1.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Face Threatening Acts (FTAs)

Brown and Levinson (1978) use Goffmann's (1967) notion of 'face' and the notion of

'face-threatening acts' (FTAs). According to them certain illocutionary acts are liable to

damage or threaten another persons face such acts are defined as face threatening acts.

Morever inherently face threatening act are defined as those acts that by their nature run

contrary to the face wants of the addressee or the speaker.

Brown and Levinson (1978: 70-73) present the distinction of FTAs is based on the

difference between positive and negative face, which they assume every competent adult

member of a society to have (and to know each other to have).

'Face' [is] the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself (...)

(a) Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-

distractions - i.e. the freedom of action and freedom from imposition

(b) Positive face: the positive consistent self image or 'personality' (crucially

including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed

by the interactants (Brown & Levinson 1978: 66).

The notion of 'positive face' in particular is vitally important for news interviews. For

many interviewees it can be a matter of political or financial survival that their positive face

is sustained or enhanced throughout the interview. Politicians depend on a majority of people

in their own constituency appreciating their self-image as conveyed in an interview. A

business representative is likewise bound to be eager to convey a positive face of his or her

firm or company because its financial performance depends on the approval or disapproval it

meets in the public opinion, i.e. it depends on the promulgation of its positive face.

1
 It is clear that what is primarily at issue in news interviews is the interviewee's positive

face. Thus the interviewee's face will usually be found to be threatened by the interviewer, and

the interviewees themselves threaten their own faces if they can be seen to accept criticism or

blame etc.

Strategies for doing FTAs by Penelope Brown & Stephen C. Levinson

In the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, any rational agent will seek to avoid

these face-threatening acts, or will employ certain strategies to minimize the threat. In other

words, he will take into consideration the relative weightings of (at least) three wants: (a) the

want to communicate the content of the FTA x, (b) the want to be efficient or urgent, and (c)

the want to maintain Hs face to any degree. Unless (b) is greater than (c), S will want to

minimize the threat of his FTA.

The possible sets of strategies may be schematized exhaustively as in Fig. In this

schema, we have in mind the following definitions. An actor goes on record in doing an act A

if it is clear to participants what communicative intention led the actor to do A (i.e., there is

just one unambiguously attributable intention with which witnesses would concur).

For instance, if he say I (hereby) promise to come tomorrow and if participants would

concur that, in saying that, he did unambiguously express the intention of committing hisself

to that future act, then in our terminology he went on record as promising to do so. In contrast,

2
if an actor goes off record in doing A, then there is more than one unambiguously attributable

intention so that the actor cannot be held to have committed himself to one particular intent.

So, for instance, if he say Damn, Im out of cash, I forgot to go to the bank today, he may be

intending to get you to lend his some cash, but he cannot be held to have committed hisself to

that intent.

Linguistic realizations of off-record strategies include metaphor and irony, rhetorical

questions, understatement, tautologies, all kinds of hints as to what a speaker wants or means

to communicate, without doing so directly, so that the meaning is to some degree negotiable.

Doing an act baldly, without redress, involves doing it in the most direct, clear, unambiguous

and concise way possible (for example, for a request, saying Do X!). This we shall identify

roughly with following the specifications of Grices Maxims of Cooperation (Grice 1967,

1975).

Normally, an FTA will be done in this way only if the speaker does not fear retribution

from the addressee, for example in circumstances where (a) S and H both tacitly agree that the

relevance of face demands may be suspended in the interests of urgency or efficiency; (b)

where the danger to Hs face is very small, as in offers, requests, suggestions that are clearly

in Hs interest and do not require great sacrifices of S (e.g., Come in or Do sit down); and

(c) where S is vastly superior in power to H, or can enlist audience support to destroy Hs face

without losing his own.

By redressive action we mean action that gives face to the addressee, that is, that

attempts to counteract the potential face damage of the FTA by doing it in such a way, or with

such modifications or additions, that indicate clearly that no such face threat is intended or

desired, aad that S in general recognizes Hs face wants and Himself wants them to he achieved.

Such redressive action takes one of two forms, depending on which aspect of face (negative or

positive) is being stressed.

3
 The weightiness of an FTA is assessed on the basis of three factors as shown in the

following formula (Brown & Lev-inson 1978: 81):

Wx = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + Rx

D(S,H) stands for the social distance between S and H; P(H,S) for the relative power

of H over S; and R for the absolute ranking of impositions in a particular culture. In every

situation, S has to assess the weightiness of an FTA on the basis of these variables, and then

an appropriate strategy has to be chosen (i.e. an utterance with an appropriate force). The

weightiness may be high because of a great social distance between S and H; because H has

power over S (because H is S's boss, for instance); or because the imposition counts as

particularly serious in a particular culture (as, for instance, an accusation of having lied in most

cultures). If the weightiness W[x] is high because one or several of these factors are high, a

low risk strategy would be chosen by S, i.e. S would choose an utterance of only small force.

A small force of an utterance implies greater indirectness and thus leaves H more choice

to opt out of the imposition.

(a) Open the window!

(b) Would you please be so kind as to open the window.

(c) Hm, I think it's a bit draughty in here, don't you?

(a) does not leave any choice to H whether to comply or not, whereas (b) and (c) are

increasingly indirect and thus leave H the choice of actually understanding it as a request for

the window to be opened by H.

13 ways of threatening the interviewee's face by Andreas H. Jucker

FTAs may occur whenever the interviewee is questioned on his/ her opinion, because

such an opinion might reduce the interviewee's face, at least for part of the audience. Some

event or action associated with the interviewee might also be valued as demeaning by some

4
part of the audience and thus threaten the interviewee's face. FTAs are even more serious,

however, if the interviewee has to comment directly on the value of the face of some other

person or of himself/herself. The list below suggests thirteen ways available to interviewers to

put interviewees in positions where their faces are in some way threatened. This list does not

claim absolute exhaustiveness, and not all FTAs are clear-cut cases of one or the other category.

Future act of interviewee :

[1] commit yourself to do something

In the case of [1], a future act of interviewee is involved, and the interviewer asks

interviewee to commit himself/herself explicitly to either do the act or not, as in the following

examples:

Interviewer : Is it in your mind to invite Mr. Tchernenko to come to Britain?

