they don't care if a French
40:41company is the most efficient or
40:43technologically innovative, as long as
40:45the French government pays, they get
40:47the contract?
40:48>> Exactly, that's what it means.
40:49>> Isn't that just using taxpayer money to
40:51divvy up the pie among member states?
40:53This completely stifles market
40:55competition. You've hit the nail on the
40:57head. That is why, despite receiving
40:59hundreds of millions of dollars in
41:01public government subsidies every year,
41:03the ESA still cannot cultivate a force
41:05capable of competing internationally.
41:07Let's look at another set of more
41:09brutal comparative data, and everyone
41:10will understand.
41:11>> Hmm, the numbers speak for themselves.
41:13>> Yes. Look at SpaceX, a private company
41:16without the burden of traditional
41:17government subsidies; last year alone,
41:20they successfully launched the Falcon 9
41:22rocket 165 times. And they only charge
41:24commercial clients about 70 million
41:26dollars per launch.
41:27>> 70 million dollars? What about
41:28Europe’s?
41:29>> In contrast, Europe's Ariane rocket,
41:31which receives massive subsidies,
41:32actually costs over 90 million dollars
41:34per launch. Wow, that sounds completely
41:36unreasonable. Why are costs so much
41:38higher for a subsidized entity than for
41:40a private company without subsidies?
41:41>> Because for a long time, the ESA has
41:43been using what is known as "cost-plus"
41:45contracts with its suppliers. The way
41:47these contracts work is quite
41:48interesting: no matter how much the
41:50manufacturer spends on R&D and
41:51production, the government pays for it
41:53all. On top of that, the government
41:55adds a guaranteed profit margin for the
41:57manufacturer. Wow, that’s like me
41:58hiring a contractor to renovate my
42:00house and telling them, "Buy whatever
42:01materials you want, report whatever
42:03hours you want, I’ll pay for it all,
42:04and I’ll even give you an extra 10%
42:06profit at the end."
42:07>> Exactly.
42:08>> If I were that contractor, I would
42:09definitely drag my feet and buy the
42:11most expensive materials available.
42:12>> Because the more I spend, the more I
42:14earn. No wonder the Ariane rocket is
42:16severely delayed; the manufacturers
42:18have zero incentive to cut costs or
42:20improve efficiency. That renovation
42:22analogy is spot on. This is why
42:25cost-plus contracts are draining
42:26Europe’s space competitiveness; in
42:28this model, innovation is actually
42:30punished. If you finish the job too
42:33quickly or too cheaply, you end up
42:35making less money.
42:36>> That’s truly a terrifying economic
42:38trap. Is Europe trying to change this
42:40now?
42:41>> Actually, the good news is that
42:43European policymakers have finally
42:44realized this model is leading them to
42:46an abyss. The ESA is now trying to
42:48emulate the transformation strategy
42:50NASA adopted decades ago, boldly
42:52shifting from cost-plus to fixed-price
42:54service contracts. This means the
42:55government only cares about the result
42:57—a successful launch. How you save
42:59money in the process is entirely up to
43:01the manufacturer.
43:02>> That direction sounds like the right
43:03one.
43:04>> Yes, and the ESA has already begun
43:06awarding contracts to three new
43:08European rocket startups. However, at
43:10the same time, we have observed that
43:12the three major traditional European
43:13satellite manufacturers are planning a
43:15merger.
43:16>> A merger? This sounds exactly like what
43:18traditional industries do when facing a
43:20crisis—trying to team up to counter
43:23the pressure brought by SpaceX. But
43:25wouldn't that create another problem?
43:26>> What problem?
43:28>> If these three European giants merge,
43:30wouldn't that just create a monopoly
43:32within Europe? Wouldn't that, in terms
43:34of industrial economics, end up
43:35stifling the survival of those startups
43:37just mentioned due to monopoly?
43:39>> That's right, and that is exactly the
43:41dilemma Europe is facing now: they
43:43desperately need to scale up companies
43:44to compete globally, but they also fear
43:46that internal monopolies will dampen
43:48overall vitality. But honestly, the
43:50greater crisis isn't really about
43:51whether these companies should merge,
43:53but rather the "every man for himself"
43:55mentality of European governments. "
43:57Every man for himself"—could you give
43:59an example?
44:00>> Let's take stock of the chips Europe
44:02currently has to compete with SpaceX.
44:04>> You may have heard that besides OneWeb,
44:06in which the British and French
44:08governments have stakes, the EU is
44:10currently pushing hard on a project
44:12called IRIS². This project is expected
44:14to cost up to 16 billion euros, with
44:16the goal of deploying 348 satellites
44:18specifically to provide secure services
44:20to governments and the military.
44:23>> 16 billion euros to deploy 348
44:25satellites sounds like a massive
44:27undertaking; while it's still smaller
44:29than Musk's Starlink, countries should
44:31have the power to support this EU-level
44:34plan, right?
44:35>> That is actually where the problem lies
44:37: Europe's resources are extremely
44:39fragmented. Besides the EU's IRIS²
44:41project, did you know? Germany is
44:43actually planning to invest an
44:45additional 10 billion euros of its own
44:47to independently build a separate
44:48network consisting of 100 military
44:50communication satellites.
44:51>> 10 billion euros for just 100
44:53satellites? That seems like such a
44:54waste.
44:55>> Yes, and not only that, the UK and
44:57France are also holding onto their own
44:59small-scale military satellite programs
45:01. We all know that in an industry like
45:03low-earth orbit satellites, which
45:04requires massive economies of scale, if
45:06even Europeans themselves cannot
45:08centralize funding and insist on
45:10building their own small networks, the
45:11capital allocation efficiency is
45:13hair-raisingly low.
