tv The World Debate BBC News September 29, 2019 2:10am-3:00am BST
as mr africa. he built a described as mr africa. he built a fortune in the telecoms industry and then turn to promoting development on the continent. sigrid kaag minister for on the continent. sigrid kaag ministerfor foreign on the continent. sigrid kaag minister for foreign affairs and development in the netherlands. a long background in international aid through her long career at the united nations. kay james through her long career at the united nations. kayjames as president of the heritage foundation and influential american conservative thinking. she grew up in relative poverty in virginia a nswe i’s in relative poverty in virginia answers those experiences shape her worldview. and john fugelsang as an american political comedian, actor, broadcaster, and commentator. he has made a documentary to see if the american dream is still alive in the face of rising inequality. that is oui’ face of rising inequality. that is our panel. welcome to you well. applause .0k, panel, quick applause . 0k, panel, quick question at the beginning. statistics show that the richest 1% globally own at nearly half of the world's wealth. is that
a problem? mo ibrahim?” half of the world's wealth. is that a problem? mo ibrahim? ithink it depends, first where the rich guys got their money, they stole it, they killed, they motor to get the money, secondly what they are doing. we have here one of the richest people in the world sitting here who he is giving his money for good causes. we are grateful for that. and you as well! well... you were being a bit modest there, mo. this is not self—serving to stop this is genuine. it really depends on what we do. so let us notjust run away with slogans like that. so you don't have a problem with it, basically, it depends on what you do with that and how you acquire that wealth. john? i think the question we face is not so much about the benevolence, and billionaires here, but the billionaires who would not
be caught dead here and are indifferent to the struggles of others. question we face is not so much about income inequality but dramatically unequal income growth over many years. in the questionably facing the billionaires of the world is are they willing to take a smaller piece of an expanding pie or do they want to just go for a larger piece of a shrinking pie? we will put that to mo, i know you are not a spokesperson for billionaires, but we will get back to in a moment. i'm sorry! we will see what kay james says about this. do you have a problem? absolutely not. as a matter of fa ct problem? absolutely not. as a matter of fact they would like to be one of them! they absolutely agree with mo. it depends on how the money was owned and it depends on how the money is spent. do i have a problem with people having the opportunity to work hard, make a great deal of money, and share the wealth? absolutely not. minister. they agree
with the comment it is how you earn it and what you do with it. it is also the system. it is systemic exclusion upwards people well behind. it is the opportunity to participate. i'm not interested in the top tier, but the bottom of the pyramid and the middle layer that has no chance to participate anymore. and also the future we have jobless growth. it is financial streams and systemic changes that we need to work on. and not mo common did not spokesperson, it is great, but the systemic exclusion and marginalisation is the real issue. and, indeed, it is all about how you deal with it, but we need to influence the change. so, john, you seem to have a problem with it. explain to me, what is the problem without richest i%, however wish to spend their money, does it have a direct impact on the other 99% and whether they can, you know, increase the earning power and so on? the two are not related, are they? no, don't
think you can never have a maximum wage. and they have no problem with the existence of billionaires whatsoever. however, what we are looking at in our culture is the concentration of wealth. and we have seen concentration of wealth. and we have seen growth slowdown because of it. philanthropy can solve many of the world's problems and is by many people to be lawgiving, but it can't just be charity, it is to be strategic, direct philanthropy that doesn't just strategic, direct philanthropy that doesn'tjust go to address a symptom ofa doesn'tjust go to address a symptom of a problem. they can go to address the rig system that created the problem. mo, you mention philanthropy and you are a big philanthropist operating on the continent of africa, principally. do you think that is absolutely incumbent on very, very wealthy people, the billionaires, and so on, to use their money to better society and to try to combat the inequalities we have? no doubt. as human beings and citizens we really need to work for humanity. absolutely. i don't want my children to live in a society divided by class and divided by opportunity.