Interviewee : Well no no don't jump too quickly one of the things if you're doing diplomacy is

you must go stage by stage . now Geoffrey Howe is going to to Moscow er to see er Monsieur

Gromyko in July.

The interviewer's question pretends to be concerned with the interviewee's opinion, (in

this case the Prime Minister's), but what is required is a commitment to either extend an

invitation or not. If she complies and actually commits herself, she is (more or less) bound to

subsequently act out her commitment because she can be held responsible for what she said in

public. Assuming that she subsequently decides that she does not want to give the invitation,

some interviewer is likely to remind her of her commitment. This would then constitute a far

more serious face-threat implying that she had committed herself insincerely or that she has

changed her mind. In this instance, not surprisingly, she does not commit herself. She

completely denies any intention to invite Mr Tchernenko at the moment (immediately after his

5
coming to power in the Soviet U-nion), but she leaves open the possibility of such an invitation

for a later time after diplomatic contacts on lower levels.

The interviewee's opinion :

[2] state your opinion

In strategies [2] to [5] the interviewer requests information on interviewee's opinion.

The least serious FTA in this respect is the simple request to interviewee to state his/her

opinion. However, this can already constitute a FTA because again it requires the interviewee

to commit himself/herself. Examples :

Interviewer : (...) now what do you think of that particular point that er Mr Heath was making

Sir William that er reflation's working in America it should work here.

Interviewee : well Mr Heath has been a long time critic of er . the economic policy of the

present Government doesn't necessarily mean he's right . .when he compares the American

economy with this economy . I don't think he is comparing like with like (...)

In the example, the interviewee, the president of the Conservative Back Bench Finance

Committee, is confronted with the view that the present Conservative Government would be

more successful if it adopted the American financial policies of Government investment in

capital industries. Obviously, it is difficult to justify why a strategy which appears to be

successful is not adopted. The interviewee has got the choice of criticising either Mr Heath's

statement quoted by the interviewer, or the Conservative Government policies. As a supporter

of the Government, he denies that the American and the British economies can be compared at

all, and therefore the British Government cannot adopt the American policies. However, he

does not unequivocally say that Mr Heath's point is wrong, but he claims that Mr Heath is not

necessarily right. Thus he avoids committing himself fully for or against Mr Heath's criticism.

[3] confirm your opinion (presupposing that it is demeaning).

6
 In strategy [3], the interviewer asks interviewee to confirm an opinion which, on the

basis of linguistic hints given by the interviewer, must be seen as demeaning. In the example

above, there do not seem to be any linguistic hints reflecting the sensitivity of the question. The

following excerpt is clearly marked as concerning a demeaning issue. Example:

Interviewer : you're surely not suggesting as you've seemed to in the course of that answer .

that strikes and unions are responsible for thi , three million plus . there are people who'd say

many more plus unemployed in this country.

Interviewee : no Mr Clough I am NOT , suggesting , that strikes are the only thing that cause

unemployment . the world recession causes it . the great indu the great third industrial

revolution of high technology and being able to produce more things , er with machines . is

causing it in the beginning.

In the example, the interviewer asks the interviewee to confirm (or deny) a particular

opinion and he gives clear linguistic indications about the value he attaches to this opinion. The

propositional content of the question concerns the responsibility for the very high number of

unemployed people in Britain. By the phrase you're surely not suggesting the interviewer

clearly indicates that he finds it unacceptable to attribute the responsibility to strikes and to the

unions. The interviewee - the Prime Minister - suggested such an opinion in her previous

answer without, however, being explicit about it. And now the interviewer formulates his

question in such a way that it conveys his strong opposition to a more explicit formulation.

[4] accept discrepancy between your opinion and your actions

Strategies [4] and [5] are again slightly more serious because they suggest that there is

a discrepancy between the interviewee's opinion and some action of his/hers and between his/

her opinion and reality, respectively. For the example :

7
Interviewer : is there not a certain irony though in the fact that you'll be . talking with Mr

Botha on the very day when the England rugby team era will be playing a test match in South

Africa er: c contrary to the provisions of agreement and very much against the wishes of this

Government.

Interviewee : I see no irony about it at all . er Mr Botha is over in Europe at that time and we

take the advantage of his being here to be able to talk to him.

In the example, the interviewer suggests that there is a discrepancy between the

Government's opinion, as expressed in its opposition to sports contacts with South Africa, and

its actions in that the Prime Minister has personal talks with the South African Prime Minister

at the same time. In this case the Prime Minister denies forcefully that there is any such

discrepancy.

[5] accept discrepancy between your opinion and reality

Strategy [5] is rather more serious than [4] because a discrepancy between the

interviewee's opinion and reality in many instances amounts to lying, which is a very serious

charge in a British context, and thus constitutes a clear face-threat, as in the following

examples:

Interviewee : (...) I mean to us democracies are naturally peace loving . we don't we're not a

danger to anyone we're basically defensive . but I don't think that that's always the line which

is put across in the Warsaw pact countries.

Interviewer : well they of course will probably say precisely the same that what we put across

about their point of view is wrong too.

Interviewee : yes but er Brian without being too specific era we do have to look at the history

In the examples, the interviewer puts across the view that the interviewee holds an

opinion which is "wrong". The Prime Minister complains that countries of the Eastern block

8
present their peoples with views about the West that do not correspond to reality. The

interviewer counters this view by giving one possible reply of the countries thus accused. The

fact that the interviewer does not make the FTAs in his own right but by quoting a possible

opponent, is a clear indication that the propositional content underlying this accusation is

considered to be fairly serious.

The act in the previous time that related to the interviewee :

[6] accept that the reason for doing the action is demeaning

Strategies [6] to [11] are concerned with an action or event that has taken place

previously and that is related in some way to the interviewee. All these strategies have in

common that they somehow manage to convey the impression that the interviewee's face is to

some extent lowered by being associated with that particular action or event. The strategies,

however, vary in their seriousness. Strategy [6] implies that the motivation behind the action

or event was in some respect demeaning. For example :

Interviewer : well let me just put the the final point that Mr Quick made to me he said that this

is all er politically motivated that the idea is merely to to save money and it is gradually erm

erm making a trend towards privatising the health service

Interviewee : no I can't accept that because . thi: primary: motivation , is: thi reintegration of

mentally handicapped people within the community . and money is by no means , the objective

Interviewer : but it does save money does it not

Interviwee : no it doesn't indeed , NO , because in fact what is happening . in our own mental:

er: mentally handicapped hospital is that we are now introducing s services for general

psychiatry (...)

