00:00:00
[Music]
00:00:03
This podcast is brought to you by
00:00:04
Knowledge at Wharton. Please visit
00:00:06
knowledge.warton.upen.edu
00:00:09
for more information.
00:00:14
Progress toward unfettered international
00:00:16
commerce stumbled last week with the
00:00:17
collapse of the World Trade
00:00:18
Organization's Doha Talks, a seven-year
00:00:21
effort to establish new global trade
00:00:23
rules. The lengthy talks which commenced
00:00:25
in Doha, Qar and ended in Geneva were
00:00:28
complicated by the rapid emergence of
00:00:29
China and India as major economic
00:00:32
powers. Powers with commercial and
00:00:34
strategic interests to protect and the
00:00:36
clout to do so. It was far from clear in
00:00:39
the aftermath of the collapse that the
00:00:40
talks would resume in the foreseeable
00:00:42
future. Some negotiators wondered if an
00:00:45
agreement among so many nations was even
00:00:47
possible. The fundamental reality is
00:00:50
that it has become too complex. WTO
00:00:52
general director Pascal Lami told the
00:00:55
Financial Times. Wharton professors
00:00:57
Steven Cobrin, whose research interests
00:00:59
include globalization and Marshall
00:01:00
Meyer, an authority on China's economy,
00:01:03
recently spoke to knowledge at Wharton
00:01:04
about the collapse of the talks, global
00:01:06
commerce, and China's interests in the
00:01:08
rules governing trade. Welcome,
00:01:10
Professor Cobin. The World Trade
00:01:12
Organization's talks set the rules for
00:01:14
governing international trade among more
00:01:16
than 150 member nations. Now that the
00:01:19
current round of talks, the Doha talks
00:01:21
have broken down. What's the practical
00:01:24
effect, trade is going to continue? No,
00:01:28
I think in the short run, the threat
00:01:30
isn't going to be dramatic. There'll be
00:01:32
some minor impact on world GDP. I think
00:01:35
the more serious threat in the longer
00:01:37
run is the multilateral trading system
00:01:38
as a whole in terms of how seriously
00:01:41
countries take the World Trade
00:01:42
Organization, how willing they are to
00:01:45
abide by its principles and especially
00:01:47
how willing they are to abide by a
00:01:49
negative decision in one of their
00:01:51
tribunals. If that's the case, then what
00:01:53
does trade look like in the absence of a
00:01:57
global agreement of some sort? Well, the
00:02:01
the absence of a quote global agreement
00:02:04
is the absence of a fairly major but
00:02:06
still marginal
00:02:08
uh extension of the rules. Mhm. So, we
00:02:11
still have a rule-based international
00:02:13
trading system. We've had a series of
00:02:15
negotiations since the period
00:02:17
immediately after World War II. The GAT
00:02:20
the GAT through the current DA round.
00:02:22
Okay. They've been incremental. they've
00:02:24
built on one another culminating with
00:02:26
the emergence of the World Trade
00:02:28
Organization in 1994. Right? So we have
00:02:31
a fairly broad-based system of rules to
00:02:34
govern the international trading system.
00:02:37
Okay. Uh the question is extending those
00:02:39
rules uh further into agriculture
00:02:41
services and other issues which this
00:02:43
round was going to do and perhaps as you
00:02:46
mentioned enforcing the rules if this
00:02:48
harms the WTO's authority in some way.
00:02:51
Well, one of the major uh advances with
00:02:55
the creation of the WTO in 1994 was a
00:02:58
serious tribunal. The big change with
00:03:01
the WTO viz the GAT is it was much more
00:03:04
difficult for a country to ignore a
00:03:06
finding that wasn't in its favor. I see.
