Robert Lighthizer

The third group are people that study it. and conclude that there isn't a problem, China's not an adversary, and there's no . That group is all invested in China, right? So you can kind of divide the world when you think, when you're talking to someone, which of these three groups are you in?

If you're in the last group, then you are basically a compromised person because no rational person can look at the data, look at the facts, and conclude that China's not a threat and an adversary.

If you're in the last group, then you are basically a compromised person because no rational person can look at the data, look at the facts, and conclude that China's not a threat and an adversary.

If you're in the last group, then you are basically a compromised person because no rational person can look at the data, look at the facts, and conclude that China's not a threat and an adversary.

What's that?

What's that?

What's that?

So, yeah, this is kind of the defeatist caucus, right? It is the defeatist caucus, yeah. The one that is all over for the world. I generally find that group has a very large overlap with Group 3 that I articulate. The people invested in China. The people invested in China that are already going to make money. But for sure, there are people – but I always say to them –

So, yeah, this is kind of the defeatist caucus, right? It is the defeatist caucus, yeah. The one that is all over for the world. I generally find that group has a very large overlap with Group 3 that I articulate. The people invested in China. The people invested in China that are already going to make money. But for sure, there are people – but I always say to them –

So, yeah, this is kind of the defeatist caucus, right? It is the defeatist caucus, yeah. The one that is all over for the world. I generally find that group has a very large overlap with Group 3 that I articulate. The people invested in China. The people invested in China that are already going to make money. But for sure, there are people – but I always say to them –

You know, you can't say do nothing in the face of a crisis. If you say do nothing in the face of a crisis, then I have not convinced you that we have a crisis. Because it's irrational if you accept the fact that it's a crisis to say do nothing. That's not a rational response.

You know, you can't say do nothing in the face of a crisis. If you say do nothing in the face of a crisis, then I have not convinced you that we have a crisis. Because it's irrational if you accept the fact that it's a crisis to say do nothing. That's not a rational response.

You know, you can't say do nothing in the face of a crisis. If you say do nothing in the face of a crisis, then I have not convinced you that we have a crisis. Because it's irrational if you accept the fact that it's a crisis to say do nothing. That's not a rational response.

Yeah. Yeah, although there were a lot of differences and a lot of other things going on there. And when you mention that, I always think of Neville Chamberlain, who before he was prime minister was chancellor of the Exchequer. And he approved the sale in the 30s of 180 or whatever it was, Rolls-Royce airplane engines to re-arming Nazi Germany. which is a dishonest face, ludicrous.

Yeah. Yeah, although there were a lot of differences and a lot of other things going on there. And when you mention that, I always think of Neville Chamberlain, who before he was prime minister was chancellor of the Exchequer. And he approved the sale in the 30s of 180 or whatever it was, Rolls-Royce airplane engines to re-arming Nazi Germany. which is a dishonest face, ludicrous.

Yeah. Yeah, although there were a lot of differences and a lot of other things going on there. And when you mention that, I always think of Neville Chamberlain, who before he was prime minister was chancellor of the Exchequer. And he approved the sale in the 30s of 180 or whatever it was, Rolls-Royce airplane engines to re-arming Nazi Germany. which is a dishonest face, ludicrous.

And his explanation was that trade, like religion, should know no boundaries. So while rearming Nazi Germany was a threat, it was more important that we sell them things, even if they're going to use them to bomb us. I always said, I don't know why, but when you mentioned England during that period, that's the first thing that popped into my head.

And his explanation was that trade, like religion, should know no boundaries. So while rearming Nazi Germany was a threat, it was more important that we sell them things, even if they're going to use them to bomb us. I always said, I don't know why, but when you mentioned England during that period, that's the first thing that popped into my head.

And his explanation was that trade, like religion, should know no boundaries. So while rearming Nazi Germany was a threat, it was more important that we sell them things, even if they're going to use them to bomb us. I always said, I don't know why, but when you mentioned England during that period, that's the first thing that popped into my head.

Exactly, exactly. So, let's think of why I have this conclusion. And a lot of – none of this is going to be news, I don't think, to anyone who's listening. But one, China has the biggest army in the world and they're growing it. They have the biggest navy in the world. They are militarizing the South China Sea in a way we haven't seen since the Second World War. They're claiming shoals.