45:14>> Well, I can actually understand the
45:16national security concerns of each
45:17country, because if you were the German
45:19Chancellor, you would certainly want
45:21the ultimate control of this military
45:23communication network to be in Berlin's
45:24hands, not in Brussels or Paris.
45:26>> Those are very realistic political
45:28considerations. Exactly, but building
45:29everything separately is just too
45:31expensive, and it makes it impossible
45:33to be competitive. Is there any
45:34solution? Could there be a way that
45:36satisfies both national political
45:38control and achieves industrial
45:39economies of scale?
45:41>> The industry has actually already
45:43provided an answer, and that is to
45:44establish a federated model.
45:46>> A federated model? What kind of concept
45:48is that?
45:48>> You can think of it like international
45:50mobile roaming or the interconnection
45:52of national power grids. The Finnish
45:54company currently operating in orbit is
45:56a prime example; under this federal
45:58framework, Germany and France can still
46:00maintain absolute control over the
46:02domestic satellites they funded and
46:04built.
46:05>> Mm, sovereignty remains their own.
46:07>> Yes, but the key is that everyone must
46:09be mandated to adopt unified
46:10communication standards to achieve
46:12interoperability.
46:13>> Oh, I see what you mean. In other words
46:15, countries use their own assets during
46:17normal times, but in a crisis, or in
46:19dead zones with poor coverage, the
46:21German military could seamlessly tap
46:23into Finnish or French satellites.
46:24>> Exactly right. Does this effectively
46:26link all the small satellite fleets of
46:28European nations into one massive radar
46:29and communications network at the
46:31system level?
46:31>> Correct. Through this federal model,
46:33you not only expand physical coverage
46:35but also significantly enhance the
46:37resilience of the entire system.
46:38Because even if a few satellites are
46:40shot down, others can immediately fill
46:42the gap. Moreover, this model doesn't
46:44just apply within Europe; in the future
46:46, it could bring like-minded middle
46:48powers like Canada, Japan, and South
46:50Korea into the fold.
46:51>> That sounds like it has tremendous
46:53potential. Right, and that is the most
46:55important geostrategic takeaway from
46:57this article. In the current
46:58unpredictable political climate under
47:00the Trump administration, the worst
47:02strategy for Europe would be to embrace
47:04defensive isolationism or reject
47:05sharing space capabilities with the
47:07U.S.
47:07>> Indeed, closing doors and going it
47:09alone is a dead end.
47:10>> On the contrary, Europe must use this
47:12federal model to first integrate
47:14internal resources and strengthen
47:16itself. Then, prove to the U.S. that
47:18this alliance holds immense substantive
47:20strategic value. You have to make the
47:22U.S. government understand that if they
47:24treat allies like bargaining chips to
47:25be exploited, the U.S. will also suffer
47:27massive losses to its own global
47:29intelligence network and strategic
47:30interests.
47:31>> Next, let's move to our fifth article:
47:33Indonesia's populist president is
47:34losing his charm. Let’s shift our
47:36perspective from European space
47:38strategy back to the largest economy in
47:40Southeast Asia. If you are investing in
47:42emerging markets, you should pay
47:44special attention to this next
47:45deep-dive analysis: Indonesia's current
47:47president, the eighth to hold office,
47:49Prabowo, is facing a catastrophic
47:51crisis of confidence.
47:53>> That is correct.
47:54>> Recall that when he won the 2025
47:56election two years ago, he took office
47:58with a very high foundation of
48:00popularity, boasting an astonishing 81%
48:02approval rating at the time. But right
48:07now, at the moment of his anniversary
48:09in office, that number has seen a
48:11cliff-like collapse, essentially cut in
48:13half to reach 45%. Folks, this isn't
48:16your typical polling correction; this
48:18is the most brutal collapse in public
48:20opinion since Indonesia returned to a
48:23democratic system in 1998.
48:24>> If you think this is just a simple
48:26decline in political charisma, you are
48:29truly mistaken. In the eyes of us
48:30financial analysts, the capital market
48:32is always the most honest and the most
48:34brutal. From a professional financial
48:37perspective, Indonesia is currently
48:38facing a terrifying exodus of foreign
48:41capital. Is the foreign capital exodus
48:43really that serious?
48:44>> Extremely serious. Do you all know? The
48:47Indonesian stock market has plummeted
48:49by 40%so far this year. Listeners, a 40
48:53%drop is no longer just a market
48:55correction; it is a total collapse.
48:58This has caused Indonesia to become the
49:00worst-performing stock market in the
49:02world.
49:02>> 40%is really an exaggerated figure.
49:05>> And an even more serious warning sign
49:07appeared on October 16th. The
49:09international financial analysis agency
49:11MSCI issued a stern warning,
49:13threatening to downgrade Indonesia's
49:15market rating to the same level as
49:17war-torn countries like Lebanon and
49:19Ukraine.
49:21>> Wait, that’s ridiculous! Indonesia
49:23isn't at war, it has a massive
49:25demographic dividend, and it possesses
49:27key minerals the world is scrambling
49:29for, like nickel. Why would an emerging
49:32market with such rich resources be
49:33threatened by an international agency
49:35with a downgrade to war-zone status?
49:37What exactly is the market panicking
49:39about? What the market is panicking
49:40about is the collapse of the rule of
49:42law. Because since the Prabowo
49:43government took office, it has
49:45essentially let the capital market
49:46become a casino without any regulation.
49:48The current Indonesian stock market is
49:50rife with rampant insider trading and
49:52unscrupulous pump-and-dump manipulation
49:54tactics.
49:55>> In other words, what we Taiwanese
49:56retail investors often call "harvesting
49:58leeks."
49:59>> Exactly, "harvesting leeks." And when a
50:01national government is incapable, or
50:03simply has no intention of maintaining
50:05market transparency and fairness, the
50:07only rational choice for foreign
50:09investors is to withdraw at any cost.