00:03:08
And to to date, none of the major
00:03:11
countries has. Okay. But there's still
00:03:13
no way to compel a country to go along
00:03:16
with a WTO finding. Mhm. It's based on a
00:03:19
belief in mutual self-interest and a
00:03:21
belief in the benefits of a multilateral
00:03:23
system. And the danger is that without
00:03:28
the talks proceeding that that could
00:03:30
erode. There was a uh Wall Street
00:03:33
Journal article immediately after the
00:03:34
talks collapsed that said the they could
00:03:37
uh signal an end to some 60 years of uh
00:03:40
continuous expansion of global free
00:03:42
trade deals. That does sound pretty
00:03:44
dramatic, but it sounds similar to what
00:03:47
you've just described. I think it is
00:03:49
overly dramatic. I think it may signal
00:03:51
an end to the incremental progress again
00:03:55
since the f first gat talks in the late
00:03:57
40s. And what's happened since then is
00:04:01
first the lowhanging fruit was grabbed
00:04:03
off the tree earliest and second the
00:04:07
world economy has become much more
00:04:08
inclusive. And if you think about the
00:04:10
60s, the Kennedy round, which was one of
00:04:12
the major post-war rounds, you probably
00:04:15
had eight or nine countries that needed
00:04:17
to uh come to agreement to reach a deal,
00:04:20
right? Even in the Uruguay round, most
00:04:22
of the developing countries were
00:04:23
sidelined. All of a sudden, I think
00:04:26
rightfully so, in the Doha round, you
00:04:28
have 163 countries which in of which
00:04:32
probably 60 or 70 have a major voice in
00:04:35
the negotiations. I see. And so I think
00:04:38
what's changed is the ease and that's
00:04:40
too strong a word but the process of
00:04:43
multilateral negotiations with the WTO
00:04:46
meeting as a whole. Mhm. And able to
00:04:49
hammer out an agreement among all the
00:04:51
members. Exactly. So I think any further
00:04:54
progress may require somewhat of a
00:04:56
different process. Okay. There were a
00:04:59
lot of uh reasons that the bro talks
00:05:01
broke down. But in addition to having uh
00:05:05
more inclusiveness and many more
00:05:07
countries participating,
00:05:09
the the role in which they participated
00:05:10
was different. I mean with China in
00:05:12
India, Brazil emerging as major economic
00:05:16
powers, they had a lot more perhaps they
00:05:18
had more clout than they did before. Um
00:05:21
certainly they had interests that had to
00:05:23
be contended with. Yeah. And and that's
00:05:26
what I was talking about just
00:05:27
previously. I I think that's true in the
00:05:30
sense that uh a lot of the developing
00:05:32
countries have become serious players in
00:05:34
the world economy and have a serious
00:05:36
voice in the negotiations. Okay. And
00:05:38
that means that as diverse as the 30 or
00:05:43
31 OECD members are, that pales when you
00:05:46
start to consider China and India and
00:05:49
Uruguay uh whose levels of economic
00:05:52
development, whose objectives, whose
00:05:54
political systems, whose economic
00:05:55
beliefs differ vastly among themselves
00:05:59
and visav the traditional members of the
00:06:01
OECD? I see. Do you think that it's
00:06:04
possible for the traditional economic
00:06:05
powers in North America and Europe and
00:06:07
Asia uh and these emerging economic
00:06:10
powers to ever reach an agreement on
00:06:13
trade given their divergent interests
00:06:16
and and especially under the rules of
00:06:18
these talks in which I believe any one
00:06:21
member can veto uh a particular um um
00:06:27
portion of the agreement uh and make the
00:06:30
whole agreement come to a crashing halt.
00:06:32
I think in effect one member can veto
00:06:34
it. I don't think that's what happened
00:06:35
this time around. No. Okay. Uh I think
00:06:38
it may represent as I said before a
00:06:41
change in the nature of process. The the
00:06:44
our ability to reach a multilateral
00:06:46
agreement on a wide uh reaching set of
00:06:50
issues among60
00:06:52
different countries may be beyond our
00:06:54
reach at this point. Uh may not be
00:06:57
possible. uh we may have to e a e either
00:07:00
a negotiate on smaller pieces uh among
00:07:04
all of the countries or b even break
00:07:06
down into regional negotiations which
00:07:09
then tend to come together in a
00:07:11
community in a committee of a whole. Oh
00:07:13
I see. So that you achieve free trade on
00:07:15
a regional level and then move to a
00:07:17
global level. Uh as I said before we may
00:07:19
have to break the negotiations down into
00:07:21
smaller pieces. I think the to use the
00:07:24
standard analogy the bicycle will keep
00:07:26
moving ahead but I think it's going to
00:07:28
have to do it at a different pace and in
00:07:30
a very different way given the change in
00:07:33
the dynamic of the number of countries
00:07:37
participating in the divergent
00:07:38
interests. Is there any reason to think
00:07:41
that these talks would resume anytime
00:07:43
soon in their in their current form or
00:07:46
do you think that some of the if they do
00:07:48
resume they'll resume in one form or
00:07:50
another of some of the different um uh
00:07:53
uh scenarios that you've described
00:07:54
regional or or one one measure at a
00:07:57
time.