that's not a world worth living in. now, while i'm saying that, i know their... i mean, bill has started this pledge, mo, 150 millionaires say i'm going to give heart my money during my lifetime. that's great. i don't think that will solve the problem. we should not look for philanthropy to solve the problem of inequality. this is a systemic robber. it is an issue of system and structures. —— systemic problem. will the older children have the same opportunity to have access to education and decent health? that is the problem, mobility. is it just is itjust a problem of the system? it is also a problem of ideology, isn't it? i'm thinking of thomas picardy, a famous economist who
wrote a book called capital and ideology. he says we need to accelerate in equality, as long as the return on investment is greater than growth, that is going to sustain it. we also know capitalism has created an environment for growth where poverty rates actually go down. we produce at the heritage foundation and index of economic freedom. and one of the things we have discovered as we have attracted this, and mo, ithink have discovered as we have attracted this, and mo, i think you even used some of this data in your work, one of the things we have discovered is that the rear of the economy is, the more human flourishing you have. and so more human flourishing you have. and so what we see when you have deregulation, less corruption, more transparency in government, that the capitalism under those
circumstances, you see less poverty rates and you see people rise, and using human flourishing. you even see better climate conditions, you see better climate conditions, you see better climate conditions, you see better how, and so —— better health, i think it's good when we have our discussion to take a look at that data. but shouldn't you have very, very clear safety nets in free—market capitalist systems for those who simply can't swim with the tide? there well we do have safety nets and i think those safety nets are important. they often are not rigourous enough. in some countries. sigrid, you wanted to chime in? inclusive growth is very important, but most forms of economic growth are not very inclusive. if you are not part of the economic chain, you cannot compete with that so capitalism as a form of being emotive economic growth is a starting point, but globally, through the impact of globalisation as well and the new groups that are being excluded, including the middle classes and the lower middle
classes, people are resenting that and they are demonstrating against it. and i think with good reason. what you need as good policies, you need good politics and politicians and you need taxation and to fight corruption. but taxation, progressive redistribution of wealth is extremely important, particularly for the poorest and those who don't have a chance to pay their school fees, they do not have the money to pay out—of—pocket for healthcare because the health system isn't looking after their basic social human needs. i mean, that is the starting point. (applause) you brought up the question of taxes there, and i would like to take an audience question, the head of oxfam gb. danny and oxfa m the head of oxfam gb. danny and oxfam have done a great deal of work publishing a landmark report on inequality within startling statistics. what would you like to say to the panel? that's right. oxfa m say to the panel? that's right. oxfam research shows the richest 26 people on the planet own the same
amount of wealth is the poorest half in the world. i think it's fantastic those rich people pledged to use their private wealth for public good, but we also need structural fixes. one of the ways is increasing wealth taxes, currently, only li% of all taxes generated in the world come from wealth taxes, and i wanted to ask the panel, surely isn't it time for us to raise net wealth taxes and perhaps even aspire to a global standard for wealth taxes?‘ global standard for wealth taxes?‘ global standard for wealth taxes?‘ global standard for wealth taxes. kayjames, global standard for wealth taxes. kay james, you get global standard for wealth taxes. kayjames, you get to talk global standard for wealth taxes. kay james, you get to talk first. kay james, you get to talk first. kayjames. kay james, you get to talk first. kay james. i'm sure kay james, you get to talk first. kayjames. i'm sure it will come to a shock do nobody here, they feel that taxing the rich is not necessarily going to get us out of the hole we are in. first of all, if you tax them at an exorbitant rate,
you tax them at an exorbitant rate, you still would not have enough resources in order to do the work that we all agree so desperately needs to be done. and so there's got to be some other solutions to that. that is an easy — you know, tax the rich, take their money and we will solve all the problems of the poor. they just isn't factually accurate there is not enough money in order to do that. so what do we... so you have rejected that particular suggestion. john? looking at the history of our country in the united states, it isn't popular to say so, but i think we are not a capitalist society. we are a blended society. and both capitalism and communism are doomed to fail on the phone for the same reason, human greed. looking back to the good old days, the 1950s under president eisenhower, capitalism and socialism both at the same time, i progressive taxes on wealthy americans, massive infrastructure spending like the interstate highway programme.
