A ERA DAS QUATRO TRANSFORMAÇÕES: OLIVER STUENKEL - Inteligência Ltda. Podcast #1877

Hello, Terráqueo, straight from New York. I'm going to stop here to give you a quick message. And those who are watching and those who have a company have to listen to what I'm saying. What matters most is the growth of the business. Today, Urubarazil is not the lack of will or market, it is the lack of a round process method. I'll give you an example. If our podcast audience falls by half tomorrow and the box is tight, what is the exact action plan to execute in the first minute?

It's hard and it's not because you're bad, it's because no one gave you the process. And most of the company owners live like this, improvising, extinguishing fires, every day. That's exactly where the G4 comes in. I'm a big fan of these guys. You know why? Because what I like the most is that they don't throw you a bunch of courses in the face. No, they take your company, make a diagnosis and tell you exactly where to tighten the screw.

There is monthly monitoring with people who build a real company, on the other hand, giving you the direction. That's what changes the game. It changed for me, it will change for you. Look at the timing. The G4 is making available to Bússola a free course of artificial intelligence management applied and focused on company owners. Stop operating in amateurism, man. Scan the QR code that is on the screen or click on the link below.

that is in the description and guarantees your access to G4 for those who want more, much more. Kiss on the elbow and bye! Hello Terráqueos, how are you? I'm Rogério Vilera and another limited intelligence program is starting. The program where the limitation of intelligence happens only by the presenter who speaks to you.

I'm the Villela here in Brazil, not an IA. You're going to love it. This is IA, he made a scenario like that in the United States. No, I came back here and I'm doing a back and forth, Homer. I'm here and I'm there. So you can see me here and the next day I'm there. I'm sleeping on the flight. I sleep on the flight.

I came back, I left my father, I came back there and, if I need to, I come back here, I come back to the Brazil game, I go to wherever Brazil goes. We want it to be until the final, right? I come here once in a while, I record the program. If Brazil wins the Copa, what will you give me as a gift?

man always it's me giving you a gift to Fabi any she any break here you will bring me what I'm going to win I don't know what man nobody thinks of me Romer put a song there's no right put a sad song now you do a song that nobody thinks of me why nobody thinks of her you deserve a gift Oliver said it's my fifth part after the fifth participation I got a car right he

I also asked for a gift, man. Now we're going to have to buy a Porsche just for him because now... Look, if you want to give me a Play 5 with a new GTA, it's wonderful. It's true, man. Let's play here. There can be a replica of the trophy too. There, yes. Oh, it's worth it. A Lego, a Lego of the trophy, have you seen it?

I'm here with Oliver, as you can see. Homer, what do people have to do now? Because I came all the way to São Paulo to do this show. To do it, it's worth it. Leave your like, subscribe to the channel, become a member. Remembering that today is a special live, which is dedicated to the special people who are our members. They pass in front of the chat and send their question with anticipation. Exactly. So you want to become a member just like...

look at Mike baguncinha has Naldo Bene and he has Christ has Bambam Elon Musk is still a member left is still a member man is ugly is a man who takes the cheapest member right he doesn't want to spend money is muquirana man muquirana Elon Musk and come here huh so send your question give this like because it deserves a lot Oliver welcome back here the program always well dressed thank you very much I'm also here in Brazil for a very short time we will be back soon but you're not following today you're getting to the games

I didn't go to the games. My son is not yet old enough to go. He's four years old. After 20, 30 minutes he wants to play, do something else. But I go to the bars. It's very nice. The climate is very good. The communities get together. There are many immigrants in the United States. I watched several games with the Brazilian community in Washington.

but also in other cities in other countries, it's very interesting. There are not so many tourists and in my assessment, tourists do not dominate the cities, right? You have to go to certain neighborhoods. In New York, for example, the game was against Haiti, maybe? I think it was with Haiti. It was the first game in New York, do you remember? The first game was with Morocco. Morocco, yes. With Morocco.

I was in New York, Brazil won, there was a party, we went to Times Square, but Nix was champion after 52 years. The guys had an absurd party, so you saw this Nix party, but Brazil was kind of muffled. Then you go to Benzema, you see a point, but it's not that thing of the World Cup climate that people cross each other and everyone is there. And the cities are very far apart.

Now, it's interesting to see that I've been to Brazil twice, it's my second trip during the Copa, I'm here at Ponte Aérea. There's a lot of people going to watch a game, then coming back. Can I give you some tips about how to sleep on the plane? I need to, I'm going to come back tomorrow, I need to...

tomorrow is not this dawn I need to sleep anyway I took a direct flight and I'll get there for the game already cool cool it's not going to be great but in general like this I think the fact that you have had teams less known like this even gave a added a different dimension more goals was very cool and Washington you're in Washington exactly I live there it must be a more

still weak, right? Yes, because there is no game. But there are many diplomats and many officials of international organizations, the World Cup, the Humanitarian Fund. Do you have a jersey? So you can see, yes. And many of the diplomats use football jerseys and such.

But in general, there's a lot of concern about the elections, about the global scenario. I even had to attend some meetings during games that I really wanted to watch. And then, obviously, when a senator or a congressman asks, you can't say, "Look, unfortunately there's this football game that we'll find out later." So I lost some games because I had to attend to people.

and I'm kind of on the bridge between Washington and Boston, I offer a series of seminars at Kennedy School. -Boston has a large Brazilian community. -Brazilian, and I come a lot to São Paulo. Do you come here to solve individual issues or do you work? I always work, my family is in Washington, so it's a dialogue with

political and business leaderships. São Paulo and Brazil or São Paulo? São Paulo, every two months, and also, more and more, Central West. Agro is clearly globalizing. There are many orders coming from Cuiabá, Campo Grande, even from smaller cities.

because there is a growing perception that Brazil needs to prepare for geopolitical turbulence. So it's very interesting, you have even smaller companies that realize that the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the war in the Middle East, the tension in Asia, that's becoming the new normal and that it's necessary to integrate geopolitical assessment in the planning process

um

of predictions in public debate, but companies nowadays, especially slightly larger companies, develop scenarios to then evaluate how this would impact their strategy. So agro, for example, several companies I work with already had

a plan, a strategy for the case of a war between the United States and Iran.

that would lead to the closure of the Ormuz Strait. All this that happened was kind of predictable. Geopolitical analysts have been working for years with the scenario of the closure of the Ormuz Strait. So many companies had a plan ready, which had a very clear analysis of which products would be more expensive.

in the case of agro, if it's fertilizer, oil, etc. And some even adopted preventive strategies to, for example, buy fertilizer from other places, Canada, for example, to shield themselves. In politics, this also happens a lot. But I still think there are some...

even in denial. It's interesting, I talk weekly with political advisors and with American politicians, that's what I do during the day, some politician asks for an analysis about the situation in Colombia, for example. We prepare an evaluation and make a presentation.

And GUS, I think, has this very clear that global changes will cause a profound transformation, including in American society. Others, including the older ones, are a little in denial. I had a recent conversation with a US deputy who

who asked an interesting question: "Oliver, when will all this instability end? When do we get back to normal?" So there was still an expectation... - That's what we're going to talk about. - That we went through a lot of instability in the 90s, 2000s... - At the end of the Cold War. - Exactly. And that really allowed us to think

is not deepening globalization in books like the end of history that said that now is the scenario that but but that it is really more and more evident that all countries will go through economic instability the emergence of

um

It's an interesting point. The popular rejection of artificial intelligence and of artificial intelligence companies is so big that more and more politicians...

refuse financial support from big tech. It's already like that. If a politician says: "I don't want money from these people", he opens up the money he needs to finance campaigns, very expensive campaigns in the United States. So, it opens up a lot of things, and it only happens when there is a perception that accepting money from certain groups, harms you politically. And you have that.

in the Democratic Party and also in the Republican Party. One of the representatives of the Republican Party for the elections in 2028, Senator Hawley, he publicly said: "Look, I think there is an excessive concentration of the power of the Big Tech in the United States,

The politicians need to have autonomy because they have so much economic and financial power that they can influence elections in an indefinite way. And there is a bigger concern about the use of this. Exactly. Including great consequences for the sovereignty of other countries. In the case of Brazil, for example.

We already know that... Who controls this information that they have. Exactly. And also the conflicts that occur today

and it occurs already with and a very integrated decision-making process where is what type of target you will prioritize is for example recently crazy for example go go a drone he in crazy he decides he goes with a exact pair if you have this scenario you do it if you have exactly there was recently a case in which a drone moved by ia

from Iran shot down an American helicopter, this helicopter fell into the sea and an aquatic drone saved the American soldiers. So you had IA's drone completely involved and then you have to think, both are moved by models and who controls these models. So if, for example, the Brazilian Navy will have to use IA for decision-making processes in case of conflict.