50:11Because you simply cannot win in a
50:13manipulated market. Along with the
50:15massive exit of foreign capital, we
50:17have also seen the Indonesian currency
50:19devalue sharply, hitting a 20-year low.
50:22>> If we compare Indonesia with
50:23neighboring countries, this decline
50:25seems even more ironic. Look at how the
50:27world is currently obsessed with AI and
50:29global trade is very strong; just look
50:31at Vietnam and Malaysia, their foreign
50:33direct investment, or FDI, is
50:35absolutely skyrocketing.
50:36>> That’s right, Southeast Asia is
50:38actually a global safe haven for
50:39capital right now.
50:40>> Exactly, this reminds me of the
50:42previous Indonesian president, Jokowi,
50:44who cleverly utilized Indonesia’s
50:46nickel resources to actively court
50:47Chinese miners, forcing these foreign
50:49investors to set up downstream
50:51processing plants within Indonesia.
50:53Back then, Indonesia’s FDI figures
50:54looked so impressive, so why are
50:56foreign investors suddenly turning away
50:58now that Prabowo is in charge?
50:59>> Because the biggest fear in business
51:01investment is unpredictability.
51:03Prabowo’s policies are volatile and
51:05filled with intense populism. This has
51:08turned Indonesia into a place where
51:10foreign investors find it extremely
51:11difficult to assess risks or do
51:13business. Furthermore, when we peel
51:15back the layers of Indonesia’s
51:16underlying economic structure, you'll
51:18find the situation is far worse than
51:20the stock market crash. What’s wrong
51:22with the underlying structure?
51:23>> Look at the middle class; their real
51:25wages haven’t kept pace with
51:26inflation—they’re actually falling.
51:28Then there is a massive black market
51:29economy, which makes it impossible for
51:31the government to collect taxes. Add to
51:33that a terrifyingly high unemployment
51:34rate among university graduates. This
51:36means Indonesia's most prized
51:38demographic dividend is turning into a
51:40social time bomb waiting to explode.
51:42>> Wow, so the fundamentals are actually
51:44riddled with holes. Right. With these
51:47fundamentals, Prabowo’s campaign
51:49promise of an 8%economic growth target
51:51now looks like a complete joke.
51:54>> And in the face of such severe
51:55structural economic issues, what is
51:57Prabowo’s prescription? Is it pushing
51:59for industrial transformation? Or
52:00improving the investment environment?
52:02Actually, neither. He chose the most
52:04expensive and ineffective populist
52:06policies.
52:06>> That really is the most baffling part
52:08of it all. Exactly. He’s pushing a
52:11free school lunch program costing $ 13
52:14billion annually, while naively
52:15planning to build 80,000 state-run
52:17village cooperatives nationwide—
52:19it’s a bottomless fiscal black hole.
52:23$ 13 billion—how much of the
52:24infrastructure budget will that crowd
52:26out?
52:27>> Exactly. Imagine this: Indonesia is
52:30like a house with a foundation severely
52:32eroded by termites; the broken labor
52:34market and soaring unemployment are the
52:36rotted foundation itself. As the
52:39homeowner, Prabowo isn't willing to
52:41roll up his sleeves to fix the
52:43foundation. Instead, he went to the
52:45bank, borrowed a huge sum, and bought
52:47the most expensive paint—that $ 13
52:49billion free lunch plan—just to
52:51spruce up the exterior walls.
52:53>> That’s a very vivid analogy.
52:54>> He probably thinks that if he makes the
52:56exterior look nice enough, no one will
52:57notice the house is about to collapse.
52:59>> Indonesian voters in the past might
53:01have been swayed by these free lunches,
53:03but now, when they face the brutal
53:05reality of skyrocketing prices and
53:07unemployment every day, these
53:09superficial political stunts can no
53:11longer fool anyone.
53:12>> Yes, and the most immediate consequence
53:14of the failure of such populist
53:16policies is triggering political
53:18fractures within the ruling class.
53:19Prabowo’s election victory relied
53:21heavily on the strong endorsement of
53:23former President Jokowi, and the two
53:25even formed a political alliance at the
53:27time.
53:28>> Right, I remember that was huge news
53:30back then. But now that the economy is
53:32a mess, their relationship has hit rock
53:34bottom. Listeners might not know that
53:35the current Vice President of Indonesia
53:37is actually Jokowi’s son. The
53:39military factions currently allied with
53:40Prabowo within the political sphere are
53:42already working behind the scenes,
53:44attempting to oust the Vice President.
53:45>> Wow, that’s essentially a direct
53:47break with Jokowi. Not only that, two
53:49other former Indonesian presidents who
53:51are still alive are also gathering
53:53forces and jockeying for power behind
53:54the scenes. It’s fair to say that the
53:56facade of grand unity when Prabowo
53:58first took office has completely
53:59collapsed, replaced by a naked power
54:01struggle among the elite.
54:02>> And when this foundation of governance
54:04begins to wobble, it often marks the
54:06beginning of authoritarianism. Although
54:09Prabowo deliberately portrayed himself
54:11as a reformer in a guest column for The
54:13Economist this June, writing that he
54:15absolutely welcomes criticism and
54:17emphasizing that the Indonesian people
54:19deserve over 5%economic growth.
54:21>> Sounds wonderful, right?
54:23>> Yes.
54:23>> But looking back, that article seems
54:25exceptionally ironic now. Because just
54:27on October 20th, the eve of the
54:28protests marking his first two years in
54:30office, reports emerged in Indonesian
54:32society that police and military were
54:34attempting to bribe activists to cancel
54:35their street demonstrations. Bribery is
54:37already outrageous enough.
54:39>> Even worse, some protest organizers
54:40were directly subjected to violent
54:42beatings by unidentified individuals.
