Accompanied by a 20 strong trade delegation, she is scheduled to meet President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao in the capital.

This is her fifth visit to China, a strategic economic partner for Germany.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. Much of Europe looks to Germany to help pay the bills, but many there dream that China will swoop in and solve the Eurozone’s debt crisis. Today, German chancellor Angela Merkel went to China to discuss Europe’s financial woes, and she’s apparently asking China to contribute to a bailout fund. The World’s Mary Kay Magistad is in Beijing. What is China’s response to this request, Mary Kay?

Mary Kay Magistad: Well, today Angela Merkel met with Premier Wen Jiabao, and he did call the European debt crisis urgent, and said that China is considering more participation in helping to resolve it, possibly by contributing to the bailout fund for the euro. This is new. Up until now Chinese leaders have been saying you know, we’re very interested in Europe getting out of the debt crisis, it’s important to us. Europe as a whole is China’s biggest trading partner. And over the past year trade has fallen off because of the economic crisis. What seems to have changed is that the Chinese government has recognized that if it doesn’t step in this could drag on a lot longer than is comfortable for its economy.

Werman: So it’s kind of self protection. Is there anything else in it for China?

Magistad: Certainly good will, but in the past that hasn’t been high on China’s list for reasons why it would spend billions of dollars or invest billions of dollars somewhere else. There was a lot of push back back in the autumn when China was getting pressure, getting asked from Europe you know, could you help out? A lot of Chinese were saying online, why would you do that? You know, we need money for schools. We need money for better hospitals. We need money for all kinds of things here, why would you be putting China’s money elsewhere? And the government could come back and say you know, one way that we have money to spend on things like schools, and hospitals and so forth is we trade with other countries. And if those countries go down it’s gonna hurt us too.

Werman: Will that be enough to keep the Chinese people quiet?

Magistad: Hard to know. The Chinese people haven’t been very quiet lately. There are 500 million of them online now and they’re very vocal these days.

Werman: What does China make of suddenly being perceived as this white knight being able to come to the rescue of countries in Europe?

Magistad: I don’t think China sees itself as a white knight, and if anything, instead of throwing up its hands and saying “Whoa, that’s not our role; our role is to look for good places to put our money, good investments for us to make for our purposes; and we think you guys should get your house in order because it’s good for you and it’s good for us. But you know, if we invest in you it’s because we see benefit for ourselves. We’re not doing this out of charity.”

Werman: Has anybody in China discussed a worst case scenario in which a big global session happens and where China might find itself it that were the case?

Magistad: Well, I think going back to 2008, a lot of Chinese analysts were looking at worst case scenarios, and that was why there was a big infusion of cash from the government in stimulus spending. Now, the government feels that it actually has a bit of breathing room to be able to slow down you know, white hot economic growth, and think more about the quality of growth, recognizing that it can’t keep putting so much money into infrastructure and into real estate, which is what was driving growth. It needs to be thinking about ways of increasing domestic consumption, and that means fundamentally changing the structure if the economy, including having more of a social safety net for ordinary Chinese citizens.

Werman: Let me ask you this, Mary Kay, just to go back. Merkel also apparently asked China to use its influence with Iran on its nuclear program. How did that go over?

Magistad: Yeah, she said that she’d like to see China persuade Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. And Wen probably listened politely, but later told Chinese journalists that China objects to Western nations politicizing what he called the normal commercial relationship China has with Iran. What he was referring to is that China imports about 11% of its crude oil from Iran, that makes it China’s third biggest supplier of crude oil. And China opposes sanctions and really doesn’t want to get involved in that way. If anything, it’s gonna use its clout to try to make sure that there isn’t too much pressure on Iran.

Werman: The World’s Beijing correspondent, Mary Kay Magistad. Always good to speak, thanks.

Magistad: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

He announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will look into unfair trade practices in places like China.

Host Lisa Mullins talks with Bruce Gilley, associate professor at Portland State University, about what the move means for US relations with China.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: President Obama seemed to make reference to the rescue operation in Somalia last night. As he entered the House chamber for his state of the union address he was heard this to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

Barack Obama: Good job, tonight, good job tonight.

Mullins: The president made no mention of the operation in his speech though. When he did venture into foreign policy last night, the president focused elsewhere, and one topic he mentioned several times was trade with China. Here’s what President Obama said for instance, about counterfeit goods that are made in China.

Obama: It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized. Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China.

Mullins: That’s President Obama speaking last night. Bruce Gilley is an associate professor of political science at the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. There has been as you know, a lot of anti-China rhetoric in domestic politics. This new unit, this Trade Enforcement Unit that he talked about last night, just politicking or for real?