00:07:59
Uh they could resume. I think it would
00:08:01
be very difficult to reach a broad-based
00:08:04
agreement without some sort of major
00:08:06
shock that got everyone's attention. uh
00:08:09
and and and force people to make
00:08:11
compromises and agree. I think what's
00:08:14
much more likely is they again we take
00:08:17
smaller pieces of the puzzle, solve
00:08:19
those and then stitch them together. Uh
00:08:21
do you think it's possible that the
00:08:23
collapse of the talks um in this
00:08:25
particular round will energize free
00:08:28
trade critics in the United States? It's
00:08:30
always been everybody's favorite uh
00:08:33
whipping boy. Uh I'm not sure that they
00:08:36
need energizing. I think a lot of
00:08:39
concerns about trade uh revolve around
00:08:42
the business cycle. Uh and as times get
00:08:45
more difficult,
00:08:47
I think more and more people will start
00:08:49
to question the benefits of free trade,
00:08:51
the value of outsourcing, the value of
00:08:54
inward flows of investment. Uh so the
00:08:56
collapse of the talks certainly isn't
00:08:58
going to help, but I suspect it's not
00:09:01
going to be a major factor in energizing
00:09:03
opposition to globalization or free
00:09:04
trade. Trade's always been a tough
00:09:06
issues for US voters to resolve. Uh and
00:09:10
it's likely that it's going to be an
00:09:11
important issue in this fall's
00:09:12
presidential election. On one hand,
00:09:14
people generally understand that free
00:09:16
trade in the long term is necessary to
00:09:19
spread economic opportunity globally,
00:09:21
but on the other hand, it can the the
00:09:23
long term can mean a very long time
00:09:25
between paychecks.
00:09:27
So, it's tempting for politicians to
00:09:30
latch on to free trade as an issue to
00:09:33
beat each other over the head with. Do
00:09:36
you think that um uh well, if you were a
00:09:40
voter or if you were giving advice to
00:09:42
voters, um how would you say they should
00:09:44
approach this issue? I mean, how do you
00:09:46
try to get a a handle on the importance
00:09:48
of free trade? I believe in an open
00:09:50
economy. That doesn't mean a lack of all
00:09:53
regulation or restriction. Okay? In any
00:09:56
open system, any country that's open to
00:09:58
the world economy, they're going to be
00:10:00
winners and losers. And that's clear.
00:10:04
People are more concerned about the
00:10:05
losers as they feel more threaten
00:10:08
themselves economically.
00:10:10
Uh I think one of the things we need to
00:10:12
do, which has been talked about for 50
00:10:14
years, is building more of a secure
00:10:18
safety net for people who fall through
00:10:20
the cracks of free trade. Mhm. I think
00:10:23
it may be beneficial to the economy as a
00:10:27
whole and it isn't clear in every
00:10:29
instance but I think generally it is
00:10:30
true. Uh it free trade doesn't represent
00:10:34
a gain for any individual or every
00:10:36
industry. I think there have to be has
00:10:39
to be more attention paid to providing
00:10:42
some form of support for those who lose
00:10:45
jobs uh need retraining, need temporary
00:10:49
employment, uh unemployment payments and
00:10:53
the like. Thanks for joining us,
00:10:55
Professor. Uh when we first asked you
00:10:57
about your reaction to the collapse of
00:10:59
the trade talks, you said that China
00:11:01
wants to protect its inefficient
00:11:03
farmers. What about their agricultural
00:11:05
system is inefficient? Well, you know,
00:11:07
China
00:11:09
still has
00:11:11
more farmers, uh, more rural population
00:11:15
than urban population. Last numbers I
00:11:17
saw, 42% urban, 58% rural. Uh, rural
00:11:22
population is shrinking maybe 1% a year,
00:11:25
which is a very very dramatic rate of
00:11:27
urbanization given the size of the
00:11:29
country, but still huge rural
00:11:31
population. Now, let's look at Chinese
00:11:35
geography.
00:11:37
Um, you got 1.3 roughly billion people.
00:11:42
58%
00:11:44
are rural. That translates into roughly
00:11:48
770 million quote rural residents. They
00:11:52
live at very high density. Almost all of
00:11:55
them in an area that's like the
00:11:59
equivalent to the US east of the
00:12:00
Mississippi River.