And then, obviously, the big question is: is it safe to bring the model of the United States or China? Which, in a way, also produces vulnerabilities. Because, theoretically,

And we saw this recently, the American government asked Anthropic to turn off a new version of the model. So imagine that your armed forces depend on a model and another government can say: "Look, from now on you won't have access anymore." So all of this, I think, is a transformation that changes... First of all, it produces a power outage.

For now, this concentrates more power in the United States and China, because they are the two countries that have a great concentration of human talent, capital, and large markets, so they control the border models. But at the same time, and I find this very interesting, you also have a displacement of power

is in the direction of emerging powers, India, Indonesia, that is, the United States does not send in the same way as before, if you see this in the American defeat in the Middle East,

is very evident in the United States lost this conflict so despite all the technological capacity the United States could not prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz and the allies of the United States were very weak and surprising even right for us you you expected because with the American power I thought it wouldn't be a fast war but that even a little more easily like that I think

Two things. First, we forget the difficulty of waging a war far away. It's very difficult to quickly move all your equipment and engage in a conflict on another continent. Few countries have this capacity. The second is that your tolerance

to the economic cost. And clearly, the Iranian tolerance is much greater, because the Iranian regime is in a fight for survival, so it is willing to deal with a huge economic cost, which Iran is going through now. Trump, thinking it would be a quick conflict, didn't prepare the population

for a relevant economic cost. People are mad about the price of fuel. You saw it, right? Of course. And I saw it. The first thing you have to do when you move to the US is to buy a car. Public transport is usually... And everything is cheap. Everything is cheap. In the Netherlands, for example, there's no way there's no car there. Yes. Not even in Washington, which is a city with nice public transport. There's no way. I use the car a lot. It's part of life. So, you fill the tank and you realize it right away.

And if Trump had prepared the population and said, "Guys, over the weeks..." Bush did this in the case of Iraq. He even lied, saying that weapons of destruction are more important. But he had a strategy with political advisors, etc., preparing the United States for a human cost.

economic, diplomatic, because the United States at that time had already gone through a process of greater isolation, of the worsening of the relationship with allies, France and Germany, for example, refused to support the invasion, etc. So Trump didn't do that. Iran has been doing this for decades. Since 1979, Iran prepares its population

for a conflict with the United States. The United States is very present in the Iranian political discourse, it's the great demon, etc. - The great Satan, right? - And the Iranian strategists, in fact, shielded, in the best possible way, the Iranian economy against a conflict of this kind. Including using technologies and innovative strategic approaches. For example, a strategy of...

to not have a command center in a physical location, but to distribute decision-makers in the military environment throughout the country and give them very concrete long-term plans about what they should do if the superior is eliminated.

So, the United States, when attacking the Ministry of Defense, for example, and killing a lot of generals, they couldn't cause a disruption. I think that was an absurd victory. They didn't feel it. So, if you have a very centralized decision-making process, and if the Defense Minister dies, and all the main generals die, the rest is out of coordination.

Iran has a model of high resilience, because it already thought for years about this type of conflict and also always suffered. Which is a model in the form of a terrorist cell, right? It is a systematic decentralization, also in function of the frequent assassinations by either Americans or Israelis of Iranian generals. You will remember that a few years ago, Trump during his first term killed a general

Iranian while I think it arrived in Baghdad. So, the American population, for not understanding why the United States is stopping this conflict, had very low tolerance with the delay, but also with human cost. You see people dying. There is always an American politician who actively participated

of Bush's strategy before the war in Iraq, he said: "You need to ensure that at a family dinner everyone can understand why the US is at war.

explain explain because then the person understands we're at war for such a reason then it's okay I pay more on my account if the market is later he said it was for oil right but but this is if you change the story is all the communication strategists with whom I spoke they said look at the Trump made a brutal mistake because Netanyahu convinced

that it would be a matter of a few days, which obviously was the case. But this is also a reflection... This is true, then, because I thought it was the conspiracy theory. No, like, who made the decision to enter the war was the United States. There are a thousand people trying to convince the President of the United States to do whatever. So, I don't think it's a conspiracy theory in the sense of...

- Who said that? - It's evident that... - It's from the government... - No, no, I mean... - Someone else said that. - If you are the prime minister of a certain country, you have the right to try to convince the president of the United States of anything. This always happens. Trump's mistake was to get into this mess

which is affecting the bilateral relationship between the United States and Israel. Because now Israel has become a theme that has ceased to be a consensual theme. In the past, both the left and the right supported this relationship. But I think that more than that, the difficulties of the United States in the Middle East also demonstrate

that the diffusion of power already reduces the capacity of the great powers to impose themselves easily. Because you have Iran, which is a relatively poor country, dominating, managing to dominate certain technologies, including developing cutting-edge technologies. The drones that Iran developed with Russian support, which are used by the Russians in Ukraine,

This is a great military innovation. Why? Because it's such a cheap drone that it can be shot down by a missile

ultra-sophisticated but this missile costs 10 million dollars then you throw there 10 thousand dollar drones with 100 200 at some point it will collapse another country financially can't sustain this work of knocking down these drones so what you already have you have small countries the war has changed completely with drones with intelligence and then there are two things my worrying

- In Ukraine, right? - Yes, in Ukraine. Two things that worry me. The first is that we are entering a phase where you no longer need to send soldiers to a battle. In Ukraine there is still a confrontation with a very high human cost, especially at the Russian side, but also on the Ukrainian side.

But a country like the United States can stop a war of great proportions and lost 13 people. - Just? - Just. Which, in my opinion, was a big mistake, this conflict, and I think these 13 people died in vain because the United States did not achieve any objective.

but what this shows is you can go into war

and reduce the human cost, which can make a war more probable because a leader like Trump can think he can win a conflict without human cost. Secondly, the algorithms increasingly define the way this conflict occurs

-

human common sense, because during the Cold War, many times, there was this episode, very remembered, when a supercomputer from the Soviet Union alerted the Soviet military command that there was a nuclear attack coming from the United States. And then a human being looked at it and said: "Look, that doesn't make sense. Why would they do that?" That was human intuition. And he

because he thought it was unlikely that the US would launch an attack of this kind against the Soviet Union, he didn't pass this alert ahead, because he said: "This is going to be the beginning of a nuclear war. I think this supercomputer is wrong."

- That's crazy. - It's wrong. And initially it was punished. That was during the Cold War. In the last decade of the Cold War. - They made a movie about it. - I imagine that. - The person was later awarded. - Maybe a war game. With a metal brother. What do you think? - So, like... - A nuclear war almost started by mistake. Because the computer, analyzing information, saw a reflection caused by clouds, thinking it was an attack. But it didn't happen, in fact. That is, it was a false alarm.

This, in the case of algorithms, is very dangerous, obviously. But at the same time, you have terrorist groups, for example, that can have access to algorithms and drones at a very low cost. So you have... There's something else too, I don't know if you know, Oliver, that will enter this equation soon, they say it's already there, but they're quantum computers that will break

cryptography in seconds things that would take centuries in seconds seconds so the banks will be unprotected the military part of the countries will be unprotected this movie is really this one but then you find the poster is a war game really that's it he was not received several prizes later like this one is one of these very nice cases like that in history as someone like

not a very relevant position, but it was in the right place at the right time. I agree with you, I think the increasingly frequent use of new technologies, including in areas of national interest, fundamental to national stability, makes the country more vulnerable

And I see that in the US people are very aware of this. In the US you realize that the enemy is China. China, but also... Why am I saying this? Because I was with a friend of mine who lives in the US for a long time and his son is a military.

um

which was very different. When I was a student in the United States of post-graduation, I had many Chinese friends, including many of them today are part of the Chinese government. I graduated in 2009. So in the 2000s, you had a rise. Many of my American friends learned Chinese.

um

dealing with crises quickly and efficiently. Diplomatic crises didn't even reach the press because you had many people in daily dialogue with the other side who believed that through economic and political cooperation it would be possible to produce mutual benefits.