capitalism flourishes with socialist programmes like the gi bill. he was the last president to balance the budget with a surplus in this country, but we learn dramatically in our country, cutting taxes for the wealthy increase is the problem every time. so having a global standard would work? only if you wa nt standard would work? only if you want something that works. to you it isa want something that works. to you it is a no—brainer. and mo? want something that works. to you it is a no-brainer. and mo? corporate tax. you know why? our countries in africa have been raped because multinational countries don't pay taxes in africa. the problem is taxation systems are based on countries. the businesses have gone global, but every country runs their own tax system independent of others and it doesn't work. we need a global standard here, a fairer tax system for corporation taxes because the profit shifting is really
hurting us tremendously. that is where the money is, my friend. and that's what we need. ok. so we need an overview of the whole taxation system. not just an overview of the whole taxation system. notjust individuals, multinationals? the whole thing. sigrid? i think this system, in europe, we don't talk about this divide between communism or capitalism. exactly. ithink our society is more mixed, so both labels don't apply to us. but i think it's important to unpack the whole issue of taxation. it is an instrument, but it can never be the only one. it's not ever only about tax or wealth only, because in societies where wealth is more fairly distributed, like in the netherlands, most people have an income and a little bit of savings if they are lucky and that is it. so your taxation base will always be that particular group. an we use policies to lift those who are more vulnerable, to lift them up. what
about the mncs? multinational corporations? that is a sensitive point and corporations? that is a sensitive pointandi corporations? that is a sensitive point and i agree with mo, because thatis point and i agree with mo, because that is where you can leveraged additional wealth stuff but the tax evasion issue is very often connected to the illicit economy, sometimes, not always, and obviously you need good politics and policies. that's why i concur with mo. he is an expert, on good governance. she is putting words in your mouth. we will come today. just one thing i wa nt will come today. just one thing i want to say also, you know, that is notjust raising taxes, it's what we're going to do with this money. we are going to use this money to fight climate change ? we are going to use this money to fight climate change? to improve systems? and how? orare fight climate change? to improve systems? and how? or are they going to use it to buy more arms? so it's what you do with the money, notjust raising the money. can ijust see, kay, you said you don't want more tax on wealth corporations, you said
legal tax avoiding, most companies do employ those models. legally mostly. i want to see corporations operating in an environment where they can create more jobs, where they can create more jobs, where they can create more jobs, where they can create more wealth, where they can create more wealth, where they can create more wealth, where they can create more opportunity, where people have the chance to go to work and earn an honest day's wages. so i want to see these corporations operating within an environment where they can do that. and what do we know? if you overta kes a and what do we know? if you overtakes a corporation, what are they going to do? they're going to leave and go somewhere with lower taxes. i think there is a balance there. of course they have a moral obligation to pay taxes, as anyone should, but when you overtaxed a corporation, you actually hurt the very people you claim you want to help stop —— overtaxed have cut taxes on corporations that have outsourced all the jobs anyway. and
what has happened? we had stagnation. we have had booming economic growth. for some people. in this country right now, and we don't wa nt to this country right now, and we don't want to focus on this country, but in this country, there are more people working today than ever. but they aren't middle—class jobs. people working today than ever. but they aren't middle—classjobs. they are jobs that allow someone to climb from poverty to the top of the economic ladder. so to that is dependent on the geography of where you born. (applause) that group, thejust about management, the jams, sigrid, you have been talking back income inequality, backlash against executive pay. you two are only a few kilometres away from it was free. we saw people protesting, saying it isn't right that these financiers pay themselves millions stop and, mo, you've talked about this, the fact that there has got to
be reform in that system because the financial crash, then after the crash, back to normal. i think along businesses here, even the business roundtable in the united states, which has most of the main business people, they said, you know what guys? business only for the benefit of shareholders is not viable. we need to take into account other factors. this idea, communities, workers, et cetera. business people understand given what has happened around us, they cannot really keep doing what they have done. let's go to the audience and get a point from you, mr bill gates. yeah. my question is there is this great focus on inequality, and that is a wonderful thing, that a lot of the