54:44How is this "welcoming criticism"?
54:46Isn't this simply using the state
54:47apparatus to suppress the opposition?
54:49>> Exactly, this is precisely what I want
54:51to emphasize, because it touches upon
54:53the deepest fears of the capital market
54:55.
54:55>> Exactly, this is precisely what I want
54:57to emphasize, because it touches upon
54:58the deepest fears of the capital market
55:00.
55:00>> Why would foreign investors panic-sell
55:02regardless of the cost? Because it
55:04awakens everyone’s memories of
55:05Prabowo’s historical background.
55:07Historical background.
55:09>> You see, during the 1990s, while
55:10serving as commander of the Indonesian
55:13Special Forces, Prabowo was accused of
55:15plotting to have many pro-democracy
55:17activists "disappeared." Although he
55:19strongly denies it himself.
55:21>> But everyone knows what happened.
55:23>> Right. From the perspective of an
55:24international investor, when you see
55:26the military and police beginning to
55:27interfere with civil gatherings and
55:29protesters being beaten in the streets.
55:31These signs of authoritarianism signify
55:33that the rule of law in this country is
55:35collapsing. Capital markets aren't
55:37actually afraid of economic troughs;
55:38what they fear most is the extreme
55:40uncertainty brought on by political
55:42repression.
55:43>> All in all, Indonesia's current
55:45situation is truly a pity. This is a
55:47nation with a massive population of
55:49nearly 290 million, a deep domestic
55:51market, and heaven-sent natural
55:53resources. The global capital market's
55:55expectations for the Prabowo
55:57administration have truly been revised
55:59down to the bedrock.
56:00>> It couldn't get any lower. Actually,
56:02when expectations are this low, if the
56:04government is willing to make small
56:06changes—such as stopping market
56:07interference and showing some sincerity
56:09in respecting the rule of law—it
56:11could immediately boost foreign
56:12investor confidence.
56:13>> That is indeed true.
56:15>> But this also serves as a profoundly
56:17deep lesson for all democratic nations.
56:19When voters choose to compromise a
56:21nation's rule of law, market
56:22transparency, and long-term economic
56:24structural transformation for a "free
56:26lunch" costing tens of billions of
56:27dollars, the price ultimately paid is
56:29often the future of the entire country.
56:32Listeners, you might want to consider
56:34this: do these shortsighted populist
56:35political tricks really only happen in
56:37Indonesia?
56:38>> That concludes the content of this
56:40article.
56:41>> Next, let’s move on to the sixth
56:43article: The unexpected popularity of
56:45AI. If you are accustomed to watching
56:47mainstream Western media or frequently
56:49follow the movements of Silicon Valley
56:51tech giants, you might have a strong
56:53illusion.
56:53>> You might feel as if the whole world is
56:56terrified of AI. Exactly, a sense that
56:58the world is resisting or deeply
57:00fearing artificial intelligence, but if
57:02we carefully examine the latest data in
57:04this article, we find this is actually
57:07a serious case of "rich-country bias."
57:09>> That’s true. Here is a highly
57:11indicative online poll commissioned by
57:14The Economist and conducted by
57:16GlobeScan in September of this year,
57:182026, across 34 countries worldwide.
57:21When you turn your eyes to developing
57:23nations, the situation is completely
57:25reversed from the Western world.
57:27>> In what way is it reversed?
57:28>> For example, in Nigeria and South
57:30Africa, nearly 90%of respondents firmly
57:32believe that AI will not only
57:33substantially improve their personal
57:35lives but also benefit all of humanity.
57:37>> Wow, 90%? That’s an incredibly high
57:39proportion.
57:40>> Indeed, yet if you are in wealthy
57:42Western nations like the United States,
57:44Canada, or France, the number of people
57:46holding negative attitudes toward AI
57:48has already surpassed those with
57:49positive attitudes. This is truly
57:51interesting because when we think of AI
57:53users, what usually comes to mind are
57:55engineers writing code in
57:56air-conditioned rooms or, you know,
57:58Wall Street quantitative traders.
57:59>> The stereotype is always like that.
58:01>> Yes, but this article provides several
58:03very grassroots, stereotype-shattering
58:06real-life cases. Imagine a 70-year-old
58:08violin salesman in Seoul, South Korea.
58:11>> 70 years old? He must have experienced
58:13so many shifts in the times. That's
58:15right. The environment he grew up in
58:17even required him to chop wood in the
58:18forest for fuel and use a foot-pump to
58:20draw water. Having lived from that era
58:22of manual labor all the way to 2026,
58:24what do you think his attitude toward
58:26AI is?
58:26>> He probably rejects it entirely, right?
58:28>> Quite the opposite—he’s extremely
58:30optimistic. To him, technological
58:32development is just natural progress,
58:34and there's nothing to worry about.
58:35>> Actually, this optimism hasn't just
58:37stayed in his head; it has transformed
58:40into real commercial momentum. What do
58:42you mean?
58:43>> Let’s look at a traditional shopping
58:44street in the suburbs of Mumbai, India.
58:47The scenes there are quite striking. A
58:49traditional optician who doesn't know
58:52any complex coding used ChatGPT to
58:54generate an anti-gravity product ad,
58:56making his glasses float on clouds.
59:00>> Wow, you used to have to pay design
59:02firms for that. Exactly. And the spice
59:04shop owner next door and the staff at a
59:07dry cleaner are also posting exquisite
59:09AI-generated images on Instagram and
59:11WhatsApp.
59:11>> So they've essentially become
59:13advertising and marketing experts
59:14themselves.
59:15>> Yes. In the past, this level of visual
59:17marketing was a financial barrier that
59:19street-side shops could never overcome.