00:12:03
So you've got a lot of rural pop, you
00:12:06
got lot large rural population
00:12:08
concentrated in a very small area. Some
00:12:10
say that 40% of the world's farmers live
00:12:14
in China.
00:12:16
Maybe it's 38% today. Mhm. Working 10%
00:12:21
of the world's arable land. Now this
00:12:24
tells you that farm plots or rice
00:12:27
patties in China are very very small.
00:12:32
and they're not really conducive
00:12:36
to consolidation largescale farming
00:12:39
because in the south of China at least
00:12:41
inner Mongolia would be a little
00:12:42
different where they have grasslands but
00:12:45
um uh but the south of China much of
00:12:47
this is terrorist this is historical
00:12:49
this has been going on for years and
00:12:52
it's very hard to convert terrorist rice
00:12:55
patties into large efficient farms
00:13:00
um so conse consequence is smallcale at
00:13:03
least for grains smallcale production
00:13:08
okay which by global standards is going
00:13:10
to be inefficient absolutely yeah so are
00:13:13
there other
00:13:15
geographic areas in China where
00:13:17
agriculture could occur but does not or
00:13:20
is that just or are the areas that are
00:13:22
farmable being farmed um we most people
00:13:25
in the US don't realize that China's
00:13:27
land mass is about the same as the US
00:13:30
but two3 third of its desert or you know
00:13:34
mountain that you really can't do
00:13:35
anything about. So the answer is yeah if
00:13:39
they had a lot more water and water is
00:13:41
becoming a huge crisis in the north of
00:13:42
China. They're planning to divert water
00:13:44
like the old Grand Canal you know from
00:13:47
uh from three gorges up north in China
00:13:49
to relieve the pressures on the Beijing
00:13:51
and Tanzhin water supplies. No, no, no.
00:13:54
They're losing through urbanization and
00:13:56
desertification
00:13:57
a lot of farmland. The obvious place
00:14:00
would first be again try to get the
00:14:02
grasslands of Inner Mongolia more
00:14:04
productive, keep the sandstorms down and
00:14:07
then if they could find any water
00:14:08
anywhere, begin to irrigate say
00:14:10
Chingghai province um and uh get some
00:14:13
intensive agriculture as Israel has
00:14:15
done. They have Israel as a model um but
00:14:18
so far their attempt to emulate that
00:14:20
model has not been terribly successful.
00:14:21
Okay. Is there a problem with the access
00:14:24
to technology that um that American
00:14:26
farmers have or would the technology not
00:14:29
make a big difference given the the
00:14:31
nature of the farming there? Well, it
00:14:33
does make a difference but in an area
00:14:34
not critical to China. Mhm. Okay. Small
00:14:37
plot intensive agriculture is great for
00:14:40
produce
00:14:41
and there's a very active very
00:14:43
profitable produce market in China.
00:14:47
So um uh and some of the produce is high
00:14:51
value is exported brings money into
00:14:53
China. Mhm. So you you go to this town
00:14:55
called Shoguang which is in the middle
00:14:58
of Shandong province between Ginan the
00:15:01
capital and Ching Dao where large
00:15:03
companies like Higher and High sense are
00:15:05
located and you will see trucks from all
00:15:08
over this all over China coming together
00:15:11
and just just you've never seen so much
00:15:12
produce in your life and they have to
00:15:15
move it very quickly because obviously
00:15:16
it deteriorates. Mhm. And uh this is a
00:15:20
city of about a town of about a million,
00:15:21
you know, one traffic light, one movie
00:15:23
theater. Uh but um you you can see how
00:15:26
active this this this kind of highv
00:15:29
value produce industry is in China. But
00:15:31
that's not going to feed the masses of
00:15:32
China. Right? No, what China needs is is
00:15:36
rice for the south, wheat, and also
00:15:39
soybeans. And presently they're huge
00:15:42
they are importing huge quantities of
00:15:45
these. But because of the price gap,
00:15:50
um, even with elevated world prices,
00:15:52
they've got to do something to protect
00:15:54
their farmers. They've formerly used
00:15:55
direct subsidies. Mhm. But I think they
00:15:58
want the right to impose tariffs if they
00:16:01
think their domestic producers are going
00:16:03
to be overwhelmed. And this is a matter
00:16:06
of national self-sufficiency. As
00:16:08
mentioned to you earlier, uh, China sees
00:16:11
what's happening with petroleum in the
00:16:13
United States. They don't want to be
00:16:14
dependent
00:16:17
on foreign sources um for um fundamental
00:16:21
food stuffs again wheat, rice to some
00:16:24
extent soybeans and their dependence is
00:16:26
much greater than already much greater
00:16:27
than you think it is because let's say
00:16:30
they're importing 12% of their food
00:16:31
supply which I I think is approx is
00:16:35
probably a good number to use as a rough
00:16:38
number. Could be 10, could be 15. I'm
00:16:40
going to say 12. um doesn't sound like
00:16:43
too much, but if you got 58% of your
00:16:46
population, 60% of your population sort
00:16:48
of growing food for themselves,
00:16:51
okay, that means it's you're really not
00:16:53
looking at at 12 over 100. You're
00:16:55
looking at say 12 over 42.