In the first question of the excerpt, it is not the actual measures introduced in the Health

Service which are at issue, but the reasons leading to these measures. The implied accusation

9
suggests that the measures were not taken in order to provide a better and more efficient Health

Service but for political reasons (i.e. the Conservative Government is carrying out its policy of

reducing state expenditure). As the interviewee is able to reject that proposition and to give

other reasons for these measures, the interviewer uses the same strategy again by suggesting

that it saves money even if that is not the primary motivation behind them.

[7] state that the action is demeaning

Strategy [7] goes one step further in that the action or event is seen as demeaning, i.e.

as lowering the interviewee's face. The evaluation of the event itself is at issue, and the

interviewee is required to confirm the demeaning nature of the action or event. For the example:

Interviwer : Mr Heath made the very serious charge that the methods chosen to reduce inflation

have been effective mainly by boosting unemployment.

Interviewee : well er that's that reallyis an oversimplification . if indeed you accept the fact and

I'm sure Mr Heath would accept the fact . er that we were overmanned , in many of our

industries (...)

Here the interviewee is asked to either confirm or deny that it was wrong to reduce

inflation with the methods employed by the Government. At the moment the exact nature of

the methods is not at issue, but the evaluation of the methods. If the interviewee were to be

unable to deny the consequences of the action, i.e. the boosting of unemployment, the action

itself would be seen to be demeaning. The interviewer is quite clear about the demeaning

quality of the action. Most actions in present-day British politics are seen in the light of whether

they increase or decrease unemployment, and they are judged accordingly. The informal term

'boost' makes the accusation stronger than the more neutral term 'increase' would have done.

Additionally, the interviewer explicitly describes the accusation as a very serious charge.

[8] confirm the action (presupposing that it is demeaning)

10
 In strategy [8], the demeaning nature of the action is not at issue, it is presupposed. The

only question is whether the interviewee can deny that the action or event took place at all. For

the example :

Interviewer : are you saying that none of the children have been involved in robbery and drug

taking , are you saying that they have never been shown pornographic pictures for instance.

Interviewee : first of all , I will say that there have been , example of involvement er among ,

some of the students , in , not a robbery but er a theft . and er one of the students has previously

, during a visit to Denmark been involved in a robbery in a jewellery (...)

The allegation is that a Danish school running a rehabilitation scheme for young

convicts failed to observe its responsibility in looking after the children who are said to have

been involved in a robbery and to have taken drugs. There is again no doubt that it would be

demeaning for the school and its representative, who is being interviewed, if he could not deny

the accusations. It is interesting that the third accusation, that the children have been shown

pornographic pictures (this allegation is not mentioned again in the interview), derives its

weight mainly from being mentioned together with the two other allegations, which are more

clearly demeaning. The Danish interviewee has to admit to the first charge but in the further

course of the answer he denies the other two charges, and particularly the implicit charge that

the school failed in its responsibilities.

[9] take responsibility for the action (presupposing that it occurred and is demeaning)

Strategy [9] goes yet one step further. The demeaning nature of the action or event and

its actual occurrence are no longer at issue; they are presupposed. In this strategy the

interviewee is asked to take responsibility and consequently also the blame for some action or

event, as for instance in the following studio introduction to an interview with the chairman of

the National Coal Board. For the example :

11
 !
Interviewer : but don t you accept Mr Jorgensen that it's the duty of your school to make sure

that er , pupils don't stray and er , er commit robberies or thefts.

Interviewee : I admit it . totally and we have this as our duty number one , and our second duty

is . . in the whole . . to bring these young people up morally , speaking , where we are trying to

train them and to teach them , normal , personal , behaviour among other people and we are

advancing . very good in this process.

Here the interviewee is asked to take the responsibility for robberies and thefts allegedly

committed by pupils of his school. ' Again, the demeaning nature of the robberies and thefts is

not at issue in this particular question. The proposition is so self-evident and reasonable within

our expectations of the duties of a school for young convicts that a negative answer would

astound the listener. However, with an affirmative answer the interviewee risks being seen to

accuse himself explicitly should the allegations turn out to be true.

[10] justify the action (presupposing that you are responsible)

Strategy [10], as well as strategy [9], takes the occurrence and the demeaning nature of

the action or event for granted but unlike strategy [9] it also takes the interviewee's

responsibility for granted. Strategy [10] asks for a justification of the action. For the example :

Interviewer : and er you'll hear later in the programme [the controversial invitation to Mr Botha]

has been severely criticised already I asked Mrs Thatcher why she'd invited Mr Botha to come

and see her.

Interviewee : well first he is in any event going to do quite a tour of Europe . er second . I really

don't understand the protest when people are urging me the whole time . to have much more

dialogue to try to get a greater understanding between the Western countries and the Soviet

block , and I agree with that (...)

12
 The Prime Minister is asked to justify her action i.e. why she had invited the South

African Prime Minister. The fact that she has done so and that she is responsible for the

invitation is taken for granted. That the invitation is in some respect demeaning to her face is

explicitly mentioned. The invitation is described as controversial and as having been severely

criticised.

[11] take action against something

In strategy [11] again the propositions of strategies [7] to [9] are presupposed but now

the interviewee is asked if he or she is going to take action against the particular action or event

which has actually occurred, which is demeaning, and for which he or she is responsible. For

the example :

Interviewer : would it not in the meantime be a sensible proportion though to clean up the

smoke which we emit from the power stations.

Interviewee : well I think that that can be done and is being done . but thi: problem is one of

cost . it would add very substantially to the cost of producing electricity.

The chairman of the National Coal Board is asked if the coal industry is prepared to

take action against the pollution of the environment which it causes : its responsibility for the

pollution and whether there actually is pollution at all, are no longer at issue, it is taken for

granted. In the first part of the answer the interviewee claims that such action is already being

taken, but in the second part of the answer he seems to contradict this by using the hypothetical

modal would, which suggests that these actions are not yet being taken, and only if they were,

they would add to the cost of producing electricity.