is on focus within countries, the goalkeeper‘s report that brought us all here shows that the greatest inequality is between countries, where the poor countries a child has 50 times rated chance of dying before the age of five than in the richer countries. so it's interesting, in this atmosphere of focusing on inequality, the discussion about things like government aid that is less than i% of budgets. we have more governments talking about becoming more isolated and less generous than talking about being more generous. even in the face of the most stark inequalities. so i'm curious why people think that is. that is very important. mo? this is. that is very important. mo? this isa is. that is very important. mo? this is a question, i will come after. sigrid kaag it's a very profound question. it says a lot, a country
ina european question. it says a lot, a country in a european setting, i think it is due to the impact of populist globally. there is a rise of liberal democracies. thirdly, ithink globally. there is a rise of liberal democracies. thirdly, i think there is also a retrenchment, and putting ina very is also a retrenchment, and putting in a very symptomatic way, putting the blame on either the other, the immigrant, the easy label development corporation hasn't worked, and is not looking at the systems properly. we are living in an era of fear of globalisation and the impact on citizens wherever they are is seen to be threatening that it is easier to withdraw than look at it in it is easier to withdraw than look at itina it is easier to withdraw than look at it in a clear and analytical way as to how we need to work together internationally to deal with these problems. global challenges won't go away. global challenges don't respect sovereignty, let alone national borders. so it's time to
act to give a voice and invest. we are small as the netherlands, but we like to punch above our weight, and we need many other allies. development in your view, and the netherlands is a generous nation, is still very relevant as to how we address inequality. it is not the only one. it's a catalyst. it's an incentive, but it needs the whole community. we are striving towards it. when there are more parties like mine in government. michelle bhatia. .. 7% of gdp, which some countries have pledged to give in terms of overseas development. so you think aid is important to addressing global issues? aid is important, and how it is used and
how increasing capacity, creating jobs, look, education and health especially for young people is vital. because that helps other things. let me just say, this is not just a charity, people need to understand. this is a global world, we are all dependent on each other. if we have a well—to—do middle—class, a large middle class in that is one does not wonderful for your business guys. in europe there is hysteria about migration. in europe there is hysteria about migration. best way to deal with thatis migration. best way to deal with that is creating jobs in africa. that is how you deal with inequality. it is also a system of safety. corporations can do a lot as they view the societies as emerging markets. and a living wage workforce
that can afford to buy stuff will help the corporation and the region as well. but it is also about aid and we have to reframe aid as not being charity, creating a safer world, especially as climate change makes world, especially as climate change ma kes resources world, especially as climate change makes resources more scarce, poverty more extreme. you will see more terrorism. there is a strong argument to be made that bone do these areas will increase world safety, because if everyone does better, everyone does better. kay. aid, of course, is important, and it is significant. and charitable people want to help. charitable governments want to help and they wa nt governments want to help and they want to put money where they think that it can really change people's lives. however, it is so important that as we give this aid that we are giving it with full knowledge and understanding. when we go into certain countries and we give aid, we want to know that that aid is
going where it's intended to go, it's not going into corrupt governments, is not going into people's pockets. we want the aid to get to the people who desperately need its. the other thing that jumped out at me as we looked at our index, our economic index, you think that it'sjust, to's making money, who's not making money, but as a person who ca res who's not making money, but as a person who cares deeply, it struck me, to make sure that poor people are lifted up, that we have clean water to drink, that we have access to healthcare, that we care about our climate. we discovered that in the countries, and if you list them, they encourage everyone to go look at it, it is one of the most fascinating pieces of data. the more economic freedom that exists in a country, the higher human flourishing is. the climate is
better, education is better, access to healthcare is better and so... transposing government is key and getting rid of corruption in government is key because we want to send the aid in and we wanted to see human flourishing. john, you are looking a bit dubious. no, they actually agree. think we can look to the netherlands, we can look to the fa ct the netherlands, we can look to the fact that the american dream has become the scandinavian in many cases, in america are problems with access to healthcare, student loan debt, you cannot climb an economic ladder with 400 power of debt on your back. america is a great model to the rest of the world on things not to do... laughter. that is no disrespect my country. it is love of country that makes miss a. the problem is not corporations,