00:16:59
In other words, food that's in the
00:17:00
market. And 12 over 42 is is roughly 30%
00:17:05
of the of the food that's in the market,
00:17:07
right, is imported. And that means that
00:17:10
they're just terribly vulnerable to
00:17:12
global price fluctuations at least in
00:17:14
the urban areas of China. Which is why
00:17:16
you would said it's really a strategic
00:17:18
it's very much a strategic issue for
00:17:19
them not entirely. And there's something
00:17:21
else going on um aside from the the uh
00:17:25
global fluctuations in price of grain uh
00:17:28
for many many reasons including some say
00:17:30
ethanol. China's had a particular
00:17:32
problem this year not with grain but
00:17:33
with meat. They've had something called
00:17:35
blue ear disease which has destroyed a
00:17:37
lot of of of of their pigs. Okay. And as
00:17:41
a consequence, the price of meat in
00:17:43
China has shot up uh between 40 and 50%
00:17:46
in the last 12 months. Mhm. It means the
00:17:48
overall food prices have shot up about
00:17:50
25%.
00:17:52
And in a country where say 354% of the
00:17:55
household budgets food,
00:17:57
um uh this has had very very dramatic
00:18:00
impact on people. And uh the the the
00:18:04
Chinese need to do what they can to kind
00:18:06
of keep these prices in check on the one
00:18:07
hand, but also to protect their domestic
00:18:10
producers and their incomes, right? And
00:18:13
for China, it well in many nations uh
00:18:17
the the government will try to protect
00:18:19
its its uh its farmers for um domestic
00:18:22
political reasons. Sure. And one might
00:18:24
think that that's less important in
00:18:26
China. They don't vote. Ah, but they do
00:18:29
other things. They vote with their feet.
00:18:31
Yes. And by meeting voting with their
00:18:32
feet is they riot.
00:18:35
And and through 2005, the Chinese
00:18:38
government actually published statistics
00:18:41
on what they call mass disturbances. No
00:18:44
one knew quite what that meant. Was it
00:18:45
two or more people or 12 or more people?
00:18:47
But whatever it was, it was. And you
00:18:49
could see the graph going up
00:18:50
exponentially. And they stopped
00:18:52
releasing these numbers. But your
00:18:54
anecdotal accounts tell you that
00:18:55
discontent in rural communities has shot
00:18:57
up in China. Uh some people tell me that
00:19:00
premier wjao first thing he looks at in
00:19:03
the morning are these reports of
00:19:05
discontent particularly in rural areas.
00:19:08
We've read in the newspaper various
00:19:10
accounts of riots and uh the government
00:19:14
is very very sensitive to this. This is
00:19:17
a historical thing in China. It's not
00:19:19
just under communism that they've had
00:19:21
spontaneous riots. It was part of the
00:19:23
political process in China. instead of
00:19:25
going to the ballots box, people would
00:19:26
just get out there and riot for and
00:19:27
sometimes for five years in a row. But
00:19:29
the Chinese government really wants to
00:19:31
minimize this for all kinds of reasons
00:19:33
as you can imagine. Of course. Um so
00:19:36
then is it in China's interest to uh I
00:19:39
mean to return to the talks or see the
00:19:42
talks revived? I mean a lot of people
00:19:43
are saying that they they threw in this
00:19:45
last minute demand on the uh on on some
00:19:48
of the tariff uh negotiations to derail
00:19:51
the talks.