The other face :

[12] state that other's face is demeaning

13
 Interviewees because in [12] they are asked to comment on somebody else's face; and

in [13] on their own face. In [12] they may have to comment on a political opponent, as in the

following example where Neil Kinnock, the leader of the opposition, is asked to comment on

the Prime Minister. For the example :

Interviewer : but you see you say that Mrs Thatcher has tied herself too closely to the United

States but you don't think it possible that she was one of the influences that persuaded president

Reagan to make the speech he made yesterday which was really quite a reversal for him.

Interviewee : I think that Mrs Thatcher sadly has no influence whatsoever , over President

Reagan because she's abandoned the right to have , such an influence.

The interviewer suggests that the British Prime Minister may have exerted some

positive influence on the American President, and he asks the interviewee if he acknowledges

such a possibility. In this case, the interviewee would risk his positive face as the leader of the

opposition if he observed the Approbation Maxim ("Maximize praise of other"). Obviously, he

prefers to violate this maxim.

Interviewee's face :

[13] accept that your own face is demeaning

Strategy [13] is the most direct threat to the interviewee's face. For the example:

Interviewer : Prime Minister you say th th that Britain is historically and by inclination pro

American but do you accept that there is a majority of people in this country . which is opposed

to this deployment of cruise here deploy er: er: opposed to thi purchase of trident.

Interviewee : era . I see a number 0 of polls but . I do not think . er when it comes to the majority

of people . that the issues have ever been fully and properly explained before the thing is put

in polls (...)

14
 Here the Prime Minister is confronted with the view that a majority of people in Britain

do not share her position on nuclear defence. What is at issue here is not some action or event

caused by the interviewee but her standing in public opinion. Her answer again is revealing

and shows the face threatening situation created by this question. At the time of this interview

the opinion polls mentioned by the interviewer were widely publicised.

Thus the Prime Minister cannot deny the proposition without being seen to violate the

Maxim of Quality, i.e. to say something which every informed listener knows not to be true.

However, to accept the proposition would be equally disastrous, and tantamount to losing her

face. This conflict explains her unusually long hesitation. After a pause of one second she utters

a hesitation particle in order to break the silence. Her first sentence relativises the strength of

the proposition. She cannot deny that there have been opinion polls, but she can question their

validity. Thus she tries to save her face by questioning the basis of information on which the

opinion polls have been carried out.

15
 2. THE CONTENT OF MEDIA PRODUCT

The Research used conversation interview The Economist talks to the President of the

United States about economic policy as the data. Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is

the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before

entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality. Trump was born in the New

York City borough of Queen. He earned an economics degree from the Wharton School. For

45 years, he managed The Trump Organization, the real estate development firm founded

by his paternal grandmother. His career focused on building or renovating office towers,

hotels, casinos, and golf courses. He started several side ventures and branded various products

with his firm's name. He produced and hosted The Apprentice television series for 12 years. As

of 2017, he was the 544th richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of

$3.5 billion.

Trump had long expressed interest in politics, he entered the 2016 presidential race as

a Republican and defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries. Commentators described his

political positions as populist, protectionist, and nationalist. His campaign received

extensive free media coverage, many of his public statements were controversial or false.

Trump won the general election on November 8, 2016, in a surprise victory

against Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. He became the oldest and wealthiest person

ever to assume the presidency, the first without prior military or government service, and the

fifth to have won the election despite losing the popular vote. His election and policies

sparked numerous protests.

In the first months of his presidency, Trump reversed several policies of former

President Barack Obama. He withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific

Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement, and he undid parts of the Cuban Thaw. Trump

16
appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. He ordered a travel ban on citizens from six

Muslim majority countries, the ban has been partially implemented. After Trump dismissed

FBI Director James Comey, the Justice Department appointed his predecessor Robert

Muellerspecial counsel to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Mueller also

investigated potential links between Russia and Trump campaign associates, and any related

matters.

Trump's ancestors originated from the German village of Kallstadt, Palatinate, on his

father's side, and from the Outer Hebrides isles of Scotland on his mother's side. All his

grandparents, and his mother, were born in Europe. His mother's grandfather was also

christened "Donald". Trump's paternal grandfather, Friedrich Trump (later Frederick), first

emigrated to the United States in 1885 at the age of 16, and became a citizen in 1892. He

amassed a fortune operating boom-town restaurants and boarding houses in the Seattle area

and the Klondike region of Canada, during the gold rush. On a visit to Kallstadt, he

met Elisabeth Christ and married her in 1902. The couple settled in New York permanently in

1905. Frederick died from influenza during the 1918 pandemic.

Donald's father Fred Trump was born in 1905 in the Bronx. Fred started working with

his mother in real estate when he was 15, shortly after his father's death. Their company,

Elizabeth Trump and Son, was primarily active in the New York

boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn. Fred eventually built and sold thousands of houses,

barracks and apartments. The company would later become The Trump Organization after

Donald Trump took over in 1971. Donald's mother Mary Anne was born in Tong, Lewis,

Scotland. At age 18 in 1930, she emigrated to New York where she worked as a maid. [9] Fred

and Mary were married in 1936 and raised their family in Queens. Fred's

brother John (Donald's uncle) became a physicist and inventor.

17
 Trump has five children by three marriages, and has eight grandchildren. His first two

marriages ended in widely publicized divorces. Trump married his first wife, Czech

model Ivana Zelnkov, on April 7, 1977, at the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhattan in a

ceremony performed by the Reverend Norman Vincent Peale. They had three children:

son Donald Jr. (1977), daughter Ivanka (1981), and son Eric (1984). Ivana became a

naturalized United States citizen in 1988. The couple divorced in 1992 following Trump's affair

with actress Marla Maples. In October 1993, Maples gave birth to Trump's daughter Tiffany,

named after high-end retailer Tiffany & Company. Maples and Trump were married two

months later on December 20, 1993. They were divorced in 1999, and Tiffany was raised by

her mother in California.