it is human greed, which can be regulated. just go to a question from the audience. katie from future coalition, a youth led organisation in the united states. climate change is one of if not the largest drivers and contributors to the wilds growing inequality. we saw over for many young people across the world ta ke to many young people across the world take to the streets to demand our world leaders take action to address this. my question view is, as the climate crisis worsens, what do you think should and can be done to ensure that those who are most impacted have the support and resources they need and those who are most privileged don't simply just leave them behind? john. i was tremendously inspired by a youth led a global movement, because we are counting on millennials and those younger than them to address this problem as we have seen the older generation, at least in this country, still has this ridiculous debate on the actual signs. people in our country say, you believe in
climate change. no, not believe. do you believe this guy is blue? no, it is not about belief. and america, my country should be the leader on this, and we have many leaders on this, and we have many leaders on this, but our government still does not do it. it is going to have to be a martin luther king situation. it will have to be people leading until the leaders followed by direct pressure, boycotts of necessary, public shaming if necessary. if every individual can do something to move the needle on this in every society in the world, because that is the only way we will see progress. the leaders have to be led. applause .asan applause . as an african, i'm really delighted to hear a young american talking about climate justice, because we africans are really pierced off, you know? sorry for
mo's language, anybody listening or watching. what, did i say something wrong? laughter. you put up there. you guys put it! applause . so, please, a full climate justice. they love it. there have been concrete proposals put forward. enter guterres says he wants to riverfire the climate fund and to make sure that $100 billion is raised to make sure those living in the least developed countries do get some money into this fund. —— antonio gates tarus. do you think the solutions are going to work?m course they are. i don't know anyone, truly don't know anyone, who is not committed to addressing this issue. the president of the united states. laughter. applause
. yeah, i think that was a cheap shot. you said it was a cheap shot. he said it wasn't a green stew. our present called it a hoax created by china. this is very serious —— president. it is not about you. china. this is very serious —— president. it is not about youm you look at what our country is doing, we have some of the cleanest water, cleanest air on the planet... and are contributing far less two there, you know, what we see happening globally. having said that, i don't want my grandchildren drinking dirty water or breathing dirty air. so we are all in this together. we are committed to it. and i agree that what we should be doing is looking at the countries that are contributing the most to this, holding them accountable... per capita. per capita. per capita. in holding them accountable. and we
should be all in this together. and i don't think it served us well to try to take pot shots at any one country. who doesn't? not a potshot ata country. who doesn't? not a potshot at a country. but don't tell me you ca re at a country. but don't tell me you care about the unborn and then deny climate signs. because we are fighting for the unborn on this. it is not against you whatsoever. in america we know the pollution has gotten so much better in our country in the last 40 years. you can see the skyline in los angeles now. we know we can take action collectively asa know we can take action collectively as a people and make change happen. i think we have an obligation to share technology with those countries. i think we have an obligation to share signs with those countries. i think we have a responsibility to share what we know and support them, bring them along, because it is a real issue that needs to be really addressed. on clea n needs to be really addressed. on clean technology. sigrid.|j needs to be really addressed. on clean technology. sigrid. ithink the question is very pertinent. you said cannot be done, is it feasible? it isa said cannot be done, is it feasible? it is a yes. it is not a luxury, it is not do we want it or not, it is a
necessity. it is do or die globally. it has to be a race to the top. there is no point in pointing to countries that are less ambitious. we need to lead from the top. leadership is required. antonio gates tarus has done that. financing is one. technology, the expertise. and we cannot blame nattaya for the climate attic we have. they wish they had the chance to have the industry that is living up because it would have been a wealthy country —— niger. there is an imbalance in our actions. every country has nationally determined divisions. that is where we can assist. the big players need to take the biggest share, where it happens. everything is happening there already and then we are surprised that people migrate. everybody looks for an opportunity and the chance to survive. are you saying that is a direct outcome of inequality?