00:19:53
it would seem that it's in their best
00:19:54
interest to have some sort of a trade
00:19:56
agreement. Uh I would think so. Again,
00:19:58
I'm not an expert on trade, but I I I I
00:20:01
would think that um um from the point of
00:20:04
view of the export economy in which
00:20:06
they've so heavily depended, yeah, it is
00:20:08
in their interest to have a trade
00:20:09
agreement. Um but I think right now
00:20:14
um the the the priority for the Chinese
00:20:17
the the current Chinese government um is
00:20:21
national self-sufficiency. uh in food
00:20:24
and again protecting the farmers among
00:20:27
whom discontent where where discontent
00:20:29
is is is I think very high right now.
00:20:32
Okay. For all kinds of reasons given the
00:20:34
the um uh geographical
00:20:37
situation there. Is it a reasonable
00:20:40
expectation for them to be
00:20:41
self-sufficient uh agriculturally?
00:20:44
That's a very interesting question
00:20:46
because just as
00:20:49
think of this geopolitically
00:20:52
um just as the world depends heavily on
00:20:57
the Middle East for oil,
00:21:00
the world unfettered would depend
00:21:03
heavily on the English-speaking
00:21:04
countries,
00:21:06
US, Canada, Australia particularly for
00:21:11
the global supply of grain. There are
00:21:13
many reasons for this and the question
00:21:15
that's being raised is can the world
00:21:18
afford to be
00:21:21
that dependent on one block of
00:21:24
countries. Mhm. And uh the answer I
00:21:29
think remains unknown. Okay. But that's
00:21:32
I think there there lies the issue. US,
00:21:35
Canada and Australia particularly US and
00:21:37
Canada are uniquely positioned to supply
00:21:41
the world with grain and that has the n
00:21:42
to do with the nature of weather
00:21:44
patterns.
00:21:45
Um I don't know if you recall but the
00:21:47
Soviet Union used to go through periodic
00:21:49
I won't say starvations. China did have
00:21:51
a great starvation and great great leap
00:21:53
forward but Soviet Union used to have
00:21:55
periodic food shortages and it wasn't
00:21:57
just due to socialism. See, if you look
00:22:01
if you look at the crop bands in the
00:22:03
Soviet Union, you know, the wheat's
00:22:04
grown in the south, say in in Georgia
00:22:07
and Ukraine, so on and so forth, the
00:22:09
crop bands run east to west. In the US
00:22:12
and Canada, they run north to south. And
00:22:16
that means look, you know, where's our
00:22:17
wheat belt? Where's our corn belt? You
00:22:18
can just see these vertical stripes
00:22:20
across the map. US and Canada. So
00:22:22
weather patterns shift, but you still
00:22:25
get production, right? You got somewhere
00:22:28
somewhere on the somewhere you're
00:22:29
getting production. Exactly. Okay. That
00:22:32
doesn't happen in Eurasia
00:22:35
much more vulner vulnerable to climate
00:22:37
changes and China in particular as well
00:22:39
as India by the way have another
00:22:43
huge problem called water.
00:22:47
The north of China the wheat area is
00:22:49
arid. Desertification is happening. If
00:22:52
you've ever been in Beijing in a sand in
00:22:54
a sandstorm, you'll know what the word
00:22:55
desertification means. You know, you
00:22:58
know, when they tell you that, you know,
00:23:00
over a good weekend, 318,000 tons of
00:23:03
sand were deposited in Beijing.
00:23:07
Um, and it's not the kind of sand, you
00:23:09
know, it's in your kid's sandbox. I
00:23:10
mean, this is the kind of stuff that
00:23:12
when it gets into jet engines, makes the
00:23:14
engine manufacturers very happy. It's
00:23:16
like throwing an abrasive into your
00:23:18
vehicle's engine, right? Or in the
00:23:20
aircraft engine. Um when you see this
00:23:22
happening, you know that their capacity
00:23:25
to grow food
00:23:27
is going to be constrained going forward
00:23:30
unless either climate change reverses or
00:23:32
they find some way to engineer water
00:23:34
supplies in the north of China. I don't
00:23:36
know the topography of India all that
00:23:38
well, but I understand that there are
00:23:40
similar problems in India. Certainly.
00:23:42
Yes. Okay. Well, this has been
00:23:45
fascinating. Thank you so much for for
00:23:47
joining. More than welcome. It was fun.
00:23:51
For more information, please visit
00:23:52
knowledge.warton.upen.edu.
00:23:56
[Music]