On January 22, 2005, Trump married Slovene model Melania Knauss at Bethesda-by-

the-Sea Episcopal Church in Palm Beach, Florida. The ceremony was followed by a reception

at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. In 2006, Melania acquired United States citizenship and she

gave birth to their son Barron on March 20 of that year. Melania became First Lady of the

United States upon Trump's accession to the presidency. Prior to his inauguration as president,

Trump delegated the management of his real estate business to his two adult sons, Eric and

Don Jr. His daughter Ivanka resigned from The Trump Organization and moved to Washington

with her husband Jared Kushner. She serves as assistant to the president, while he is a Senior

Advisor in the White House.

The researcher used this interview from The Economist online on May 4th, 2017. The

Economist online offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics,

business, finance, science and technology. They publish all articles from The Economist print

edition (including those printed only in British copies) and maintain a searchable online archive

that dates back June 1997. They also offer a variety of web only content, including blogs,

debates and audio/video programmes. The Economist online is part of The Economist

18
Group and is responsible for The Economist on the internet. They have offices in New York,

London and San Francisco, and a growing worldwide editorial staff.

It is not only The Economist's name that people find baffling. Even when The

Economist incorporated the Bankers' Gazette and Railway Monitor from 1845 to 1932, it also

described itself as "a political, literary and general newspaper". It still does so because, in

addition to offering analysis and opinion, it tries in each issue to cover the main events business

and political of the week. It goes to press on Thursdays and, printed simultaneously in six

countries, is available in most of the world's main cities the following day or soon after. Readers

everywhere get the same editorial matter. The advertisements differ. The running order of the

sections, and sometimes the cover, also differ. But the words are the same, except that each

week readers in Britain get a few extra pages devoted to British news.

Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are

discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial

staff. Journalists often cooperate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main

reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who

writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor

"not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-

worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and

principle."

The Economist Newspaper Limited, the parent company of The Economist Group, is a

private company and none of its shares are listed. EXOR SA owns 43.4% of its shares with the

rest owned by a group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff. The

editor's independence is guaranteed by the existence of a board of trustees; it formally appoints

the editor, who can only be removed with its permission.

19
 From the earliest days, The Economist had looked abroad, both for subjects to write

about and for circulation. Even in the 1840s, it had readers in Europe and the United States. By

1938, half its sales were abroad although, thanks to world war, not for long. Crowther's great

innovation was to start a section devoted to American affairs, which he did just after the

Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941. "American Survey" (renamed "United

States" in 1997) was aimed not at Americans but at British readers who, Crowther believed,

needed to know more about their new allies. In time, however, it earned a following in the

United States that became the base for the great rise in American circulation that began in the

1970s. For most of its existence The Economist has been content with a small circulation. When

Bagehot gave up as editor, it stood at 3,700, and by 1920 had climbed to only 6,000. After the

second world war, it rose rapidly, but from a base of barely 18,000, and when Crowther left it

stood at only 55,000, not reaching 100,000 until 1970. Today circulation is over 1.4m, more

than four-fifths of it outside Britain. The American circulation accounts for over half of the

total.

Articles in The Economist are not signed, but they are not all the work of the editor

alone. Initially, the paper was written largely in London, with reports from merchants abroad.

Over the years, these gave way to stringers who sent their stories by sea or air mail, and then

by telex and cable. Nowadays, in addition to a worldwide network of stringers, the paper has

about 20 staff correspondents abroad. Contributors have ranged from Kim Philby, who spied

for the Soviet Union, to H.H. Asquith, the paper's chief leader writer before he became Britain's

prime minister, Garret FitzGerald, who became Ireland's, and Luigi Einaudi, president of Italy

from 1948 to 1955. Even the most illustrious of its staff, however, write anonymously: only

special reports, the longish supplements published about 20 times a year on various issues or

countries, are signed. In May 2001, a redesign introduced more navigational information for

readers and full colour on all editorial pages.

20
 The corporate logotype of The Economist has evolved from the gothic lettering used on

the cover of the first issue, published in 1843, to the box device designed in 1959 by Reynolds

Stone, a British engraver and typographer. It now incorporates a font from The

Economist Typefamily, a typeface created specifically for our use. The Economist has used a

specially designed family of typefaces since May 1991. Development work focused

specifically on how the new type family would respond to electronic transmission and different

printing conditions at The Economist's seven international production sites. In our recent re-

design a new typeface, Officina, was introduced for cover headlines and all navigational

information. Ecotype, The Economist's main typeface, was also redrawn to make it easier to

read. If you would like to buy a copy of our type family, or if you would simply like to find out

more about it, please go to Agfa Monotype's website.

21
 3. DATA ANALYSIS

Everyday communication involves the use of face-threatening acts (FTA), that by their

nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee or of the speaker (Brown and Levinson,

1987: 65). FTAs can threaten both the speakers and the hearers face. Also, they can obstruct

both positive and negative aspect of ones face. Negative FTAs obstruct the speakers or the

hearers freedom of action and freedom from imposition. These can be threatening to the hearer

when they:

a) place pressure on the hearer to perform or not to perform a particular action: e.g. advice,

suggestions, requests, orders, reminding, warning, threats.

b) express the speakers strong negative feelings or opinions of the hearer or hearers

belongings: e.g. hatred, anger, lust, compliments, expressions of envy, admiration

c) indicate some positive future actions of the speaker towards the hearer, which compel the

hearer to either reject or accept it; e.g. promises, offers.

FTAs which threaten the speakers negative face are those that pose an offence to ones

face, e.g. expressing thanks, accepting the hearers thanks, apology, offers, excuses, responses

to hearers faux pas, unwilling promises and offers. Positive FTAs inflict damage to ones face

by denoting the interlocutors lack of appreciation or approval for ones feelings, wants,

desires, etc. These threaten the hearers face by:

1. expressing the speakers negative evaluation of the hearers positive face, e.g.,

disapproval, criticism, insults, accusations, complaints, reprimands, contradictions,

disagreements.

22
 2. expressing lack of care for the hearers positive face, e.g. excessive emotionality,

irreverence, misuse of honorifics, mention of taboo topics, belittling, boasting, non-

sequiturs, interruptions.