59:21But now, AI has brought that threshold
59:23down to zero. It’s like they have a
59:26world-class advertising team in their
59:27pockets at all times. And this has
59:29truly driven growth in their physical
59:31sales. This also echoes Microsoft's
59:34data from the second quarter of 2026,
59:36where a high percentage of India's
59:39working-age population is frequently
59:41using generative AI, like Jina or GPT.
59:44>> That ratio is truly astonishing. Also,
59:47one-tenth of the working-age population
59:49in Africa is using the free Chinese AI
59:51tool DeepSeek. This makes me curious:
59:55don't they care about the data breach
59:57risks or AI copyright disputes we see
59:59on the news every day?
1:00:01>> Honestly, for these grassroots
1:00:03merchants and laborers, the privacy and
1:00:06copyright issues discussed by Western
1:00:08media are, to some extent, a "rich
1:00:10man's problem."
1:00:11>> A "rich man's problem." Yes, their only
1:00:14concern is very pragmatic: can this
1:00:16thing help me make money, and can it
1:00:18help me land more orders? This brings
1:00:21up a core concept mentioned by scholars
1:00:23in the article: "pessimism is a
1:00:25privilege."
1:00:26>> Wait, "pessimism is a privilege"? That
1:00:28sounds philosophical, but what does it
1:00:30specifically mean in terms of AI
1:00:32development? It's like if you could
1:00:34only commute by walking, and someone
1:00:35gave you a free assembled bicycle—
1:00:37you'd just feel like you gained
1:00:39something and wouldn't care if it had a
1:00:40warranty. That analogy is quite
1:00:42accurate.
1:00:44>> But if you were already driving a
1:00:45Porsche, you’d start worrying that a
1:00:47passing bicycle might scratch the paint
1:00:48. Are Western nations now like those
1:00:51Porsche owners afraid of getting
1:00:53scratched?
1:00:53>> Exactly, this analogy gets to the core
1:00:56logic perfectly. In the U.S. and the
1:00:58West, the white-collar class most
1:01:00anxious about AI fears losing their
1:01:02stable, pleasant, and respectable
1:01:04office jobs.
1:01:06>> Because they have more to lose.
1:01:07>> Right, they have more, so they fear
1:01:10losing it, whereas for people in
1:01:11developing nations, most work in
1:01:13informal jobs with relatively unstable
1:01:16conditions. For them, they have less to
1:01:18lose, and the leverage they can gain
1:01:20from new technology is actually much
1:01:22greater.
1:01:22>> I see, it’s like a chance at a
1:01:24paradigm shift.
1:01:25>> Exactly, AI in these regions even
1:01:27bypasses inefficient local government
1:01:29systems, filling in for severe gaps in
1:01:31formal education and infrastructure.
1:01:34This explains why developing countries
1:01:36aren't afraid of AI, but if you look at
1:01:38East Asia—places like Taiwan, South
1:01:41Korea, and Singapore—these are
1:01:42relatively wealthy economies; why is
1:01:44the embrace of AI so high among our
1:01:46people too?
1:01:48>> If you are a business owner in Taiwan
1:01:50or Korea, you deeply understand one
1:01:52major social pain point: you simply
1:01:54can't find people.
1:01:55>> Oh, the labor shortage issue.
1:01:57>> Yes, that is the second core reason: an
1:01:59extremely realistic labor shortage.
1:02:01East Asian nations are currently facing
1:02:04a severe aging and low-birth-rate
1:02:06crisis; the social mood here isn't
1:02:08about fearing AI will steal jobs, but
1:02:10urgently needing AI and robots to fill
1:02:12labor gaps that simply can't be met.
1:02:15>> True, everyone is short-staffed these
1:02:17days.
1:02:17>> The article mentions a robot park in
1:02:20Seoul, South Korea; the scene is truly
1:02:22surreal. A little boy is practicing Tai
1:02:24Chi with a humanoid robot, holding a
1:02:26workbook for learning AI coding in his
1:02:28hand. Wow, starting to adapt to
1:02:30coexisting with robots from a young age
1:02:32.
1:02:32>> Exactly, when a nation’s working
1:02:34population is in freefall, AI isn't a
1:02:37threat, but a necessity to keep society
1:02:39running.
1:02:40>> It’s true, when you eat at a
1:02:41restaurant and a robot brings your food
1:02:43, you don’t think it stole
1:02:44someone’s job, because that
1:02:45restaurant likely had a "Help Wanted"
1:02:47sign up for half a year and couldn't
1:02:48find anyone.
1:02:49>> That is a very realistic aspect.
1:02:52>> However, besides the labor market
1:02:53structure, I think there is also a
1:02:55collective psychological factor; for
1:02:57people in Asia or emerging markets,
1:02:59over the past two or three years, we
1:03:01have been personally experiencing this
1:03:03leapfrog development brought by
1:03:04technology.
1:03:06>> Exactly, the collective memory of
1:03:07technology changing one's fate has
1:03:09indeed played a key role. Many rural
1:03:11areas in emerging markets skipped the
1:03:14era of landline installations and went
1:03:16straight to smartphones.
1:03:18>> Right, they also bypassed the
1:03:19widespread adoption of credit cards,
1:03:21moving directly to mobile payments;
1:03:23technology flipped their life
1:03:25trajectories in a flash, helping them
1:03:27escape poverty.
1:03:29>> So, when a massive shift like AI
1:03:30arrives, their default mindset is that
1:03:32it’s just another tool to make life
1:03:34more convenient.
1:03:35>> Rather than a sense of deprivation.
1:03:37>> True, by contrast, many people in
1:03:39Western countries have experienced
1:03:41social division caused by social media
1:03:43over the past decade, and they lost
1:03:45trust in tech giants long ago.