Bruce Gilley: Well, both, it’s politicking in terms of the timing of the creation of the unit, which is clearly to do with the elections this year, but for real in the sense that once you create an institution it takes on a life of its own and this does come at a time in China-US relations when you know, for the first time the United States is feeling a real sense of threat from the challenge of a rising China.

Mullins: Can you describe for us in terms of trade anyway, where that threat stands right now? How serious it is.

Gilley: For a long time the United States policy towards Asia has been to keep its markets open and turn a blind eye to trade subsidies and unfair subsidies of state companies in Asia. And the logic has always been that ultimately the United State benefits because it makes Asia more prosperous and integrates it with the American economy and the liberal trading order. The problem is that China is of a size that the United States has never dealt with this strategy, and China’s size is starting to have notable impacts on American exports, of products that can be copyrighted, as well as impact on manufacturing here in the US.

Mullins: But if there is some kind of enforcement unit does that combine with perhaps any kind of tax incentives, make it more likely that manufacturing jobs will come back here to the US instead of going to or staying in China?

Gilley: No, I don’t think so. I think if you listen to the speech, what he really had in mind was IPR protection.

Mullins: This is intellectual property rights.

Gilley: Intellectual property rights, plus of course, he did mention the question of health and product safety, which is you know, making sure that products coming into this country not just, are not being dumped, but also are meeting the regulatory standards that they’re supposed to meet.

Mullins: Meaning what? This will all be strengthened, but it doesn’t mean necessarily more jobs here.

Gilley: No, I don’t think it does. I think this is part of a broader strategic rethinking of the United States’ relationship with China in which China is being in some sense graduated from the status of a developing country to one that is the United States is equal and which the United States is now going to no longer give the benefit of unalloyed access to the American market irrespective of how the state subsidizes products there.

Mullins: Okay, so if the tide is turning does that mean there is likely to be a backlash on the part of the Chinese?

Gilley: Of course, we’ll see if there is an immediate backlash when the presumptive Chinese leader in weighting, Shee Jeen Ping, visits the White House I believe in a couple of weeks. And I think the view in China is going to be this is kind of a strategic singling out of China because the United States is afraid of our growing strength.

Mullins: Bruce Gilley is associate professor at the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University. Nice to have you on the program.

Gilley: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

by Jason Strother

It’s been two weeks since North Korea shelled a South Korean island. The deadly incident has had an extraordinary impact in South Korea.

Today, the country’s president promised to transform five islands along the maritime border with the North into “military fortresses.” The attack might have had another, less direct, effect.

It may have paved the way for last week’s trade agreement between Washington and Seoul. That agreement calls for Korea to reduce tariffs on US autos. That’s expected to be a boon for American carmakers.

But some Koreans say they got a bad deal out of the trade agreement. Tariffs on korean car exports will stay in place for four more years. An original agreement called for them to be lifted immediately, and South Korea had said it wouldn’t budge on that.

Some observers say they see a direct link between the renegotiation and North Korea’s shelling of South Korea’s Yeonpyeong island last month, an attack that killed two civilians and two marines.

Lee Taeho, who represents the group People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy in Seoul, said the South Korean government capitulated to Washington and used the incident as cover.

“If there had been no Yeonpyeong incident, the trade agreement would have been more difficult to reach,” Lee said. “There had been a lot of criticism in Korea of any potential compromises, but because of the attack, the South Korean government was able to deflect criticism and make concessions.”

But Amy Jackson, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Seoul, said the timing of the attack and the revised agreement are coincidental. “President Obama announced back in June that he wanted the lingering issues resolved by the time of the G20 summit,” she said. “we already had a time frame that was in play, and though they didn’t reach agreement during last month’s G20, but they came quite close.”

Still, many observers described the lack of an agreement at the close of last month’s G20 summit as a big setback for the Obama Administration.

Now that a revised deal is in place, Amy Jackson said that it would bring more than economic benefits — the agreement would also shore up the U.S. military alliance with South Korea.

But Lee Taeho said a closer alliance with the U.S. military may not be so good for Korea’s relations with other regional powers, namely China. He said,
“Beijing might see a stronger US-Korea alliance as a threat, so I don’t think the agreement will help increase security in the region.”

But Lee noted that the trade agreement still has a ways to go. It requires ratification by lawmakers in South Korea and by the U.S. Congress.

Download MP3

Mr Obama then met with India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh, the two leaders then appeared at a joint news conference. President Obama emphasized the close ties between his country and India.