And this was undeniable. The economic cooperation between China and the United States over the last decades was something unprecedented in history, giving low-cost products to the American consumer, creating very large profits for American companies entering the Chinese market. Obviously, it also contributed, but it was not the decisive factor for a deindustrialization in the United States. It was not all that they say today, because the technological advance

caused this above all in automation, etc. But today you don't have it anymore. I agree with that. I think that today there are plans that I get a little scared sometimes, participating in meetings in Washington, where military planners talk in a very concrete way about how a conflict would occur, what the steps would be and such. It's not if, it's when, right? The advantage is that

Everyone is very prepared for this. No big company in the US has a plan. There is a process, including using redundancy plans. You don't want to depend only on China, so you buy components from other places, you move parts of your factories to Mexico.

the trade between the US and Mexico exploded in part because Mexico received a lot of American investment that was coming out of China. Not because they don't like the Chinese market, because companies are proactively taking steps to shield themselves against future geopolitical crises. But I think we still have a long way to go.

um

It is also fundamental to think about other actors who can represent risks. You have tensions between Russia and the Baltic countries, the NATO in a broader way. You have tensions between India and Pakistan, between India and China, between the Philippines and China, which are even conflicts of very high complexity, Taiwan. So just to say this:

All the countries with the IAEA's emergence need to be prepared for attacks against, for example, PIX, against SUS, against... Cryptocurrencies? Cryptocurrencies, the military sector, Faria Lima, Wall Street. Today you have a lot of people working with the big banks.

to prepare against cyber attacks of this type. So, today any new technology brings huge gains, but you also need to think, for example, how you protect payment systems if there is a major cyber attack.

And it's very interesting that in many countries today there is a thought like this: you retain a capacity to operate using an old technology, in case the most advanced is attacked. So in the concrete case, that means that in the Pentagon or in other American governments, there is a perception that the emergence of autonomous cars

is a great advance for society, no one needs to drive anymore, you have a brutal drop in accidents, you have better traffic, this by the way has a on the one hand yes, right, because you can lend your car to others while you don't use it, so less car, on the other hand with the autonomous car and the drop in cost, no one else wants to take the bus, because everyone wants to stay in their own car, which is cheaper.

But then people will stop knowing how to drive a car. And in the event of a major conflict, a mobilization, a cyber attack that affects autonomous cars, you still need your population to know how to drive.

So, let's say that the peak is attacked and you can't pay with credit card because of a cyber attack. The websites and banks don't work anymore. You need to have a minimum amount of money circulating in the species. Because if not, you will quickly suffer a collapse of society through a cyber attack.

Brazil works 100 percent in electronic payment there is a cyber attack and no one else has money in the movie the day after the world after us this world after us I I watched the movie I saw some scenes on social networks by the Obama family like this and then it's about that doesn't explain who seems to be China

A cyber attack. Everything falls. The people are completely in the dark. The cars on the screen, one hitting the other. A line of cars. Because they were hacked.

And people don't know what's going on because they don't have access to the internet, they don't have television. You can see that the news is being controlled. So people are totally lost in the US. And the guys receiving pamphlets about war. -Yes, yes. -This movie is really crazy. And we need to think about it. We've been through 30 years in a world where...

and the greatest dependence does not represent a threat so the country opens up commercially you receive investment outside a great gain so the world won everyone won we went through the best decades of human history I wanted as we will introduce in this subject now right and talk

about the era of the four transformations, you have already started to brush this first transformation, which is this return to multipolarity. Let's go there first. So, four, I think this is not something that I...

I developed this from conversations with decision makers in the political and business sphere in the United States, Latin America and Europe. Unfortunately, less and less in China. I try to preserve my dialogues with Chinese actors. This is a big problem. With the increase of geopolitical tensions, it is increasingly difficult to have good access. But also with leadership in India.

and in other countries around the world, that it is necessary to prepare for four major transformations that will have a profound impact on the functioning of the economy, of society, the first being the displacement of power

that was concentrated above all in the United States for other powers, the West in general, for China, for India, that doesn't mean that the West is no longer important. The United States will be a key actor, at least until the end of the century, Europe too. So I'm not saying like this, let's leave this... I live in the United States partly because I think it remains a very important actor. It is necessary to understand what happens in the United States. But in the same way,

you have actors who have more autonomy today, who before had a typical situation of a multipolar system and a growing number of great powers.

People may ask what a great power is. For me, a great power is an actor who, besides concentrating a lot on economic and political power, is so important that he cares basically about everything that happens in global politics. In other words, if the United States were a great power, there was an attempt to coup in Paraguay, the United States cares about that. Why? Because it has concrete economic interests in all countries. Today, China is the same.

You have a crisis in Venezuela. For China it's fundamental because there are big investments there. In other words, it's such an important factor that at no time does a political crisis matter. But that also means that if a crisis arises in Venezuela, immediately the interests of all the great powers are impacted and there is a high risk of friction. For example, the United States wanting to take a Chinese company

of the port management near the Panama Canal. This is a typical case of a tension between great powers in a third country. And you have this today in the Middle East, in Africa, in Latin America, in Europe, in all places you have interests of great powers causing friction. And third countries trying to somehow deal with it. So this is the first big...

transformation came to stay, no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is in the Kremlin, we need to know how to deal with it, it came to stay, the rest of the century will be marked by this tension caused by multipolarity. The second question, and then we can go into each one of them, we already talked about it, the emergence of artificial intelligence,

um uma inovação tecnológica que causará maiores disrupções do que a uma quebra de paradigma como foi a revolução industrial maior até maior né eu direi maior e é isso olha os sistemas políticos muitos

systems collapsed because you have a rapid transformation of power with wide political impacts, including the emergence of new political currents, suddenly the parties today no longer account for

um de lidar com essa situação então é isso sem dúvida é também causar uma disrupção que pode ser um processo de décadas também terceira é a transição energética já está em curso mas também causa um deslocamento de poder você ainda por um bom tempo é por umas duas décadas tem bastante poder concentrado nos detentores de petróleo de gás natural mas cada vez mais um deslocamento para

-

So if you, for example, today in a country... - And even explore the moon too. - And beyond, certainly. But you today have China in ascension in part because countries that stop buying oil and instead of that bet on wind energy, for example, need Chinese technology, because China dominates this area. So also a transformation that causes instability because this

will inevitably cause major fluctuations in the price of energy, both renewable and fossil. All the energy infrastructure that was built needs to change too. And the fourth transformation is the demographic transformation, which I think is the one that receives less attention, but which is the most...

the most predictable you can't change demographic trends in the short term so it's the most predictable we know exactly the transformation that will occur over the next few decades including systems of security because there are no workers enough to support an increasingly old population you have a collapse in the birth rate for many reasons and

It is very worth paying attention to the public debate in countries like South Korea and China, where there is not only a school closure and more and more third-year homes opening, but you have great economic opportunities to serve a population above 65, where you have governments that try to offer tax incentives to young couples,

Usually these incentives fail, so following other countries,

Brazil can also stop making certain mistakes, try things that have already been seen that do not work out there. You're talking not only about movements, but also about birth rates. China is worried about this now because it had that program of one child only and now it's encouraging more children. Exactly, but even in countries that didn't have this rule, you have a collapse in birth rates. In countries in Europe,

so not only that there certainly is also right we will have this problem Brazil has you only have

a

the rate of productive people. Exactly. There are many people who are out of the market, who are not producing, who don't pay the old people. Exactly. So there is a mathematical question, you have a defense question, because despite the emergence of artificial intelligence, for a long time you still need human beings to guarantee national security. And it's interesting because

And this obviously also has a direct relationship with the emergence of changes in the labor market. The expectation is that sectors where you will still have for a long time a growth, including in demand, are construction areas, for example,

But as the population is getting older, you also need to think about how you can employ people who are 75 years old. Because it will be very difficult for someone to retire and receive some insurance before they are 70. Since in the second half of the century you will have a lot more people with more than 65 than with less than 18. So I think that all of this means what?

We can't look at the last decades and expect a continuation of these trends. We had this luxury of not worrying about future crises and countries need not only think about how to get richer and more efficient, but also think about how they become less vulnerable to this kind of shock that will inevitably change our politics deeply.

What you said is not a consensus, these four factors. Can we put more, can we put less? Are there others who also put some other studies? The first tendency of a power dislocation... I'm talking about what we listen to, economic reset, listen... What is consensual, I would say, is that there will be

a redistribution of power that always causes instability. We didn't have that since when?

We had a great redistribution of power with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which now... The collapse of the Second World War and then... The Second World War, a great redistribution, decolonization as well, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Those were the great acts. Now, I don't think any of those are compared to... Is that so? Yes. It will be much more brutal then?