1:03:47>> It sounds like people in developing
1:03:49nations are giving AI a high level of
1:03:51trust because they’ve already tasted
1:03:53the sweetness of technological leaps.
1:03:54But I must step back and ask: is this
1:03:57high level of acceptance actually
1:03:58conditional?
1:03:59>> Of course it is conditional.
1:04:01>> When AI really starts to produce
1:04:02tangible victims in these countries,
1:04:04will this tolerance still exist?
1:04:06>> The current optimism is actually very
1:04:08fragile; it is built on the assumption
1:04:10that policies will be properly drafted.
1:04:13People accept change, provided it
1:04:14doesn't immediately strip away their
1:04:16right to survive. What happens if it
1:04:18does?
1:04:18>> Once AI begins to create obvious losers
1:04:21in society, public sentiment could
1:04:22shift at any moment. For example, if AI
1:04:24tools severely undermine the fairness
1:04:26of national exams, or cause a massive
1:04:28blue-collar group to lose their income
1:04:30overnight, the flashpoint for anger in
1:04:32these regions would be far more intense
1:04:34than in the West.
1:04:35>> The article does mention some warning
1:04:37bells already ringing, like delivery
1:04:39drivers in São Paulo, Brazil, who
1:04:40showed extreme despair when they heard
1:04:42autonomous vehicles might replace their
1:04:45delivery jobs. Right, that is the
1:04:46reaction to a threat to one's
1:04:48livelihood.
1:04:48>> And there is an even more immediate
1:04:50environmental conflict: data centers.
1:04:52In the Philippines and Thane, near
1:04:54Mumbai, India, protests involving
1:04:56hundreds of people have already broken
1:04:58out as of 2026. Local residents are
1:05:00strongly opposing the construction of
1:05:02massive AI data centers in their
1:05:03neighborhoods.
1:05:04>> This is the physical price AI
1:05:06development must pay. We often think AI
1:05:08just operates in the cloud, but it
1:05:10actually requires immense amounts of
1:05:12electricity and water to cool servers.
1:05:14Yes, extremely water and
1:05:15power-intensive. When grassroots
1:05:17communities realize their water and
1:05:19electricity are being drained just to
1:05:21power far-off AI models, while they
1:05:23receive no benefits themselves, the
1:05:25backlash will be catastrophic.
1:05:27>> Indeed, this proves that people in
1:05:29developing countries are not naive;
1:05:31they are simply waiting for technology
1:05:33to deliver on its promises. Once their
1:05:34livelihoods or living environments are
1:05:36threatened, the voices of opposition
1:05:38can boil over at any moment. Next,
1:05:40let's move on to the seventh article:
1:05:42The utter chaos of MEA foreign policy.
1:05:44>> Sounds good.
1:05:45>> When we turn our focus back to the U.S.
1:05:47to explore President Trump's foreign
1:05:49policy in his second term, this article
1:05:51uses a very precise, and perhaps even
1:05:53absurd, pop culture metaphor. Oh,
1:05:55what’s the metaphor?
1:05:57>> The author compares America's current
1:05:59diplomatic maneuvers to the 2013 hit
1:06:01song "Wrecking Ball" by Miley Cyrus.
1:06:03The lyrics go: "I never meant to start
1:06:05a war, I just wanted you to let me in,"
1:06:07or rather, "I closed my eyes and swung.
1:06:10"
1:06:10>> Closed my eyes and swung. That really
1:06:12is the most accurate portrait of the
1:06:14Washington diplomatic circle right now.
1:06:16The most shocking thing about this
1:06:17wrecking ball is that it hasn't just
1:06:19shattered the international status quo.
1:06:21What else has it shattered?
1:06:22>> It has completely pulverized the "
1:06:24pendulum theory" that the American
1:06:25diplomatic establishment has believed
1:06:27in for over half a century. For decades
1:06:28, the most reliable way to predict U.S.
1:06:30foreign policy was to look at who the
1:06:32previous president was.
1:06:33>> Because they would always correct in
1:06:34the opposite direction, right?
1:06:35>> Exactly. Every new president would make
1:06:38major adjustments to address their
1:06:39predecessor’s biggest flaws. Like how
1:06:41the extreme pragmatism of the Nixon era
1:06:43swung to the moralizing of President
1:06:45Carter. Then, the rigid stability of
1:06:47Bush Sr. swung to the empathetic
1:06:49approach of Clinton. Wait, has the
1:06:51pendulum theory really become obsolete?
1:06:53Or is Trump’s current foreign policy
1:06:56just an extreme backlash against the
1:06:58globalist, ally-focused era of Obama?
1:07:01Doesn't this just sound like a pendulum
1:07:03that swung particularly hard, though?
1:07:06>> If he were merely opposing, there would
1:07:08at least be a predictable
1:07:09counter-trajectory. There would be a
1:07:11core ideology supporting it behind the
1:07:13scenes. But Trump’s strikes have no
1:07:15direction at all. So there is no track
1:07:17to follow, none at all. He isn’t
1:07:19correcting his predecessor’s policy;
1:07:21he’s smashing the entire scoreboard.
1:07:23This pendulum theory has completely
1:07:25lost its predictive value.
1:07:27>> So, the current situation isn't a
1:07:29pendulum at all; it's a pinball machine
1:07:31out of control. It can display
1:07:33extremely contradictory stances on
1:07:35completely different geopolitical
1:07:37issues. Wherever the ball hits, it
1:07:40makes a sound, with no consistency to
1:07:42speak of. If you look at it from the
1:07:44perspective of an out-of-control
1:07:45pinball machine, you’ll realize that
1:07:47the current chaos is extremely
1:07:48contradictory. On the Ukraine issue, he
1:07:50acts like an extreme realist in a
1:07:52power-brokering game, not caring whose
1:07:54interests are sacrificed as long as a
1:07:56deal can be reached.