The speakers positive face is threatened by acts which indicate that one has made a

transgression or lost control over the situation, e.g. apologies, confessions, admissions of guilt

or responsibility, acceptance of compliments, self-humiliation, self-contradiction, emotion

leakage, etc.

The research focuses on the analyzed this interview used thirteen ways of threatening

the interviewee's face by Andreas H. Jucker. The way how to analyze this interview is by

looking at the question that interviewer asked to the interviewee. This is done to find out to

know if there are any question from interviewers to put interviewees in a positions where their

faces are in some way threatened or not. The research analyzed this FTAs in this interview

because the researcher want to know and want to find out if there are journalists are often to

use FTAs during interviews or not.

Data 1

Reporter : It sounds like youre imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What

would a fair NAFTA look like?

Donald Trump : Big isnt a good enough word. Massive.

Reporter : Huge?

Donald Trump : Its got to be. Its got to be.

Reporter : What would it look like? What would a fair NAFTA look like?

23
Donald Trump : No, its gotta be. Otherwise we're terminating NAFTA.

Reporter : What would a fair NAFTA look like?

Donald Trump : I was all set to terminate, you know? And this wasnt likethis wasnt a

game I was playing. Im not playingyou know, I wasnt playing chess or poker or anything

else. This was, I was, Id never even thought aboutits always the best when you really feel

this way. But I wasI had no thought of anything else, and these two guys will tell you, I had

no thought of anything else but termination. But because of my relationship with both of them,

I said, I would like to give that a try too, thats fine. I mean, out of respect for them. It wouldve

been very disrespectful to Mexico and Canada had I said, I will not.

The question above are called FTAs because that question includes number two

strategies by Jucker. The strategy is used because the purpose of the question is stating the

interviewees opinion. The interviewer asked this question to make the interviewee commit

himself or herself to his or her statement. As the result in the future the interviewee must be

consequent with his or her statement.

Donald Trump was asked to give a opinion about what would a fair NAFTA look like.

However Donald does not directly answer the question, So this shows that he has a negative

faces as the rights to non-distractions especially freedom from imposition. Donald needed a

startegy to reply the question because it is relating to his statement, whether it is true or not.

Data 2

Reporter : But Mr President, what has to change for you not to withdraw?

Donald Trump : We have to be able to make fair deals. Right now the United States has a

70almost a $70bn trade deficit with Mexico. And it has about a $15bn dollar trade deficit

24
with Canada. The timber coming in from Canada, theyve been negotiating for 35 years. And

its beenits been terrible for the United States. You know, its just, its just been terrible.

Theyve never been able to make it.

The question above are called FTAs because that question includes number eight

strategies by Jucker. The strategy is used because the purpose of the question is to confirm the

action. The interviewer asked this question to make the interviewee confirm their action. As

the result the interviewee can deny that the action or event took place at all.

Donald Trump was asked to give confirmation to his action about what has to change

for him not to withdraw. This can be seen from the conversation that Donald immediately

answered the question clearly, So this shows that he has a positive faces as the desire that his

self-image be appreciated and approved. Donald needed a startegy to reply the question

because it is relating to his action.

Data 3

Reporter : Does that $70bn deficit have to come to zero to be fair?

Donald Trump : Not necessarily. And certainly it can come over a, you know, fairly

extended period of time, because Im not looking to shock the system. But it has to become at

least fair. And no, it doesnt have to immediately go to zero. But at some point would like to

get it at zero, where sometimes we can be up and sometimes they can be up.

The question above are called FTAs because that question includes number three

strategies by Jucker. The strategy is used because the purpose of the question is to confirm the

opinion. The interviewer asked this question to make the interviewee confirm their opiniom

(presupposing that it is demeaning).

25
 Donald Trump was asked to give confirmation to his opinion about if $70bn deficit

have to come to zero to be fair. This can be seen from the conversation that Donald answered

the question hesitantly, So this shows that he has a negative faces as the basic claim to

territories. Donald needed a startegy to reply the question because it is relating to his opinion.

Data 4

Reporter : Youve talked about reciprocal taxes. Do you imagine that with lots of countries

on lots of products or is that a negotiating tool?

Donald Trump : No, I think it can be conceivably with lots of countries. The thing thats bad

about the hundred days is, I said the other day, I said, When do we start this negotiation?

They said, Sir, it hasnt kicked in yet because it goes with [Robert] Lighthizer, whos our,

you know, our representative, who I think is going to do a very good job. I said, You must be

kidding. So its a real deficit. Now thats a NAFTA thing. Because everything in NAFTA is

bad. Thats bad, everythings bad. But in the case of South Korea we have a deal that was made

by Hillary Clinton, its a horrible deal. And that is the five-year anniversary and its up for

renegotiation and weve informed them that well negotiate. And again, we want a fair deal.

We dont want a one-sided deal our way but we want fair deals. And if we can have fair deals

our country is going to do very well.

The question above are called FTAs because that question includes number nine

strategies by Jucker. The strategy is used because the purpose of the question is to take

responsibility for the action. The interviewer asked this question to make the interviewee take

responsibility for their action.

Donald Trump was asked to give a respons for his action about reciprocal taxes with a

lots of countries on lots of products as a negotiating tool. This can be seen from the conversation

26
that Donald immediately answered the question quickly, So this shows that he has a positive

faces as the desire that his self-image be appreciated and approved

Data 5

Reporter : Some people think this is a negotiating tactic, that you say very dramatic things

but actually you would settle for some very small changes. Is that right?

Donald Trump : No, its not, really not a negotiation. Its really not. No, will I settle for less

than I go in with? Yes, I mean who wouldnt? Nobody, you know, I always use the word

flexibility, I have flexibility. [Goes off the record.] [Our] relationship with China is long. Of

course by China standards, its very short [laughter], you know when Im with [Xi Jinping],

because hes great, when Im with him, hes a great guy. He was telling me, you know they go

back 8,000 years, we have 1776 is like modern history. They consider 1776 like yesterday and

they, you know, go back a long time. They talk about the different wars, it was very interesting.

We got along great. So I told them, I said, We have a problem and were going to solve that

problem. But he wants to help us solve that problem.