It's brutal, we can't know how much violence is involved, but clearly, the current systems are hardly prepared for instability. The first, the transition to multipolarity, has already been happening.

and makes great powers not be able to project themselves as easily as they did before. The most obvious case is Latin America. The American government

developed a new doctrine called the Dunrow Doctrine, which is a adjustment of the Monroe Doctrine. What is it called? It's kind of a joke, but it's the Donald Trump's Dunrow Doctrine, but it's based on the Monroe Doctrine of President Monroe in the 19th century, which...

who said that the Americas, the Western sphere, is part of the sphere of influence of the United States and that the United States has the responsibility and the right to intervene if necessary, initially to "protect" Latin America from Europeans, but then obviously to promote their own interests. So the United States clearly wants to consolidate its influence in Latin America, which are smaller, more vulnerable countries, and reduce the influence on China.

But the balance of this attempt is very bad. If you see that even countries ideologically aligned to the United States, like Chile, Argentina, and Chile, are maintaining their relations with China. More than that, they continue to expand their relationship with China while engaging in...

in symbolic gestures of alliance with the United States. In other words, the United States cannot impose itself in Latin America today. It can even overthrow a president and try to elect another president. But even, for example, Dela Espriella, who was now elected in Colombia, and Trump actively supported, will not give up the opportunities that exist in relation to Colombia's cooperation with China.

In the same way, China can't impose itself on its surroundings. Taiwan is a very small island. China has been wanting to control Taiwan for decades, and it still can't. What do you think about that question asked by Donald Trump? What question? If we...

invading Taiwan, are you going to get involved or not? And Trump didn't want to answer. I think it's funny that nowadays, the things that were done by closed doors, nowadays it's very open, right? Trump says things, Xi Jinping says things, everyone is talking. Do you think this is part of a new model, a new strategy? Who wins with this? Well, certainly in the case of

from Trump is an attempt to maintain a direct dialogue without mediation from the press. And so they don't try to... At the same time, negotiations continue to take place in the backstage and many times there is an understanding from China that what Trump says in public is for American consumption and that a conversation in the backstage remains relatively normal. Having said that,

My interpretation is that intelligence services use leaks more systematically to mold public opinion. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, CIA had a lot of access to internal conversations with the Russian government.

Avril Haines, who was the number two of the CIA, decided to systematically leak what the United States obtained from information before the invasion. This was an attempt to prepare American and European public opinion for a possible conflict and weaken this argument, or weaken the Russian ability to surprise

Ukraine with a conflict. There came a time when the Americans passed information about internal conversations between the Russian government and the Ukrainians to convince the Ukrainians that this conflict was going to happen, that the Ukrainians would say "no, Russia will not invade". So today you see this in other countries too, that the

Taiwan Taiwan Taiwan

to create a feeling of doubt in Beijing about how the United States will respond if the United States opts to control militarily or attack militarily Taiwan. It's a more likely naval blockade, that is, not an attack against Taiwan, because after all,

what we also saw in Ukraine is that if you bomb civilians, they will hardly say "Wow, how cool, they are bombing us and we want to be part of that country." Even the most pro-Russian Ukrainians today hate Russia. So that was a strategy to ensure that Russia, for many decades, does not want to be part of the sphere of Russian influence. Ukraine. So China, looking at this, said "We don't want

to hurt the citizen of Taiwan because we want to make sense so it has to be a subtle thing in quotes without causing human suffering so you made a special program about the election in Taiwan there you changed something from there to here is that they were more pro-USA and that government good is more pro-USA and more let's say less willing to give up autonomy

and more critical of China. The government continues to have this attitude. I think since then one thing has changed. Xi Jinping has replaced a lot of generals in the Chinese Armed Forces, officially to combat corruption, but in fact to consolidate his power. So you now have a lot of generals in key positions in China with less experience.

And I think it's very unlikely that China is willing to enter into a conflict now with these inexperienced people. They need time, etc. China has this disadvantage in a possible confrontation with the United States in the future,

very general with real combat influence. That's why China has been engaging more in UN peace missions for a long time, to have some real field experience, real conflict happening. I'm not worried about an imminent conflict today, I even think that China still tries to invest heavily in

"win the hearts of the Taiwanese population". This is going to be very difficult, but it is happening, right? To try to say: "Look, you will be fine, we will not interfere much in your political system". Obviously, the Taiwanese look at Hong Kong and had the same promise, and today Hong Kong is practically controlled by the Chinese government. I saw you there in Hong Kong, how is the situation there?

Look, there is less and less political freedom, less space for... Let's say, there is more and more risk of criticizing the central government. So you don't have this vibrant civil society that you had before. I don't know if I told you this before, but in 2017,

I briefly thought about accepting an offer from the University of Hong Kong.

I went there, I visited, and the city is amazing. It's very beautiful. It's cool. You have the Chinese side, so you're very close to the great innovations, but at the same time you can say whatever you want, which is fundamental for an academic. It's the best of both worlds in theory. Yes. Like Singapore, although there are some restrictions.

Macau is more of a cultural tourist destination. There is a university that is not bad, but for you to participate in the public discourse, etc. it is not a great center of thought as it is still Hong Kong. Great universities, brilliant students. I was very impressed during this time, but at the time,

even older teachers told me: "Look, this is going to get worse." So the Taiwanese look at Hong Kong as a warning, a warning sign that if they accept to be part or establish some union with Beijing, over time, Taiwanese democracy, which is very vibrant, will be suppressed. So I think that with all these exchanges in the Chinese military structure,

I think it's unlikely that a conflict will happen before 2030, only if the US make a big mistake, like an invasion of Iran. If that happens, I don't think it will happen, because all Trump's advisors are saying: "Don't do that, it's crazy, it's a big risk."

but it's not impossible. If this happens, and we're still at war, that is, there was this agreement, but there are frequent attacks. I even tell investors that the price of oil has dropped, but it's a passenger, because you can, overnight, have a change in the regime of Hormuz, basically, which can complicate the export too much, you can have unpredictability.

everyone needs to reduce their dependence on Hormuz even with this agreement. Now, if the United States invades Iran in a land way, it may be that China, and then they will have to remove military capacity from Asia and other regions to prioritize the war against Iran. It may be that in a situation like this China makes a move, because once you

There's a lot of your military capacity concentrated in the Middle East, and then China makes a naval blockade against Taiwan. You're in a situation where even the United States today can't stop a great war against Iran with land action and at the same time try to break the naval blockade of China against Taiwan. So in this case, yes, there can be a confrontation, but I don't feel an imminence today dialoguing with...

with the Chinese. What did stay are these conflicts of powers like Russia, like India, wanting to increase their sphere of influence because these countries can do things that they couldn't do before because the United States concentrated so much power that any American reaction against them would be devastating from an economic point of view. Russia couldn't invade Ukraine 20 years ago

because the American reaction would have broken Russia. Today Russia has China as a partner, India as a partner, several countries in the Middle East, Brazil. So the United States has lost the ability to dictate the course of Russia, basically. It has more autonomy. When in multiple systems you have several more autonomous countries, you will also have more potential for conflict. So this is the first...

This means that much more spending on defense, less spending in other areas, more fiscal instability because countries invest heavily in the armed forces, so probably more public debt, therefore higher interest rates, higher inflation. So this is bad for economic growth because

Let's assume a country like Germany tripled its expenses in defense, but it is already in a complicated fiscal situation and it has a huge demographic problem. What are you going to do? Are you going to cut or reduce the budget? There is no way, because it is already a very powerful electorate. This, by the way, is very interesting in this demographic issue. You need to have the support of the elderly more and more.

Which is very bad, because if you are a candidate who wants to prioritize education, first childhood, make long-term long-term bets, and increase productivity, a 70-year-old voter is not even there for long-term planning. Some may even care about it, but many will say: "Caio, what do you have for me?" And then the easiest answer is to spend more on the elderly.

- Exemption of transport, of various things. - Exactly, it's all expensive. But at the same time, you, more than ever, have few young people. So these young people need to be very well trained. Your nightmare is to have few young people, and these young people are not productive. They don't have good training. This is the last thing you want. So, to govern this, you will have a lot of difficulty. For example, from this

I adjusted my portfolio of investments to have a greater exposure in the defense sector today. Because these companies, not only the big Americans, but also smaller companies will have a great opportunity.

Because it's not just about spending more on defense and buying weapons from the United States. Each country wants to have its own defense sector, its own autonomy, its own EAA model, so as not to depend on anyone. So, even the Middle East is becoming a superpower to develop weapons. South Korea, Germany, Poland, Ukraine. By the way, if it's Ukraine, I think we'll still be at war for many years.

