Munk Debate on the Future of Geopolitics - Pre-Debate Interview - Fareed Zakaria & Niall Ferguson

  • 🎬 Video
  • ℹ️ Description
Munk Debate on the Future of Geopolitics - Pre-Debate Interview - Fareed Zakaria & Niall Ferguson5
Rudyard Griffiths interviews Fareed Zakaria and Niall Ferguson prior to the Munk Debate on the Future of Geopolitics.

Download — Munk Debate on the Future of Geopolitics - Pre-Debate Interview - Fareed Zakaria & Niall Ferguson

Download video
💬 Comments on the video
Author

to be honest niall ferguson's arguments were far more substantive and to the point.zakaria though i support his viewpoint looked novice.had niall pushed on him it would have been an embarrassment for him.

Author — Syed Kafeel

Author

40:17 I disagree the reason why the post WW2 was more peaceful(according to Ferguson ) was because Europe as a super power was gone, the British influence over continental Europe was over and they have no saying over war and peace decisions anymore, it was between Washington and Moscow but this was only possible after the destruction of the British empire and Europe as the center of the world

Author — jeffrey dahmere

Author

Both make valid points, so the only way to decide who wins is for Niall Ferguson & Fareed Zakaria to fight in a cage to the death! Or maybe the truth is somewhere in-between; this is not a black & white issue. Automation is only going to make Conservatives hate internationalism even more.

Can you say basic income? I'd still prefer to see Niall Ferguson & Fareed Zakaria fight in a cage!

Author — Emperor Scott Yee

Author

All the problems nowadays have very few to do with the liberal international order or the globalization. It has been creating the safe environment for the peaceful development in the world. What the real wrong is that western only takes their advantage selfishly and they have been violating the the orders and laws they set up. Counting the most wars, chaos and "Color Revolution" western declared and made since WWII then we could conclude that we should not only keep, but also modify the liberal international order in order to meet the requirement of nowadays reality and prevent those good orders from abusing, like western did before. Actually, what we should bring to the end now is western domination, especially their religious ideology-driven "democracy" export and their political correct. It has been causing the western decline and reduced western confidence while all Asian countries, especially China, have been making big progress and the people there are full of hope and confidence for their future.

Author — Y Liu

Author

CHINA'S FUTURE
ACCORDING TO MAO TO KISSINGER
mao offered couple millions of chinese women to kissinger during their meeting during the pingpong diplomacy, remarking that chinese mothers can give births fast. kissinger mentioned this in his book, not really quite being able to make out what's this offering was all about, except maybe for a laugh by his fellow sacastic americans, once revealed.
well, this is china's future according to mao. it's based on china's past, related to interaction with america.
china's future rests in solving the problem of overpopulation. this overpopulation was caused by america's nuclear genocidal threat when mao, taking the lesson from how america defeated japan by deplete its population, asked chinese mother to give birth faster than america could kill.
now, mao dissolved the nuke threat with pingpong diplomacy. what do we do with the over crowding population?
whether kissinger accept or not accept the offer, the offer stands and will be materialized one way of another. specifically, there will be a mass migration of chinese, amount to 50%, to north america, destination u.s.a., but canada would also do.
the way to implement this plan is to build the upper pacific rim super-expressway thru russia and alaska.
and if america doesn't like it, anything it tried to do would likely to make this happen faster, and might inevitably turning america into china.

Author — zuo Ching

Author

Trump phenomenon in the USA or even in the Philippine shows that the so called "politicians" in any party of the country could not be trustable, they represent only the interests of some particular groups, not the majority of working classes. That is the reason why they could not finish their home work, and they have punched above their weight to export their religious radical "Democracy" around the world, like Soviet Union did with communism before, sometime with the military force. Invasion of Iraq, "Color Revolution", ISIS and so on, are all its real by-products. Donald Trump is indeed the better choice of USA, he tells a lot of truth that the main stream media, parties, politicians and country leaders have been trying very hard to hide and cover. Trump lets USA population to know clearly and think deeply what would be the priority of the country and their leadership: home work! USA's main enemy is not Russia, not China, not Muslim ... USA's main enemy is itself. There are too much liars in USA politicians. Except two parties, USA majority want to have another alternative: a CEO of company to manage the country, although a bit of naive, at least he has long time experience of business, better than previous presidents, like Obama, who even never ever have had any local administration experience, except his lie (instead of as he promised that he would cut the USA debt to half in his first term, he doubled it.) or his good presentation. We are happy that Trump points out the main problem of USA and rejects the western political correct (ideology-driven democracy). He is trying to manage the country with technocratic professionals, other than with so called American elites and "think tanks", who have been fed by interests groups.

Author — Y Liu

Author

Fareed was much more substantive in terms of the question. Liberal international order is not over despite problems rightly observed by Ferguson and agreed to by Fareed. Ferguson seemed more intent on invective for emotional release and comic relief than providing a cogent rational for why he thinks the liberal international order is over.

Author — Tony Aguilar