absolutely. you are getting a lot of applause here today, sigrid kaag. let us talk about another outcome of inequality and the manifestations that affect every country. christina isa that affect every country. christina is a director in germany for the centre forfeminist is a director in germany for the centre for feminist foreign policy and an advisor to the german government. what you want to say to the panel? so with the feminist movement and gender equality, at its very co re movement and gender equality, at its very core it has been hugely critical of the capitalist system and it keeps pushing minorities, amongst which women are the big three, to the margins. i'm wondering under the current economic system we will ever achieve equality? isn't most gender equality work only pink washing if we are not fixing the very basic assumptions our economic system is built on? well, you know, think that is a very good question, but it is a very complex one. and it
is complex because you are talking about this globally. so the systems are so very different in so many different countries based on not only economic systems, but based on religion. in some countries that have religious conditions which really holds people back and deny them opportunity. sol really holds people back and deny them opportunity. so i think the solution will be as complex as the questionnaire. do you accept that the economic system does not operate to the benefit of many...” the economic system does not operate to the benefit of many... i think thatis to the benefit of many... i think that is true in many countries. personally for me, having come out of poverty in this country and having the opportunity to use wisdom, knowledge, education, contacts, experiences in order to
grow and achieve, i have seen what this country has to offer. not every country has those opportunities. so it is complex in terms of where you are on the planet, what your particular religious traditions may or may not be, what economic systems you are under. so there is no easy answer to that. but does it exist was make absolutely it exists will stop does exist in this country? absolutely it does. and we will continue this battle for many years to come. who agrees with that or do you feel that there are some solutions which have universal application, regardless of where you are talking about gender equality, bed africa, middle east, europe, the americas? i don't think it is an economic system issue. it is a cultural issue, i think. in
societies, if they speak about africa, many of it would be irreleva nt to africa, many of it would be irrelevant to other societies. i think we have issues with some of our cultures, which, as you again have to be a good wife, it is not important to go to school, she should have as many children as possible, because of total woman is a good woman —— fertile. there is many things we have to change. they apologise four in's language. don't worry, i have got your back. it is that? ——mo. worry, i have got your back. it is that? --mo. it worry, i have got your back. it is that? ——mo. it is going out on the bbc, mo. the bbc is... that? ——mo. it is going out on the bbc, m0. the bbc is... laughter. so we have a really serious fighter.
we have not only women issues, but we have issues with gay people, in africa we have a terribly phobic view about it. —— fight here. we need to understand that elements of our cultures can be really bad and we have to stand up and deal with it. john fugelsang. thank you. we are ina it. john fugelsang. thank you. we are in a good time for women in america. the majority of americans voted for a woman to be president in 2016. we have seen women lead. the solution is obvious the educate women empower women, solution is obvious the educate women empower women, listen to women, and elect women, and amounts of foreign aid can and should be tied to cultures that lived women up and do not oppress them. it's not that complicated. applause
i completely agree with everything that was internationally set byjohn that was internationally set byjohn thatis that was internationally set byjohn that is appropriate. equally so, i think it's all about power. power and access to money but also we need to have the right policies. what we've done in our politics, what you've said in our policies, we gender mark everything. in investments, in trade, in assistance, in anything we do with our money or politics is gender—marked. we kpi, we benchmark everything and if not, it doesn't happen. in politics, sometimes you need a quota comp a temporary —— temporary provisional one. the netherlands, we've never had a female prime minister and are considered progressive. you need to see women all over and you need to lea n see women all over and you need to lean in the way that's happened in many countries otherwise it won't happen. women need role models.