1:07:57>> But that’s not the case for other
1:07:59countries.
1:07:59>> Yes, and if you turn to his stance on
1:08:01Venezuela, he again displays an
1:08:03interventionist style reminiscent of 19
1:08:05th-century imperialist proxy rule.
1:08:07>> The Middle East seems to be in a real
1:08:09mess, too. The situation in the Middle
1:08:11East is even more absurd. He long
1:08:12claimed to disdain regime change and
1:08:14old-school American interventionism,
1:08:16yet he recently engaged in conflict
1:08:17with Iran without hesitation.
1:08:19>> The most baffling part for the outside
1:08:21world, I suppose, is his attitude
1:08:23toward China. One day he’ll proclaim
1:08:25in a speech that communism is
1:08:26threatening America's survival, and the
1:08:28next, he’ll publicly refer to the
1:08:30Chinese leader as a friend. If you were
1:08:32a foreign diplomat trying to find a
1:08:34coherent strategic logic in these
1:08:36policies, you would probably have a
1:08:38complete breakdown.
1:08:39>> A total breakdown, for sure.
1:08:40>> Because the only common thread in his
1:08:42current foreign policy is a desire to
1:08:44shatter the status quo at any cost.
1:08:46>> Creating chaos is the very goal of this
1:08:48wrecking ball. But now, at the end of
1:08:512026, as we face the upcoming 48th U.S.
1:08:53presidential election, this wrecking
1:08:56ball has left an incredibly difficult
1:08:58mess for his successor, especially the
1:09:01Democratic camp.
1:09:02>> It’s certainly a massive dilemma.
1:09:04Since you mentioned the Democrats, what
1:09:05is their strategy right now? After the
1:09:07shock and awe of these past few years,
1:09:09they surely can't expect voters to
1:09:11believe that a simple change in
1:09:12administration will instantly revert
1:09:14the world to the "good old order"
1:09:16established in 1945, right? The
1:09:18Democratic Party's biggest crisis is
1:09:19their own internal split into two camps
1:09:21: the centrists and the progressives,
1:09:23and this conflict has become nearly
1:09:25irreconcilable.
1:09:26>> Have they tried to find any common
1:09:28ground?
1:09:28>> Yes, earlier this month,
1:09:30representatives from both factions
1:09:32visited Brussels, London, and Paris,
1:09:34conveying a rare cross-factional
1:09:35consensus to their European allies.
1:09:38>> What kind of consensus?
1:09:39>> That the post-1945 old order is gone
1:09:41for good and there is no turning back.
1:09:43While both sides know the old era is
1:09:45over, when you ask them to propose
1:09:46solutions for the future, their ideas
1:09:48are completely at odds.
1:09:49>> In other words, they’ve diagnosed the
1:09:51same illness, but the prescriptions
1:09:52they are offering are mutually
1:09:54exclusive. Let’s look at a few core
1:09:55issues, starting with the most
1:09:57important: money, specifically, tariffs
1:09:59. Public sentiment is clear; American
1:10:00voters directly blame high domestic
1:10:02prices on the comprehensive tariffs
1:10:04implemented during the Trump era. So,
1:10:05do the Democratic centrists advocate
1:10:07for canceling all tariffs as soon as
1:10:09they take office to bring prices down?
1:10:11The centrists are actually very
1:10:12hesitant. From an economic perspective,
1:10:14removing tariffs could stimulate the
1:10:16economy and lower inflation, but from a
1:10:18negotiating standpoint, if they scrap
1:10:20all tariffs now, they’ll have no
1:10:21leverage for future talks with other
1:10:23countries.
1:10:23>> And what does the left think?
1:10:25>> The progressive left's stance is quite
1:10:27subversive; they actually love the
1:10:29current protectionism and tariff
1:10:30policies.
1:10:31>> The left likes tariffs, which
1:10:32completely shatters our traditional
1:10:34understanding of liberals supporting
1:10:36global free trade. This is because the
1:10:38left needs money and must protect
1:10:39specific grassroots workers. High
1:10:41tariffs not only shield the local
1:10:42unions and manufacturing sectors they
1:10:44support from foreign competition, but
1:10:46more importantly, they generate massive
1:10:48fiscal revenue.
1:10:49>> What do they plan to do with this money
1:10:50?
1:10:51>> This money can be used to support their
1:10:52massive social welfare programs and
1:10:54green energy subsidies, which is why
1:10:55the Democratic Party is currently
1:10:57caught in a serious internal conflict
1:10:59over trade policy.
1:10:59>> I see. What about the second
1:11:01battlefield, the one related to the
1:11:03Middle East and allies? We used to
1:11:04think that supporting Israel was an
1:11:06untouchable, ironclad rule in American
1:11:08politics, but the trend within the
1:11:09Democratic Party seems to have shifted.
1:11:11>> There is now a cross-party consensus
1:11:13within the Democratic Party that Israel
1:11:15can no longer be given an unconditional
1:11:17blank check. But the demands of the
1:11:19progressive left are much more intense.
1:11:20>> How intense?
1:11:21>> There is a powerful voice within the
1:11:23left wing that even wants the U.S. to
1:11:25completely withdraw from the quagmire
1:11:27of the Middle East and stop being the
1:11:28world's policeman. Even regarding
1:11:30Ukraine, the left is only willing to
1:11:32offer extremely cautious and limited
1:11:34support. To some extent, the left now
1:11:36wants to retreat from global
1:11:37geopolitics even more than the Trump
1:11:39camp does. This brings us to the third,
1:11:41most core, and most complex battlefield
1:11:44: China and the AI tech war. This is a
1:11:46total, self-contradictory trap for the
1:11:48Democrats, right? Didn't the left
1:11:50always hope to cooperate with China on
1:11:52global issues like climate change? How
1:11:54can they handle climate change while
1:11:56simultaneously dealing with the raging
1:11:58AI chip war? What is the connection
1:12:00between the two?