But Ukraine is transforming into a super defense power. It's selling technology and knowledge to others. Today there was a symbolic case that I think shows this madness, these rapid transformations.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the Germans sent military trainers to teach the Ukrainians how to use weapons from Germany that they had donated to the Ukrainians. Today, there are Ukrainians going to Germany to teach the Germans how to operate the drones.

The organized crime is taking Ukrainian to teach drones to the river. Exactly. That is, a huge diffusion of power. The trend of AI can change this a little bit. I'm working on a book to describe how this diffusion of power empowers

the countries in the periphery, formerly known as the periphery, but in the global south, such as India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan too, which has more margin of maneuver. So we are saying goodbye to a world of great powers, in which the great powers command, but in which the "small" or medium powers have immense power to

block initiatives from the United States, for example. The case of Brazil is exemplary. The United States pressed Brazil last year with tariffs, saying, look, the STF needs to stop this, make an interference here. An attempt, at least. An attempt to go through the process of the Brazilian judiciary. Now the Americans are threatening the Europeans with a 100% tariff.

if there is a new digital tax model, which is bad news for American big techs. This is typical of the behavior of the great powers. It has nothing to do with the United States. The great powers always say so. But the American attempt failed in the Brazilian case. On the contrary, the government had an increase in the approval rate because the countries don't like external differences.

So we are entering this phase in which, despite having a lot of power, China, the United States, Russia... Russia is managing to control a small neighbor, which Ukraine was economically very bad, very bad. It was with a average income below Latin America. That is, a country with very poor corruption rates, etc.

And Russia invades and can't control this country. A classic example of how smaller countries can defend themselves better than before. So this is the book, with a lot of historical examples, etc. My big problem is that the IA can hinder this relocation. Why? Because you have China and the United States dominating the development of last-generation models.

And countries like Brazil are having a hard time developing their own models. Because to have the latest generation model, you need human talent, a lot of capital, a totally predictable governance system for investors, and Brazil even has that, and access to energy. Brazil also has that. But for a country like Brazil, it is not viable today to compete with China or the United States in the development of IA models

and it's already behind, right? It's very far behind. Even Europeans can't do it either. The Gulf is spending a lot of money to have access to these models, but it will hardly be able to develop these models that will be fundamental for defense, for economic productivity. So I confess that I have little doubt about

If what will dominate... But is it worth investing in a data center or letting these guys enter here? For sure. For me, the biggest source of autonomy in Brazil is diversification. That means never compromising 100% with an alliance with a great power. Because from that moment... I remember that...

Eduardo Bolsonaro, when Jair Bolsonaro was elected, he made a trip to the United States and kind of... I know it was just a rhetorical gesture, but he kind of, during a meeting there, swore eternal love to the United States, saying: "We want to have a marriage, a super-state relationship, an unbreakable alliance." And I said: "Man, this is the worst thing you can do."

I would also be against an alliance with the Europeans and the Chinese. In geopolitics, you need to have a degree of flexibility. It's not like in human relationships. Without passion. Without passion, without love, without passion. Brazil needs to receive investment from Chinese, American and European data centers.

from all countries, have some of their own, and distribute your public data in several of these, so that no country can call the President of Brazil and say: "If you don't do this, I'll press this button and you lose access to SUS, or you lose access to this IAC model that you need to manage commercial aviation, for example, or civil aviation, or for your Navy." So, this needs to be totally fragmented,

The worst scenario would be a decisive victory in the field of either the United States or China. Because if a country dominates globally, then you have no margin of maneuver to negotiate with this country. I am quite optimistic that we will not enter this world, because China even has a slightly different strategy. She knows that too, right? That she has to...

China has an advantage in that it is very focused on lower-cost models. The US invests a lot of money in models that, in direct comparison, are superior, but less viable in the H-hour. This will make me see that most countries in the global south tend to have a preference for Chinese models that are cheaper.

So, there's all this happening that will shake up not only the global order, but also the internal political situation. As incredible as it may seem, the demographic change will empower very poor countries, because they will have something that everyone wants.

We are in a nationalist phase, countries closing borders, but everyone knows, and this is very funny, even Trump's advisors in closed meetings know and say that without immigration it is not possible.

And in public, they say it's a big deal. Because it's popular nowadays. There's a moment... Let's close the whole front. Because it mobilizes people. But you know that the immigrants are what make the USA. Americans don't want to do certain jobs. Not only that, but you need foreign talents. For example, WhatsApp just announced the new CEO of WhatsApp, who is part of the goal.

is an Indian entrepreneur. Google is led by an Indian. That is, not only at the top, companies need to be able to bring qualified people, which has always been the great draw of the United States. If you give up that, the United States can't compete against China. China's big problem

is your inability to attract talent. So, with the passage of time, you will have a country competing for migrants, which is the opposite of what it is today, because the demographic collapse has not yet hit to be worth. So, we can have this stiffer position in relation to immigrants for another decade, but in the future,

When the country has a real problem of keeping its institutions working, its schools, cleaning the streets, all the services that are needed, then who has an advantage in the negotiation is a country like Mauritania or Nigeria, which has many people available. These people are willing to emigrate because they can increase their productivity when they emigrate to the United States.

And then we are in a situation where maybe Belgium, South Korea and the United States are trying to attract these people, right? Attract these people so that they can work in their markets for lack of labor. So this is also interesting and then you have...

um

even in Latin America, now the government of José Antonio Kass in Chile has several initiatives to offer more money, but no one has yet found the solution. So I think this is an irreversible trend, in principle, that will give this power to countries that still have a demographic bonus and can

and in a way I had thought about it Oliver you say that immigrants and this great mass that moves between countries will be a trunfo I always thought it was a weight, right? Because it's not a hand, not a hand of work, not always qualified, they always arrive in a state very deplorable of money, they usually run away from the region, but you're talking about this staff, I'm talking like this, here in a situation here in a few decades when

There is a more explicit perception that without immigration, many of the models that were consolidated

um

the Canada made it quite visible in Germany and then currently you still have a strategy that countries demand a certain qualification, that is, you want people who are specialized in such a thing, but this is a form of a temporary situation in the front, let's say

the countries will become less critical because they need a young person who can receive training, for example, to work in a hospital. And then the government will deal with the entire training of this person and the person can then live in the country, etc.

will have to work for at least 10, 20 years in a public hospital in that country. This sounds a little counterintuitive, because we have the emergence of more nationalist parties, with more xenophobic discourse.

But if you talk to the demographers and the economists who follow this situation, and even, as I said, with some of the politicians who today ask to close the border, it's very difficult. Even Brexit, for example, the defenders of Brexit said: "Let's vote for Brexit to reduce migration." What happened? Immigration increased. The only thing that changed was that migrants today don't come anymore.

from Europe, but comes from other places outside of Europe. Because the private sector is not left or right. The private sector wants to hire people. What I think is a wrong popular conception is that it only reaches rich countries today, Western countries and some in Asia. The big problem in the future will be countries that have become old

before they become rich. Because we associate the demographic crisis today with South Korea, Germany, Italy, Greece, which are relatively successful countries from an economic point of view. What we haven't seen yet, and that will be very complicated, is a poor country

get old. Because then the fiscal capacity of you to support people is very low. So you have countries in the Middle East already with a free fall birth rate with a relevant portion of the population still below the poverty line. This is also important to remember because many people think: "I don't know, the fault is

And usually people say that it's the women's fault for being impoverished. That's happening all over the world. Or it's the fault of capitalism. This is happening in capitalist, socialist, rich, poor, Muslim, Christian societies. It's a global tendency. India is well below 2.1. It's falling and a great concern

for the Indian government. Because India grows at very high rates, 4, 5, 6%. It's the largest economy that grows the most in the world, but that requires a continuous process of labor, of low productivity, forming in the regions. -Low productivity? -Productivity, elevating its productivity through training and migrating to cities. India is still a very rural city,

So, the growth happens when you get millions and millions of people who migrate from a place where the only profession they could do was low productivity agriculture, in very fragmented plots, so Indian agriculture has a big productivity problem, they take a course, they graduate in engineering, whatever, they migrate to cities and have a brutal productivity, much higher,

And so you give fast growth over the last few years to the Indian economy. If you start to have a population decline, it's very difficult. You can still bring people from rural areas for many years, but without any population growth or even a reduction in the population, we will be in a situation where perhaps zero growth is the big goal.