The question above includes strategy number ten by Jucker. The question is called FTA,

because the purpose of this question is justifying the action. The interviewer ask this question

to take the accurate and the meaning nature of interviewees action or event for granted and

also take the interviewees responsibility for granted. In brief, it is asking for justification of

interviewees action.

Donald Trump was asked to justifying about peoples think that he used a

negotiating tactic, because he said very dramatic things but actually he would settle for some

very small changes. This can be seen from the conversation that Donald answered the question

27
with a confidence, So this shows that he has a positive faces as the desire that his self-image

be appreciated and approved.

Data 6

Reporter : One last question on trade. Do you think youve permanently changed the

Republican Partys position on trade?

Donald Trump : No. Because therell always be someone that comes along with another

idea but its not a better idea. We have the better idea. But yeah, I think that a lot of the, like

for instance today, health care. Very big thing. Very big. And it wasnt two bites of the apple.

It was one bite. Somebody set a time limit and that was mistake, I said never set a time limit

but somebody set a time limit. So when they didnt meet that time limit they said, We didnt

get it there, well, they shouldnt have set a time limit.

The question above are called FTAs because that question includes number two

strategies by Jucker. The strategy is used because the purpose of the question is stating the

interviewees opinion. The interviewer asked this question to make the interviewee commit

himself or herself to his or her statement. As the result in the future the interviewee must be

consequent with his or her statement.

Donald Trump was asked to give a opinion about if he has permanently changed the

Republican Partys position on trade or not. This can be seen from the conversation that Donald

answered the question very clear, So this shows that he has a positive faces as the desire that

his self-image be appreciated and approved. Donald needed a startegy to reply the question

because it is relating to his statement, whether it is true or not.

Data 7

28
Reporter : And what about legal immigration? Do you want to cut the number of

immigrants?

Donald Trump : Oh legal, no, no, no. I want people to come into the country legally. No,

legally? No. I want people to come in legally. But I want people to come in on merit. I want to

go to a merit-based system. Actually two countries that have very strong systems are Australia

and Canada. And I like those systems very much, theyre very strong, theyre very good, I like

them very much. Were going to a much more merit-based system. But I absolutely want

talented people coming in, I want people that are going to love our country coming in, I want

people that are going to contribute to our country coming in. We want a provision at the right

time, we want people that are coming in and will commit to not gettingnot receiving any

form of subsidy to live in our country for at least a five-year period.

The question above includes strategy number one by Jucker. The question is called FTA

because the purpose of the question is the committing the interviewee to do something. The

interviewer ask this question to make interviewee commits himself or herself explicity to either

do the act or not.

Donald Trump was asked about if he want to cut the number of immigrants or not. This

can be seen from the conversation that Donald answered the question very brave, So this shows

that he has a positive faces as the desire that his self-image be appreciated and approved.

Donald needed a strategy to reply it because it is relating to his action whether it was true or

not.

Data 8

Reporter : But the numbers of those people could be as high as the numbers that are

coming in legally now? Youre not looking to reduce the numbers?

29
Donald Trump : Oh yeah, no, no, no, no, we want people coming in legally. No, very

strongly. Now theyre going to be much more strongly vetted as you see. You know, weve

broken the all-time record [of detentions at the border] by many times, 73, were up to 73, its

going to go up to almost 80% at the border, weveyou know, really stopped it. We also want

farm workers to be able to come in. You know, were going to have work visas for the farm

workers. If you look, you know we have a lot of people coming through the border, theyre

great people and they work on the farms and then they go back home. We like those people a

lot and we want them to continue to come in.

The question above includes strategy number eleven by Jucker. The question is called

FTA because the purpose of the question is take action against something. The interviewer ask

this question to make interviewee taking some action to something happen.

Donald Trump was asked about the numbers of people could be as high as the numbers

that are coming in legally, if he is not looking to reduce the numbers or not. This can be seen

from the conversation that Donald answered the question very strongly, So this shows that he

has a positive faces as the desire that his self-image be appreciated and approved.

Data 9

Reporter : Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan

increases the deficit? Ronald Reagans tax reform didnt.

Donald Trump : Well, it actually did. But, but its called priming the pump. You know, if

you dont do that, youre never going to bring your taxes down. Now, if we get the health-care

[bill through Congress], this is why, you know a lot of people said, Why isnt he going with

taxes first, thats his wheelhouse? Well, hey look, I convinced many people over the last two

weeks, believe me, many Congressmen, to go with it. And theyre great people, but one of the

30
great things about getting health care is that we will be saving, I mean anywhere from $400bn

to $900bn.

The question above includes strategy number ten by Jucker. The question is called FTA,

because the purpose of this question is justifying the action. The interviewer ask this question

to take the accurate and the meaning nature of interviewees action or event for granted and

also take the interviewees responsibility for granted. In brief, it is asking for justification of

interviewees action.

Donald Trump was asked to justifying about part of his overall plan, the tax reform

plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit or not. This can be seen from the conversation

that Donald answered the question in doubt, So this shows that he has a negative faces as the

personal preserves. Donald needed a strategy to answer because he must to justifying his action

and his statement.

Data 10

Reporter : So you would have a bigger deficit, a stimulus, to prime the pump that would

lead to faster growth?

Donald Trump : So I happen to think that 3% is low. But you cant do it if your companies

are leaving the country because taxes are too high. Now, Im going to do something there

too. If our companies leave the country, number one theyre leaving for numerous reasons but

one of the big reasons is the taxes are so high. When they leavego back to trade for a second,

when they leave the country, go to a certain country wherever it may be, and they fire all their

workers in the United States and on the assumption they build cars or air conditioners or

whatever theyre building, and they open a plant someplace else and then they send the air

conditioner or the car into our country with no tax, thats not going to happen anymore. Theyre

31
going to have a very large tax to pay, in the vicinity of 35%. Now when you do that, number

one they're not leaving the country anyway. So were not leaving. I dont know if you saw

whats happening. Ford has announced massive expansions in the United States. General

Motors cancelled a big plant in Mexico and a big plant in Europe. Theyre all cancelling plans

because I told them, I saidI get along with them great. But I said, Look, we dont mind if

you leave the country. You can build all you want out of country, I hope you enjoy your plant.