women leaders don't always have an impact on gender. one of the criticisms of market —— margaret that —— margaret thatcher. criticisms of market —— margaret that -- margaret thatcher. women have to work three times as hard. let mejust get have to work three times as hard. let me just get a show of hands. he feels the economic system wherever it may be as loaded against women? put your hands up. i would say an overwhelming majority. who thinks it doesn't? the odd brave hand has gone up. ok. a clear overwhelming majority. so we've looked again at one of the drivers of inequality. let's go to another question from the audience. andrew, what do you wa nt to the audience. andrew, what do you want to say? i think we started off the day realising that the world we live in is unjust and unfair and we as the world need a new world, new order, a new social contract and i think started talking, about thomas mcateer and i need to talk about it
having heard what i've heard, it's failed us, particularly in my home in south africa where poverty and inequality has extended, become entrenched and a defect is the most marginalised people. exclusion globally but also in south africa is a hallmark today. my question to all of you, one is —— what is that social contract we need between citizens, business and civil society? how do we shape that new world ? society? how do we shape that new world? this society? how do we shape that new world ? this has society? how do we shape that new world? this has been done in the past, hasn't it. austria, the social contract past, hasn't it. austria, the social co ntra ct we past, hasn't it. austria, the social contract we have these three partners coming together and working towards the common good. is that something that really would be one of the ways of combating inequality wherever it exists? i think this is a very important question because it brings us back to the heart of what you are debating here. i believe the issue of inequality is a very serious issue, not only in africa
but also europe and it's threatening the fabric of society. it's notjust in africa. look at the yellow vest protesters in france, the collapse of liberal democracy. look at what is happening around us. the world is crumbling around us, even in what's supposed to be the safe and affluent west. in africa, we have a serious problem. your country, inequality increased under black rule. i mean, what is that? it's unacceptable. inequality is something to deal with governance and policies. what we don't see, policies and governance, really dealing with that issue. it's not happening. another issue in africa, we never talk about it. you know what? it's called family
planning. have you heard any applicants talk about family planning? never. and you know what? our population is growing at a rate much faster than our economic growth rate. so before, you are running on a treadmill, we are going backwards, we're not even stationary. and we're not talking about it's taboo. why is it taboo? we need to deal with these issues. policies and we need to pay attention why and african woman needs to have more than six children? it is a legitimate question. we are not asking that but high infant mortality rate would be one of them. do we need us —— a new social contract because obviously south africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world? we do need a social contract and as we are having these conversations, we
are having these conversations, we are largely focused on governments but that social contract includes not only government but in a civil society, it also includes those institutions within a country that that work beside the government and with the government. and so the social contract not only as a contract that one makes with their government but with our communities, with their families, with the non—government organisations and it's going to require all of that together in order to create the civil society. to what extent does this rising inequality perhaps jeopardise further progress? on trying to combat inequality? john? we have many wonderful billionaire philanthropists but there are a lot who wouldn't be at an event like this and they are billionaires because of the rigged system so it is incumbent upon those with the privilege of wealth such as yourself, such as yourself, sir. you
are referring to mr gates. don't look at me, i'm not rich. but to dedicate your philanthropy to the culture that produced you by charity alone cannot do it and never has. it has to attack the systemic causes of inequality, the rigged system and that's something that has to be done by individual nations and that's why people with empathy need to run for office because people with greed are already running for office. we need people who care about those they've never met to get in the game. minister. we need to talk about technology and the digital economy. the haves and have—nots. but as digitalisation offers tremendous opportunities, artificial intelligence, access, new forms of learning in countries where already you are not on the grid, how will you are not on the grid, how will you learn? what will the internet of things provide for you? there is a
risk of a double negative and there isa risk of a double negative and there is a tremendous opportunity actually in the negative impact on globalisation. there is awareness that everybody across the globe is affected in a different way. some of course from a position of being way behind —10 to some being plus five becoming free on the ladder somewhere but we are all affected so we have a shared responsibility to tackle it in a way that actually reaps the biggest benefit and dividend for all, from the viewpoint of social cohesion, stability and prospect. i think you need to look at it from opportunity and prospect. just finally and very briefly, what would success in 20 years' time in tackling inequality look like to you, briefly? i think if tackling inequality look like to you, briefly? ithink if governments stand up. the problem is, every conference i've been to, every political leader i hear, the last few years, is talking about inequality. none of those guys told