You don't want to grow anymore. You want to retain the size of your economy in the face of the reduction of the population. And it's not just, as you said, it's not just less working and less retired. It's much less working and more and more retired. So I think if I were an entrepreneur today, I think this is the most vibrant area. It's how you meet demands.

of people who are 75 years old, how do you develop models to train people who are 65, retire and now realize that they need to work, there is a new cycle of working for another 10 years, how do you adapt the digital infrastructure to older people? I see, for example, my father, my father, 5, 6 years ago, even retired and not needing, he wanted to work.

he would work even if he was retired. People from the city sometimes want to feel active. Exactly. And then there is all the evidence that continuing to work also encourages processes of mental enrichment, etc. All these transformations do not overwhelm my optimism. I think so.

This aging paradoxically can lead societies to value... Wisdom, experience... That is, to value these people, that many times you have a... You will have a vacancy in 10 years and your candidates are all... And at the same time, also value the young, because they will become rarer.

My sister lived in South Korea for a while, she has two daughters. She said that in Seoul, the birth rate is 0.7% per woman. That is, you have less than one population collapse in the city. You have two children on the subway, everyone... Is it an attraction? Of course!

It's like that movie... You want to take a picture... You're very well treated. Restaurants, everyone... Why? Because people see that you're making a great contribution to society. So, the way... Not only how public policies change... "Son of Hope" is called. It's a movie about what? That there's a kind of genetic problem, some disease, something that doesn't give birth to more children.

And then that would be the last generation. So when there is a child's hope, everyone is focused on that. It's the new hope. This child has to be protected. That's what's happening. It's a little like that. And I'm very skeptical. There are people who say: "Oh, how nice that there are fewer human beings, it's good for the environment." And Ava will solve everything. I think it's very...

This is really wrong. I think the economic challenge is brutal. And we are not used to living in totally stagnant societies. This means that our expectation over the last decades has always been, including what we expect from our governments,

to have a better life than we had before. If you have a very low growth because of a demographic crisis, it's difficult for politicians to say, if you elect me, I will guarantee that we will maintain our current situation. This is the goal.

Nowadays, the campaign is to say: "If you elect me, everything will be better, I'll have more money." Or to return to a glorious past. Of course, but in a way you want to promise something better. While in societies with a negative population growth, it is very difficult to maintain the size of the economy. You have to manage, in a way, a decline.

And it's hard, right? The reports... I made a request, over the last years, to read many analyses about South Korea. A very vibrant country, culturally vibrant, a very innovative country, that is worth following. We can learn a lot, but at the same time, it deals with a situation of, seemingly, having long reports about school closures.

closing of hospital maternity units has more demand if it also changes the political climate, right? It's a little like that, there's a kind of depressing side to it because after all, births also represent hope, innovation, and if you suddenly don't have that anymore and so when I say that, there's always people talking about it, man, it's not like that, the numbers, if you enter the numbers,

It's really scary. It's a cold thing, isn't it? Exactly. And another thing, the energy transition issue, there may be changes still happening. You may have to turn around, a discovery of a new technology, the discovery of more oil, so these forecasts are a little more uncertain. Also the prediction about the return to multipolarity, and there are a lot of

uncertainty involved in the demographic part. There is no way. My concern is that this period we are going through now, that every politician wants to make immigration difficult. I understand. If I were a politician, I would probably also... Why? To protect jobs? In Europe, especially in the United States, there is a perception that

But

For example, it's very difficult... This argument that crime increases because of migrants is more narrative than it is sustained in reality. In the same way,

Germany will be a Muslim country. Islam represents 2% of the population. We are not even close to a transformation suggested by more nationalist voices. Even so, even the left, today in Denmark, for example, defends a stricter policy

more critical of border control. Why? Because today if you don't adopt this discourse you lose the election. So the dominant public opinion today is that it is necessary to protect the borders. And then I think the great political challenge in a decade when the demographic crisis really hits to prevail

is to find a solution to this dilemma. I think it's understandable, people worry about migration, etc. It's not to minimize this concern. But it's also not to deny that without these people society doesn't work. And as you said, you won't find an American

willing to cut grass, even in the house of Donald Trump, where who takes care of the house is an American. This friend of mine works with this, he works with reform, with decoration, with construction and it's just immigrants, just immigrants. And there is something like that, I must say, that immigrants have, that the local population suddenly doesn't have, is this... I see this, this desire to work crazy, to have to establish yourself,

I saw this a lot in the Brazilian community, in Boston and Washington. It's a very cool thing to see. It explains the dynamism. The guy has no peace to bank him. He arrived there alone.

There's no distraction because sometimes you're alone, focused on your work. You need to send money to the family that is abroad. So, a very disciplined person, often. She's very focused and often she's an entrepreneur because she doesn't have the possibility to work in the public sector. You can't get to the country and become a judge. There's no way. You need citizenship, sometimes you have to be born in the country.

So, you can't join the armed forces, even though you're a big employer in the United States. So, what does the guy do? He builds a company, right? He creates a network and such. And if you want... I told you this before, right? Any concert in your house in Boston, who's going to do it is a Brazilian. So, I think the great difficulty, both for the right and for the left, will be to develop a strategy of...

to be able to have access to this labor, avoiding this nationalist reaction that we are seeing in several countries today. And then what they tried so far failed. Germany itself did something in retrospective a little funny, but totally unrealistic in the 60s. It was growing a lot.

and needed labor in the factories. He negotiated agreements with Turkey, Italy, Spain, but especially with Turkey and Italy to bring labor to Germany. They called it temporary labor, "guest worker", as if these people

they would stay only 5 years, or 10 years, and then return to their countries of origin. What completely ignores that a human being, if you bring a human being, he not only works in a factory, he gets married and has children. And the German government never thought: "What are we going to do with these people? These children who are born in Germany and grow up speaking German, do we send them back? There's no way. So, if you raise them and

So, there are some governments proposing similar things, that you bring someone to work, but miraculously this person won't want to stay. It's obvious that this person will make friends, she will buy a house, you can't prevent that, you know? So, in the south of the United States, the American government encourages this thing of the Mexican who lives in Mexico,

spend the day in the United States working there and at night he goes back to his home. But this works in a very small region of the border. But I still think that in the medium term, the pressure of the private sector in the United States will be enough to find a model with very specific quotas that each private sector annually sends what it needs

and what is the divergence between what is on the market, in the United States there is a very low unemployment, that is, each private sector sends to the American government

their demand is not met by the labor force, and then the migration policy is organized from this divergence so that the population clearly sees: "Look, the person is arriving due to this demand for labor that exists in our country and we need to, in a way, meet it."

Brazil will also have to think about how to attract people. Because there is also this population issue of demographic decline. Brazil is strange to happen this. The fall is unprecedented. You had a rate of 5. This is a question a little...

difficult and evokes many passions, right? The main factor, the main structural change is that women today have access to education and therefore also the potential to enter the labor market. This is something wonderful, super important.

And when I say that, someone says: "So it's the women's fault." No, no. It's fundamental. Because many times, obviously, you have a situation where the fathers, the men, have a vision, maybe a little anachronistic, that they don't need to do so many tasks at home. But the world has changed and women, instead of staying at home, have their own professions and are not, for a reason, willing

to carry the piano at home. It's not just helping here, doing a little bit here, it's the parents having to share more the functions at home and many are not willing. So, we are now in a situation where many couples, mother and father, work with the good performance of women in schools and universities. Sometimes it's the woman who has a more important job than the father, the man.

But then you have a more conservative guinada among many men who want to go back to a world that no longer exists, where the man brings money and doesn't need to do so much at home. So, this renegotiation... Did you hear, Homer? They're talking about you, man. Do you help at home? Oh, man, if I didn't help, you've seen it, right?

But you stopped helping, right? Because many times I... Helping was... "But I help, I did this, that..." No, it's really like... Carrying the piano and coordinating, and also leading, obviously. Because I know you do that, right? Probably. Probably. I think so. So, I think this requires a renegotiation, which is very difficult, right?