Obama: “On the commercial level, on the person to person level, the strategic level I think this relationship is extremely important. As I said yesterday I don’t think India is emerging, it has emerged. India is a key actor on the world stage.”

And India has a growing middle class with huge buying power. American companies want to tap into that consumer base and so President Obama announced ten billion dollars in business deals during his visit.

The White House hopes these deals will reassure Americans that India offers opportunities of more us jobs to counteract the American jobs lost through outsourcing. In return the President announced the lifting of restrictions on American technology.

Those sanctions were imposed after India conducted nuclear tests in 1998. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh welcomed Mr Obama’s move.

Singh: “In my discussions with the President we have decided to accelerate the deepening of our ties and to work as equal partners in a strategic relationship that will positively and decisively influence world peace, stability and progress”.

Another area of interest for the US and India is the fight against terrorism. India has been pushing America to condemn Pakistan for exporting terror to India. President Obama told a joint session of parliament that his administration is tackling the problem.

Obama: “we have worked with the Pakistan government to address the threat of terrorist networks in the border region and we will continue to insist to Pak leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders are unacceptable and that terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks must be brought to justice….”clapping

The highlight of the speech for many Indians was President Obama’s support for India’s bid for a permanent place on the UN Security Council. India has been lobbying for a permanent seat for years.

Still, some groups who used the occasion of the Obama visit to stage protests. These demonstrators complained that the president looks at India and sees only a commercial market place. A larger demonstration featured survivors of one of the worst industrial accidents in history. Tons of toxic gas escaped from a union carbide plant in Bhopal in 1984. The final death toll was estimated at 3,800.

Union Carbide has since been sold to Dow Chemical. Satinath Sarangi heads the Bhopal Group for Information and Action: he says the people of Bhopal are still suffering.

Sarangi: “We want positive action from President Obama on the continuing disasters in Bhopal, caused by two American corporations, Union Carbide and Dow Chemical. We want to tell him that because he is promoting American corporate interests in this country, he is morally responsible to also ensure that American corporations like Union Carbide and Dow chemical do not run away from Indian courts.”

President Obama departs early tomorrow for Indonesia, where he spent four years as a boy. From there it’s on to South Korea and Japan. Download MP3

• BBC coverage
• The President’s visit in pictures
• India’s nuclear power plans hit bumps
• India’s job market attracts Americans

In a video Q&A from the Carnegie Endowment, George Perkovich discusses the significance of President Obama’s trip and relations between New Delhi and Washington.

• Global Economy podcast
• State of the Union address (full text)

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  I’m Marco Werman and this is The World.  President Obama made this bold declaration during his State of the Union Address in January.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  So tonight we set a new goal.  We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two millions jobs in America.

WERMAN:  That’s what you call and applause line.  But doubling U.S. exports by 2015 will take more than a good speech or two.  The World’s Jason Margolis visited western Michigan to find out how and whether the President might achieve his goal.

JASON MARGOLIS:  Germany, Argentina and Russia doubled their exports between 2002 and 2007.  China tripled them.  Doubling our exports will require a much faster pace of growth than anything we’ve seen over the past 30 years.  But President Obama has a plan to help small and medium size businesses sell their products abroad.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Many businesses want to export their products, but just don’t have the resources required identifying new markets or setting up shop overseas and that’s where we can help.

MARGOLIS: The U.S. government can help companies like BEI in South Haven, Michigan.  The company makes harvesting machines.  Co-owner Jeff McKibben shows me a blueberry and raspberry harvester.  This machine can replace between 100 and 150 workers.  Average price, $150,000.00.  McKibben doesn’t sell many machines to foreign markets, but he’s confident that will change.

JEFF MCKIBBEN:  The berry business in South America has always been all manual labor and prices it in the supermarkets in the United States and in Europe are declining, obviously, and their labor supply is getting more expensive year by year, so they’re really looking to move to mechanical harvesting in that.

MARGOLIS: But McKibben’s whole company is all of 21 people.  No international sales staff to tap into new markets, so McKibben turned to the U.S. commercial service and trade specialist Tom Maguire in Grand Rapids.

TOM MAGUIRE:  We give them the market research on the X, Y, Z country that he’s interested in; Mexico, Honduras, this is where he was interested in.  We talked with him extensively about how you ship the product.  And he says what if they want a demo, I ship the product over there, I want to bring it back in, oh well then, you’ve got to make sure that machine is clean when it comes back in.  We’re not going to pollute here.  And then now, are you ready to go visit some buyers we can find for you, hopefully?  Yes, okay.