us what they are going to do about it. so what? i don't see any proposal or one, two, three, four in order to deal with inequality. but everybody shouts about inequality. it's time for us to see, how would i deal with that and from the outset, we say inequality, i can't imagine a society where everybody is earning the same, we don't need that. sustainable development goals, roadmaps, targets and indicators and we need every country to say how they will implement it. it's the policy. i know, but it can be done but it's a matter of alec patient, prioritisation and seeing it through. what it looks like is we tackle inequality at the government level, at the community level but not only economically and not only
through governments but in our own lives and how we treat each other. and so i think it starts with the individual. i think it starts with a i—person campaign to say we are going to win this. john. if twin in 20 years everyone on this globe understand poverty hurts all of us, we will make progress. we have made so much already. universal basic income is a controversial idea that is only to be come more discussed. if you give up poor man $1 the start of the day it will be in the rich man's hand at the end of the day but he will have stimulated the local economy and fed his family during the day. having lived in america through the gay rights movement to go from a plague to marriage in 30 yea rs, go from a plague to marriage in 30 years, i have so much faith in humans and our collective love for each other to realise that we can do it. thank you very much indeed and indeed, thank you to all my panel
and all my audience here at the lincoln centre in new york. i hope wherever you are listening and watching around the world that perhaps we have shed some light on a rather difficult issue that affects every country in the world. from me, zeinab badawi and the bbc world debate team, goodbye. hello there. a soggy, blustery night will lead into a wet and windy sunday morning across many parts of the uk. on the satellite picture you can see this swirl of cloud, a developing area of low pressure that has been bringing some very heavy rain, some very strong and gusty winds, and as that low pressure system slides its way across central and southern portions of the uk,
through the first part of the day we will see some strong and gusty winds on the southern flank. this little lump of showery rain here could well include some very squally and gusty winds as it slides its way eastwards. now as we go through the day ahead, parts of the midlands, east anglia, wales, down towards the south coast will see a mix of sunny spells and heavy, thundery showers. persistent rain will continue to pile in across parts of northern england. northern ireland and scotland should brighten up with some spells of sunshine and just the odd shower, temperatures of 13—19 degrees. but where this rain lingers for any length of time, well, there certainly is the risk of some travel problems and some localised flooding. now, as we go into the evening, notice of the light lines squeezing together on the back edge of this low pressure system. a swathe of strong winds blowing across some of these eastern coastal counties, combined with high tides, that could cause some coastal flooding. now, through the night, one or two showers pushing across the northern half of scotland, clear spells elsewhere and the odd mist patch and temperatures will dip away. quite a chilly start to monday. but all things considered,
a calm start to the day for the majority because of this little bump in the isobars, this ridge of high pressure. but it won't last long. here comes our next low pressure system swinging its way in off the atlantic. so as we go through the day, we'll see yet more rain pushing across many parts of england and wales. i think parts of wales particularly as this rain continues to pile up could well have some problems with flooding. the further north you are across the uk, more on the way of dry weather and just the odd shower. chilly here, though, 10 degrees in aberdeen, london at 17. and then we look ahead to tuesday, that area of low pressure churns its way eastwards, rain mostly for england and wales, some showers blowing into the north of scotland, some sunny spells here as for northern ireland. but those temperatures really dipping away across the northern half of the country, 9—12 degrees. and, as we push that area of low pressure away into the near continent, as we move into wednesday, follow the white lines, follow the isobars up to the north. that is where our air will be coming from. a plunge of chilly air right across the uk for the middle part of the week. so even in the south, temperatures no better than 13 or 14 degrees. and for the end of the week, well, there's the chance we could see more wet and windy weather.
i'm reged ahmad with a summary of the bbc world news. police in hong kong have used tear gas and water canon to disperse protesters hurling rocks and petrol—bombs in anti—government demonstrations. they were marking five years since the start of what became known as the umbrella movement, a campaign for greater democratic freedom under chinese rule. from hong kong, here's our china correspondent, john sudworth. the everyday object that lent its name to a movement was in use again. five years after it first shielded the protesters from the pepper spray and tear gas. in 2014, the umbrella protests faded away.