In South Korea, the country that I follow the most in this matter, you have many women who told me: "I don't want to have children because I want a career and the men with whom I have a relationship are not willing to give up

of these historical privileges that they had not to have to worry about the creation of children etc. not to put your hand on the dough at home and imagine that in China too now that there is money rolling from the guys and women wanting to live longer single and enjoying

um

both the male being more masculine, because of the army and such, and there was that more androgynous thing of K-pop, that thing, etc. And another thing is also dropping profiles of people who were showing luxury on the internet. Yes, very interesting. Interesting, why? Because these people were creating a false reality and people... It's very interesting to see, this is a super separate topic, which

Because of censorship, China tries to shape public discourse. - They don't have an ostentation, for example. - Ostentation has become a problem. In other words, when the economy grows by 10%, ostentation is not such a big problem because everyone is getting richer. - They have more access. - So, if you see someone with a lot of money,

is more acceptable while your cell is also improving. And we already talked about this here, I was even impressed whenever my Chinese friends who are college professors changed cars all the time, were starting to travel more. So having a good life and then obviously in such an environment,

the guy who shows off his wealth and embraces a strategy of ostentation in the networks, he doesn't represent a problem. Now, today, Chinese growth has dropped a lot and in part, in fact, already dealing with the demographic issue, but also

because this great advantage that China had of cheap labor, today is no longer like that. Chinese workers earn much more than, I don't know, in Bangladesh. So this equation of making investments in China is no longer the same as years ago. So today's ostentation carries a greater risk, because these colleagues of mine who used to, until 2015,

they were living better and better, in bigger apartments, and more and more nice vacations, etc. Today they are in a situation of greater stagnation. So the government is reacting, even to prohibit that in public events, alcohol drinks from abroad are consumed, because this can cause

a rage in the population and say: "Why is the Chinese bureaucrat drinking champagne from France while the economy doesn't grow?" So there's that. In relation to the low birth rate, China adopted a strategy, to my knowledge, wrong, to reaffirm, to encourage the traditional role of the woman. As a mother? Yes, so there's a lot of things that the government is trying to do, saying: "Look, here is the traditional family and such."

For many ambitious women, with reason, it's not attractive to inevitably get into a situation of dependence with the husband. So, many women say: "Look, this is not for me, I want a career." If a man is willing to have a child or children, to create together, to divide the tasks, the guy also has a job, he has a job, we support each other, okay.

But most of my friends, my age, in China, don't have children and they say they would really like to have children, but they also don't want to live a life of a mother who is at home just taking care of her child. So I think the solution there goes to... There is no easy solution, but it certainly doesn't go through a process of trying to bring back the traditional family. A situation in which

In many universities, more and more women are getting better results. And even today, more women are graduating from universities than men.

where in the world whole world is very much like in the United States and China also in China you already have academic performance in some areas above I don't know today I don't have this data if you have more women getting ready but in the United States definitely so it's also to think about growth of the economy as a whole it would be crazy you

Don't count on this potential. You have to put these people to contribute. And it's great that, little by little, women have the same opportunities. And by research, women are less likely to go to war, right?

This is a big academic discussion that I have at home. So it's not a truth? No, I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying that there are theories, the dominant theories in the area of international relations, such as realism, for example, do not consider the gender factor as decisive because they see, they say that

The cause of conflicts is because of interest frictions, interest shocks between nations, and it doesn't matter if it's a prime minister or a prime minister. But there are other theories that show examples in which, for example, the participation of women in peace mediations, in civil wars, can have a positive impact. So I think there is no consensus about it.

I certainly hope that the number of women in international mediation processes on war and peace will increase over the next few years because despite the great advance of women in universities in geopolitics

the number of women or the women are totally underrepresented in the office of Xi Jinping, for example, is more than 90 percent man is meeting national security advisors from Brix is crazy is usually you have a giant table and who is sitting are the men and who brings the drinks and such are the women right so we need to wait

for this situation in which this transformation occurs to test this theory. Unfortunately, this advances very slowly because especially now I would say that in the United States you have a gain in influence from the Pentagon and a loss of the State Department, which is the equivalent of the Itamaraty. There you already have many women. In the Pentagon,

there are still few women in prominent positions, so just when in the State Department you had the emergence of more women, this department is being set aside with the emergence of the Pentagon as the real center of decisions of American foreign policy. But let's see, let's see, I think that especially in Asia, we are still very far away, it is very rare

But the first minister of Japan, Takeichi...

is just being elected, so this is a case that deserves attention. But she has a very firm stance in relation to Germany as well. Takahichi is a very interesting case to follow. She has a stance trying to balance the tension between China and the United States.

So it depends on your next trip. Have you been to Japan? No, it's my next trip. Really? It's my dream. No, no, I don't have anything scheduled, but I really want to go there. After China, Japan, for sure. Cool, cool. Let's talk because I also want to take my son to Asia now, he doesn't know it yet. And I think Japan is an ideal country, including to travel with family. I also think so.

- Romer, any questions? - Look, there's a question here from "Oposto de si mesmo" - Very good, "Oposto de si mesmo" - Oliveira, not long ago there was a hacker attack in Brazil that hit civil defense in several states. Do you think Brazil is more vulnerable to attacks that can cause panic and destabilize Brazil financially? - Yes, I think so. I think it's a great question and

Latin America being a low-risk geopolitical region, I think it creates a risk of neglecting any type of threat to national security. If you read a newspaper today in France or Poland, it talks about war, about the need to increase

resilience, how the population should react if there is a cyber attack, is very present in public discussion. And it is necessary to manage this without falling into paranoia. Because people, for example, I think that Poland will go to war in the next five years, I think it's a low risk, but it's a risk. And it is necessary to bring this to public discussion little by little. Here in Brazil,

This discussion does not yet exist and I agree that we need to prioritize this, whatever the next government in Brazil, we need to emphasize digital resilience and more frequent conversations about how to protect the public system from attacks, whether organized crime,

cyber attacks, whether criminalized or of foreign powers. So this is an important subject, especially because, and this is something positive, Brazilian society is very willing to adopt new technologies. This is wonderful.

In Germany it's the opposite. You have a huge resistance. The other day I talked to a German who lives in São Paulo and he was shocked. He said: "They want to take my picture." For me to go to the dentist at the entrance of the building, they wanted to take my picture. I said: "Man, what is this? You have to take a picture." He said: "No, no, no, I don't want anyone to take my picture." "Yeah, because it's a matter of privacy."

So I found this shock very interesting. I never thought that this could bother anyone. But here there is a more tolerant attitude in relation to possible risks to privacy, etc. So while the Germans are excessively afraid of this, I think that in relation to this, Brazil is sometimes on the other side of this disposition. It can't make Brazil stop prioritizing

I also. I only use it when it's outside. Look how cool it is.

I say, "Look, it would be a mistake for Brazil to end up with money." Why? Because it needs to have a plan B in the event of a major cyber attack. So I think there is a great vulnerability that needs to be addressed both by companies and by the states, municipalities and the federal government. There is a question from Juliana Perseguim.

She said: "I see that Brazil is always out of important situations in the world, picking up crumbs from what comes from the United States or China. In your view, could Brazil have a chance to impose itself on the geopolitics table?" Without a doubt. First of all, compared to many other countries, Brazil is very present. If you look at any other Latin American country,

Brazil is actually quite well represented. The president of Brazil just participated in the G7, which is a very exclusive group. The Brazilian case is very studied, whether it is the issue of internet governance, where Brazil has a voice. Brazil just signed a partnership, by the way, super interesting, about IA.

Brazil has just signed a partnership with the European Union on the ethical use of IA, which involves annual discussions on how to develop a regulation without hindering innovation, which is the big drama now. The Miley, for example, is proposing the liberal general, including allowing the creation of companies

led by algorithms, without human participation, companies with limited responsibility. Which obviously raises a big question about who pays the bills if these companies fail. So Brazil is seen as a fundamental partner in these big discussions about the future and in my view, increasingly, when there is a discussion about the future of war, how to deal with climate change anywhere in the world,

there is a demand for a participation of Brazil. Much more than any other country in the region. This does not mean that Brazil can do more. I think there is a potential there, especially in the following areas. First, the IA revolution will cause an explosive demand for energy. And Brazil is a great energy supplier.

including renewable energy, electricity. So I think that makes Brazil a great player to receive data centers, for example. Brazil also has a lot of data. Great IA models need data. Brazil, having the largest public health system in the world, the largest free access system in the world, has information that can help a lot

in the global health research. Now, we always need to think about what Brazil can gain from this. It's not just about providing this information. So, in this area, I see Brazil as a key player. I never get tired of saying that Latin America will receive more and more investments and attention because it is a region free of geopolitical tensions. Brazil is

the only big country in the world that is not radically increasing its spending on defense because it managed to establish a respectful relationship with its neighbors over the centuries. Few countries can do that, or did it in the same way. So this gives Brazil an opportunity to engage as a neutral actor

in a way that few other countries can do. So I see in diplomacy a lot of potential for us too. And finally, in the energy transition, there is no way to discuss this in Brazil. It's not just Brazil participating, Brazil is the one to host meetings, to draft an agenda. So I am very optimistic about Brazilian participation in diplomatic negotiations,

But that doesn't mean that Brazil should be sitting at the table in every negotiation. In the Middle East war or in Ukraine, I don't see the potential. It's more in the backstage, in technical negotiations, where Brazilian participation is fundamental. There's a question from Felipe Augusto. He wants to know the following:

Brazil has a significant amount of rare earths. This could make our country take a technological leap and become more independent of Chinese or American products? It seems to me that rare earths do represent a huge opportunity for Brazil, give power to Brazil, and this was one of the reasons why the United States retreated last year in the pressure campaign against

Or maybe they put pressure on you to achieve something. I think the beginning of the pressure campaign was a more ideological issue to obtain specific gains in Brazilian internal politics. But the retreat in part occurred because the United States understood that it has a bad relationship with

the two main suppliers of rare earths, China and Brazil, would be a problem. Now, I really wanted Brazil to be able to control the entire chain, from extraction, processing and the development of cutting-edge technologies in the area of magnets or defense or renewable technology, which have these rare earths as key components.