MARGOLIS: That’s how it’s supposed to work.  And the President’s plan calls for hiring 325 more trade specialists like Maguire.  But things get more complicated if you’re a bigger company, like Armstrong International in the Michigan town of Three Rivers.  It has more than 1,000 employees worldwide, including international sales specialists like Ray Masnari.  Workers’ here are building steam vents, the kind of plumbing product that Armstrong sells in over 100 countries.

RAY MASNARI:  Most places in the world, chance are you could find an Armstrong product.

MARGOLIS: So the company doesn’t need help breaking into new markets.  Masnari says they need help selling their products overseas at a competitive price.

MASNARI: Level the playing field.  Often times in some of the other countries there are hidden restrictions to us being able to do business in those countries.  It is very hard to break into those markets with our traditional products because I believe that strong favoritism is given to the locally manufactured products.

MARGOLIS: The problem there is other country’s tariffs.  In effect, taxes added by a foreign government that make the product more expensive.  Masnari wants the U.S. government to enforce more free trade agreements which would lower, or eliminate tariffs.  That’s something most medium and large companies want.  And the President is pledging to do it.  But economist Michael Ryan at Western Michigan University reminds us that trade goes both directions.

MICHAEL RYAN:  We want other countries to play fair and allow more American goods into their markets.  Well, they’re asking us the same question.

MARGOLIS: For example, many countries complain that U.S. agricultural subsidies give American farmers an unfair trading advantage.  So to truly have free trade, Ryan says the Obama administration and Congress would have to take the good with the bad.

RYAN:  Industries here in the United States, especially in west Michigan, that maybe are lesser competitive, maybe a less competitive advantage or comparative advantage as economists like to talk about, we may see more imports in these industries which may mean more job loss in industries that are declining.  At the same time, we would see more job gains in industries that are expanding.

MARGOLIS: That’s what makes free trade a double edged sword for any country, the U.S. included.  But even if you focus on U.S. exports only, a lot depends on what’s happening in other nations.  Exchange rates could be a big factor, says economist Lee Branstetter of Carnegie Mellon University.  And then there’s this.

MALE VOICE 1:  Consumers and farms overseas will only purchase increasing amounts of our good and services if their own incomes are growing over time.  So one of the most important factors determining whether or not the President’s goal is met is something over which he has next to no control.

MARGOLIS: So if there’s no cash overseas, all the best efforts of the Obama administration won’t help Michigan companies sell any more blueberry harvesters.  For The World, I’m Jason Margolis, South Haven, Michigan.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Classic oak tree with moss in our mystery state

Download MP3

During the first three months of the year, trade fell across the board in 49 U.S. states. Which state managed to buck the trend? Tune into the podcast to find out.

Also on this edition of the podcast: A socialist toy fair in Venezuela, Britain begins labeling food from the West Bank as either Israeli or Palestinian, and young voices in Spain talking about their country’s soaring unemployment rate.

Fishermen toss dorado into a refrigerated truck on the docks of Manta

Melaina Spitzer: On the docks in Manta’s harbor, fishermen heave a catch of giant Dorado out of a rustic boat. Manta has long been a fishing port, but down the harbor lies a symbol of the city’s future – a huge ship packed with cars from Asia. Manta hopes to become a major hub for Asian imports to South America.

Patricio Padilla

Melaina Spitzer: That’s Patricio Padilla, the Manager of Manta’s Port Authority. He was at a recent gathering to discuss a bold idea for Manta – to make this harbor a competitor with the Panama canal.

Patricio Padilla: “The idea is to have some cargo, that right now is crossing the Panama canal and going around South America, and that cargo will go from Manta through the Amazonas River to Manaus. “

Melaina Spitzer: Manaus is a Brazilian city almost 1,500 miles to the east. It has a major port that’s connected to the Atlantic by the Amazon River. The idea to link these cities by land is part of a $ 70 billion plan for a web of trade routes across South America. Here’s how the Manta-Manaus Project would work: Ships from Asia would dock in Manta and unload their cargo onto trucks. The trucks would carry the cargo up the highway to Quito, over the Andes, and down the other side to the Ecuadorian Amazon. From there, they would go by riverboat, through Peru, to Brazil.

Coca, Ecuador

A key link in the chain is the Ecuadorian river port town of Coca. Coca’s marina on the Napo river is currently a quiet docking point for canoes and small petroleum boats. But if the Manta-Manaus project goes forward, it will become a major shipping hub. Carlos Torres is with Coca’s Ministry of Agriculture. He says the project could provide a big help to area farmers.

Carlos Torres: Local farmers would be able to ship their produce to distant markets and reap more of the benefits without middlemen calling the shots. It’s a great project, a huge opportunity.