1:12:01>> This is the most ironic and
1:12:02contradictory mechanism in the entire
1:12:04policy. The centrist view is
1:12:06straightforward: the U.S. and China are
1:12:08in a zero-sum game for technological
1:12:09leadership of the century.
1:12:11>> Hmm, and what about the left?
1:12:12>> The progressive left originally wanted
1:12:14to downplay geopolitics and focus on
1:12:16cooperating with China on carbon
1:12:18reduction. But the explosive growth of
1:12:20AI has completely disrupted those plans
1:12:22. The left is now deeply anxious about
1:12:24two things.
1:12:25>> Which two things?
1:12:26>> First, the safety threats posed by
1:12:28potentially uncontrollable AI
1:12:29development. Second, the fact that a
1:12:31few large tech giants hold power
1:12:33equivalent to that of nations. Oh, I
1:12:35see. So, since the left is constantly
1:12:37calling for strict regulation of AI and
1:12:39limiting the expansion of tech giants
1:12:41domestically, it is politically
1:12:43impossible for them to let China's AI
1:12:45industry continue to grow, right?
1:12:46Otherwise, they would be attacked by
1:12:48their opponents for double standards,
1:12:49or even for selling out national
1:12:51security.
1:12:51>> Exactly, that is the reality of
1:12:53political pressure. This extreme fear
1:12:55regarding AI safety has forced the Left
1:12:57to swallow the geopolitical
1:12:58confrontation they once detested. They
1:13:00are forced to pivot toward a hardline
1:13:02stance, strongly supporting export
1:13:03controls on high-end AI chips and
1:13:05manufacturing equipment to China.
1:13:06>> Then, wouldn't that be the end of
1:13:08climate cooperation?
1:13:09>> Yes, they are well aware that by
1:13:11building such high walls in the tech
1:13:13defense line, and once that fully
1:13:15impacts China, the climate change
1:13:16cooperation they once dreamed of will
1:13:19also vanish into thin air. This is the
1:13:21cruel chain reaction in geopolitics.
1:13:24Listening this far, if you are a
1:13:26listener in Taiwan or any country
1:13:28highly dependent on international trade
1:13:30, you must recognize a reality.
1:13:33Regardless of the outcome of the 48th
1:13:35presidential election, whether the
1:13:37Republican wrecking ball continues to
1:13:38swing, or the Democrats regain power
1:13:40with their internal contradictions. The
1:13:43era of open globalization, led by the
1:13:45United States that we were familiar
1:13:46with, has truly come to an end. The
1:13:48most terrifying characteristic of a
1:13:50wrecking ball is its unpredictability,
1:13:52but once it strikes, some changes to
1:13:54the landscape are permanent and
1:13:56irreversible. We can predict the
1:13:57inevitable future trends with great
1:13:59certainty. What are these inevitable
1:14:01trends?
1:14:02>> It is that the future American
1:14:03successor, regardless of the party,
1:14:05will absolutely continue an "America
1:14:07First" framework in two major areas.
1:14:09The first is maintaining a massive
1:14:11defense budget; even pacifists within
1:14:13the Democratic Party only dare to make
1:14:15minor adjustments at the margins,
1:14:17fearing that deep cuts would project
1:14:19weakness. The second is strict border
1:14:20and trade controls.
1:14:22>> So the direction is consistent. Exactly
1:14:24. The only difference is that if the
1:14:26Democrats are in power, they might use
1:14:29slightly more diplomatic rhetoric when
1:14:31implementing these protectionist
1:14:33policies, with less harsh language, but
1:14:35the overall inward-looking trend and
1:14:37high walls for tech and trade are an
1:14:39unstoppable tide. That concludes the
1:14:41content of this article.
1:14:43>> Let us summarize today's in-depth
1:14:45analysis: we saw Europe's centrists
1:14:47collapsing due to fiscal failure,
1:14:49Middle Eastern autocrats fighting proxy
1:14:51wars in other nations, and financial
1:14:53markets eyeing the potential risks of
1:14:55AI and public debt.
1:14:56>> At the same time, we saw Europe's
1:14:58plight in space autonomy, the
1:14:59democratic backsliding caused by
1:15:01Indonesia's populist president, the
1:15:02enthusiastic embrace of AI by
1:15:04developing nations, and the disruptive
1:15:05foreign policy of the current U.S.
1:15:07administration.
1:15:08>> All of this reveals a new global
1:15:09landscape experiencing intense growing
1:15:11pains and filled with volatility. At
1:15:13the end of the program, I would like to
1:15:15pose a thought-provoking question to
1:15:17our listeners.
1:15:17>> Well, everyone, think about this.
1:15:20>> When governments are trapped in
1:15:22domestic fiscal quagmires and political
1:15:24infighting, will these traditional
1:15:26nations still determine the future
1:15:27world order? Or will it be those tech
1:15:31giants that master AI and even control
1:15:33satellite networks in space? You can
1:15:36continue to ponder the tug-of-war
1:15:37between technology and state power
1:15:39after the show. This is absolutely a
1:15:42key theme for the next decade.
1:15:43>> That wraps up today's Hai Ge Book Club.
1:15:46Thanks for listening, see you next time
1:15:48, bye.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 經濟學人2026.10.24《封面及社論版Podcast》：歐洲溫和派爆發暴動，沙烏地與阿聯在中東爭霸引戰，AI泡沫與美國國債誰會先掀起市場崩盤？歐洲太空衛星自主困境，加上印尼民粹失靈與川普外交衝擊！ by 海格讀書會(每周更新)專注財經及經濟學人分享 , generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 14,275 words across 2,494 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.