But that is something that today doesn't seem to be viable. So, that is, Brazil alone controlling the entire chain is not viable. It is necessary that Brazil becomes a key actor and perhaps even dominant in certain niches, in certain sections, in certain parts of the chain. Some call this super power of niche. If you control a certain niche, everyone needs you.

you also need other actors to make this product be developed, obviously. So I think it's through big investments, yes, but also preserving the necessary partnerships, including to attract the necessary capital. But it's an area of great promise. There is a certain hurry and urgency because countries around the world

that are bothered by the concentration of power that rare earths have, are investing a lot in the development of technologies that do not depend on these rare earths. The United States, for example, employs IAEA to try to develop technologies that do not depend on rare earths coming from China or Brazil. So all this just to say: rare earths generate opportunities,

but this could have a window of opportunity shorter, faster than having oil, for example. Because despite all the technological innovation, the world still needs oil. Now, in relation to rare earths, I think some of these rare earths need to be extracted over the next decade, because it may be that in a decade this rare earth will lose its value. Question from Ramon da Silva:

Even with the disconnection of the Antropic IA, do you think that new IAs that can easily invade systems and put global military defenses at risk could emerge? Without a doubt. I think this is not a hypothesis, this is a scenario not of "if", but "when". And that's why the defense sector in Brazil needs to go through a transformation focused on

in how to defend against attacks of this kind. It is a brutal diversification of a... I would even say that the country needs, for example, if there is a great partnership in a sector with a certain country, it needs to choose another country for the rest of its national security. That is, there cannot be a situation of dependence. So there is a great cooperation

with Sweden in the field of hunting, with the United States in the field of intelligence, we need to work with the British for frigates and the French for submarines, South Korea and Ukraine for drones and missiles. That is crucial.

And I think this is a real risk that is not appreciated enough by the public opinion. Diego Alencar wants to know the following: there are many normal people getting addicted and following war as entertainment on the internet. Does this change the way society sees death, violence and suffering?

I noticed this change, Oliver, when CNN started covering the Gulf War, remember? You started seeing that 24 hours, updates, and then the war became almost a reality show, right? We didn't have access to it. In the past, at the time of our parents, it was that thing in the movies, in the movies, or by the newspaper, or by declaration.

And after the Gulf War, now the social network you're seeing is images of the soldiers themselves. I make the point of traveling a lot in the United States, because it's a country with many regional differences. I already have in the house of a acquaintance, in fact a relative of a acquaintance. And then we were having dinner and during the whole dinner there was one of those giant TVs

And there was an eternal loop of videos recorded by Ukrainian soldiers or Ukrainian drones showing combat scenes. I was like, "Why are you watching this?" It was a bit weird, but that's exactly it. The guy, for entertainment, during the walk, wanted to watch

drones falling on targets, exploding, but real war scenes. It's not a video game. Exactly, but it treated it as if it were. And that certainly needs a certain awareness that it can be interesting for analysis purposes or news, but it shouldn't be.

entertainment, right? But this will certainly increase the available material, because more and more with the arrival of the omnipresent internet, of satellite, we will have total access, basically, with the whole environment being filmed. This in some cases

can be positive, for example, to identify massacres, violations of international law, but at the same time produces this avalanche of accessible material for everyone. I think that in this context it is also fundamental to think about some barriers to prevent very young people from being exposed to this type of material, including to avoid

a creation of some kind of glamour, right? There are occasionally Brazilians who die in the conflict in Ukraine. Some of them, some Latin Americans are induced to participate in financial matters, right? In the Colombian case, which has a large group of policemen and military with combat experience.

that are hired, this is also a problem, but there are also people who watch that and want to participate. So there are already a considerable number of Brazilians who become mercenaries and I think that the control of this material is fundamental to fight this phenomenon.

And Ricardo Matsuda's question: When governments and companies talk about combating misinformation using IA and digital surveillance, is there a risk that security will become a tool of social control? Without a doubt, and there is also a risk that you hand over to a company an individual power to control which information can circulate and which not. This is a very big problem.

Some talk about a "technopolar order" in which you have a multipolar order, not only of various powers, but in which technology companies become so powerful that they represent independent poles of power. This became very evident in the case of Starlink, Elon Musk has enormous power over the war in Ukraine because now Russia is in clear disadvantage, partly because it does not have access to the internet via satellite

and Ukraine has an advantage for having better access, besides obviously its technological innovation that has been advancing. So, a government hiring a company to deal with, let's say, the fight against fake news is on the one hand necessary, but it also requires that the government continues to control what this company does in this area, which is of public interest.

So, I think that over the next few years there will be, at some point, attempts to break or reduce the power of some big tech companies.

in the United States, and the Brazilian, French or German case is even more complex because they are foreign companies. One problem is to have an American company accumulating excessive power in the United States. There is legislation that you can adopt in the case of, for example, the Brazilian, and it also involves a bilateral relationship that the country needs to manage

And Europe is in the middle of this battle now, trying to control more technological companies, especially American ones. And this has a real potential to cause a bilateral crisis. So this is a strategic priority, without a doubt, for countries around the world. Oliver, I think we...

Man, it was very complete on this subject. I really liked it. We managed to mix a lot of things. And I think in the comments...

the people will praise your ability to put these scenarios on the table. So, thank you very much. Thank you for the invitation and now let's go back to the Copa. Yeah, let's hope. Thank you very much. Thanks. Any messages, social media, website, books, whatever you want. So, I told you about the book. How is it? I have a lot of material accumulated, but again, I have a genuine question about...

- To age like milk. - Yes, because it's changing very fast. Basically, the main concern is how the IA and the concentration of power in the United States and China, in this field, impacts the power of other powers that I'm writing in the book. So I need to wait a little, but I really want to finish this book by the end of the year.

The more geopolitical crisis, the less time you have to write to yourself during the afternoon, drinking your coffee. They don't leave you alone. Because when instability arises, then actors from politics, companies come. For example, for the last week, I have been attending companies that are thinking about investing in Venezuela. Many American companies are watching.

I actually had a plan to travel now, next week to Venezuela, but I decided to postpone the trip because of the earthquakes. When you go to Loco, for example, what kind of person will you talk to to understand the scenario? With representatives of the government, and now the government of Elcio Rodrigues is super open, even wants to project himself as...

a government that is seeing what is attracting investment if you want to do a job for us always open a contact of us interviewing important people there including the great thing we will be cool cool super interesting currently unfortunately now it's a terrible situation human self-customing there you talk to the opposition

a considerable part of the opposition is in Washington, it's easy, but even so you can't really feel what's going to happen without being in the country. All this to say that this is the project of the book. Now I try to post daily on Instagram, these videos also go to LinkedIn, to TikTok, to Telegram and Substack.

um

um primeiro lugar onde eu posso geralmente é o Instagram tá bom E aí vai para todo lugar então obrigado demais olha obrigado vocês tiveram aqui com a gente e obrigado você também o Homer você tá com olho meio estranho aí tá com alguma sensibilidade aí é que hoje eu tô usando a lente né fica meio ressecado incomodando né você enxerga bem

With a lens? Now, with a much better. Ah, really? Yes, much better than the Oculus. I needed to get used to it. It's that to get used to it is a little complicated, but...

but it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay, it's okay

I liked it.

Thank you.