Melaina Spitzer: But many in Coca say putting a major trade route through the jungle is just asking for trouble. Carlos Sierra, spent twenty years navigating the Napo River in large petroleum ships. He says cargo boats heading for Brazil may never make it out of Ecuador – because the water is too shallow.

Carlos Sierra: With this type of boat it is truly very risky. They contracted me many times to rescue international Brazilian and Peruvian boats that had failed and were stuck because of water levels.

Melaina Spitzer: The engineers of Manta-Manaus hope that dredging the river will keep boats from getting stuck. The Ecuadorian government has already bought up land along the Amazonian route and paid contractors to clear forests and farms. But those who make their home along the river say dredging and logging will threaten their communities and the area’s plant and animal life. The Manta-Manaus route runs through or alongside 4 national parks in Ecuador. Coca’s mayor Anita Rivas says this shows the government is only interested in one thing:

Coca Mayor Anita Rivas

Melaina Spitzer: Others are concerned about threats the project poses to human health. Indigenous groups in Ecuador have already seen cancer rates shoot up, including among children. Many scientists blame the contamination of fish and water supplies by oil extraction. Manuela Ima, President of the Association of Huaorani Women fears that pollution from the Manta-Manaus project will bring similar risks.

Manuela Ima: For me this means pain of the ugliest sort. It can bring sickness, vomiting, cancer, flu. There are so many problems caused by contamination.

Melaina Spitzer: Many indigenous groups intend to fight the trade route, and they say they’ve got the law on their side. Ecuador’s new Constitution protects the rights of nature and requires the government to consult indigenous groups before beginning infrastructure projects that affect their territory. The Manta-Manaus project, many say, violates these rights.

This Kichwa indigenous family will have to leave their home to make way for a new airport

Money could also be a problem for the project. It’s estimated that the route will cost as much as two billion dollars to build. International lenders have been reluctant to put out money for the project. And some question if this project could ever really make money. They say this complex system of shipping by truck and riverboat won’t be able to compete on cost with the panama canal. Among the skeptics is Manta’s mayor, Jorge Zambrano.

Jorge Zambrano: Manta-Manaus is not even a project, it’s an idea…I can have an idea right now, I wanna construct a big Mall, but I don’t have the money to do it and it’s just an idea, an illusion, a dream.

Melaina Spitzer: Still, South America seems ready to dream big, with many infrastructure projects across the continent already underway. Zambrano just hopes that dream doesn’t turn out to be a nightmare for Ecuadorians and for the Amazon.

For the World, I’m Melaina Spitzer, Manta, Ecuador.

View more photos

We spent a lot of time going over comparisons between now and the 1930’s. Over and over, the economists told me the big fear was that nations would turn inward to try and protect themselves. That’s what happened in the 1930’s. Many economists argue that the Great Depression didn’t fully take hold until a year after the stock market crash of 1929 – that’s the year the “Smoot-Hawley Act,” or  the “Hawley-Smoot Act,” was passed and the U.S. put import tariffs on just about everything they could.  (The Economist magazine has a nice, short article about the effects of the Act and economic isolationist policies of that era.)

When I met with economist Barry Bosworth from the Brookings Institution, here’s what he said:

“The Biggest threat to the system (today): suppose everybody now tries to turn inward. If that takes the form of restrictions against others, another round of Smoot-Hawley tariffs, then I think the degree of integration of the global economy, this time, is so large, that it would be extremely difficult, it would just collapse in on itself.”

Shortly after my meetings  in Washington, Congress passed a massive $800 billion stimulus bill. Within that, there was a “Buy American” provision to protect American steel and iron.

Well, flash forward to today…  China is firing back, reverting to trade protectionism.

Economic blogs and business pages were abuzz with the news. Is this the beginning of a trade war and the 1930’s all over again? Are we watching the demise of world trade?

One of the economists I met with in Washington, Derek Scissors at the Heritage Foundation, says the latest news from China is overblown. He argues that China’s recent moves are neither new nor particularly important.

Beyond China, there’s other countries making news, and making it into the World’s Global Economy podcast… Countries like Latvia. One in three Latvians under the age of 25 can’t find work. “Who cares?” you might say. Not to be heartless, but how do Latvia’s problems impact the world economy?  If the Chinese economy putters, I get why that’s important. But Latvia? If Latvia were a U.S. state, it would be the 36th largest, just ahead of New Mexico. If Albuquerque has problems, in the grand scheme, most of us will still be OK.

But if Riga goes bust, we all should be worried. An interconnected global economy is a house of cards. And while Latvia is a small card, if you pull any one card out from the bottom…

Listen to the Global Economy Podcast