But when you build your car, youre going to have a 35% tax when you bring it back in. And

if your numbers work, we wish you well. But thats what youre going to have. Youre going

to have a 35% tax.. So I mean, I have, it has, I havent been given massive credit for it yet,

but I have been given some because I just see polls out in Michigan and different places, that

really are affected by this, have been unbelievable, you know, much bigger than election day.

But thats not a tax increase, thats no tax. In other words, all you have to do is dont leave and

you wont have abut were bringing our taxes down so low that you wont even need the

barrier because the taxes are so low, that people are going to stay. The other thing, just in case

weI believe it could be anywhere from $4trn to $5trn outside, you know dont forget weve

been talking about $2.5trn for four years now. Ive been using $2.5trn, the same number weve

all been using for years. Well, you know, it grows. I think itI wouldnt be surprised if it was

$5trn but, you know, were close. Were letting that money come back in. And that has two

barriers which you have to watch. Its got a barrier of the tax, which we will take care of. Were

going to make it 10%. Now its 35%...

The question above includes strategy number one by Jucker. The question is called FTA

because the purpose of the question is the committing the interviewee to do something. The

interviewer ask this question to make interviewee commits himself or herself explicity to either

do the act or not.

32
 Donald Trump was asked about if he would have a bigger deficit, a stimulus, to prime

the pump that would lead to faster growth or not. This can be seen from the conversation that

Donald answered the question very clear and confident, So this shows that he has a positive

faces as the desire that his self-image be appreciated and approved. Donald needed a strategy

to reply it because it is relating to his action whether it was true or not.

Data 11

Reporter : Sorry, 10%? The repatriation taxes?

Donald Trump : The repatriation. Inversion. The corporate inversions, which is a disaster,

with the companies leaving. But they want to bring back their money. Number one, the tax is

too high but the other thing thats too high is the bureaucracy.

The question above are called FTAs because that question includes number three

strategies by Jucker. The strategy is used because the purpose of the question is to confirm the

opinion. The interviewer asked this question to make the interviewee confirm their opiniom

(presupposing that it is demeaning).

Donald Trump was asked to give confirmation to his opinion about the repatriation

taxes down to 10%. This can be seen from the conversation that Donald answered the question

very descriptive, So this shows that he has a positive faces as the desire that his self-image be

appreciated and approved. Donald needed a startegy to reply the question because it is relating

to his opinion.

Data 12

33
Reporter : Mr President, can I just try you on a deal-making question? If you do need

Democratic support for your tax plan, your ideal tax plan, and the price of that the

Democrats say is for you to release your tax returns, would you do that?

Donald Trump : I dont know. Thats a very interesting question. I doubt it. I doubt it.

Because theyre not going tonobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. Oh,

at some point Ill release them. Maybe Ill release them after Im finished because Im very

proud of them actually. I did a good job.

The question above are called FTAs because that question includes number two

strategies by Jucker. The strategy is used because the purpose of the question is stating the

interviewees opinion. The interviewer asked this question to make the interviewee commit

himself or herself to his or her statement. As the result in the future the interviewee must be

consequent with his or her statement.

Donald Trump was asked to give a opinion about if he does need Democratic

support for his tax plan, his ideal tax plan, and the price of that the Democrats say is for

him to release his tax returns, would he does that or not. This can be seen from the

conversation that Donald answered the question in a very doubt, So this shows that he

has a negative faces as the rights to non-distractions especially freedom from imposition.

Donald needed a startegy to reply the question because it is relating to his statement,

whether it is true or not.

34
 REFERENCES

Jucker, Andreas H. News Interviews: A Pragmalinguistic Analysis

Universitt Zrich, John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam, 1986

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness Some Universal In Language Usage

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1987

Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump, Retrieved May 11th 2017, from

http://www.economist.com

Donald Trump, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump

35
 ATTACHMENT

Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump

The Economist talks to the President of the United States about economic policy

DONALD TRUMP, the President of the United States, along with Steve Mnuchin, the
treasury secretary, and Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, sat down
for a conversation with editors from The Economist on May 4th, 2017. What follows is a
lightly edited transcript.

The Economist: Could we start with the economy?

Donald Trump: Sure.

What is Trumponomics and how does it differ from standard Republican economics?
Well its an interesting question. I dont think its ever been asked quite that way. But it
really has to do with self-respect as a nation. It has to do with trade deals that have to be fair,
and somewhat reciprocal, if not fully reciprocal. And I think thats a word that youre going
to see a lot of, because we need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals. We have nations
wheretheyll get as much as 100% of a tax or a tariff for a certain product and for the same
product we get nothing, OK? Its very unfair. And the very interesting thing about that is that,
if I said Im going to put a tax on of 10%, the free-traders, somewhat foolishly, theyll say
Oh, hes not a free-trader, which I am, Im absolutely a free-trader. Im for open trade, free
trade, but I also want smart trade and fair trade. But theyll say, Hes not a free-trader, at
10%. But if I say were putting a reciprocal tax on, it may be 62% or it may be 47%, I mean
massive numbers, and nobody can complain about it. Its really sort of an amazing thing.

So thats the story. It very much has to do with trade. We have so many bad trade deals. To a
point where Im not sure that we have any good trade deals. I dont know who the people are
that would put us into a NAFTA, which was so one-sided. Both from the Canada standpoint
and from the Mexico standpoint. So one-sided. Wilbur [Ross, the secretary of commerce] will
tell you that, you know, like, at the court in Canada, we always lose. Well, the judges are
three Canadians and two Americans. We always lose. But were not going to lose any more.
And so its very, very unfair.

Trump on Trumponomics: Nationalism plus flexibility

Leader: The impulsiveness and shallowness of Americas president threaten the economy as
well as the rule of law
Briefing 1: Donald Trumps economic strategy
Briefing 2: The contradiction at the heart of Trumponomics
Briefing 3: What Donald Trump means by fair trade

Now at the same time I have a very good relationship with Justin [Trudeau, the Canadian
prime minister] and a very good relationship with the president of Mexico. And I was going

36
to terminate NAFTA last week, I was all set, meaning the six-month termination. I was going
to send them a letter, then after six months, its gone. But the word got out, they called and
they said, we would really love tothey called separately but it was an amazing thing. They
called separately ten minutes apart. I just put down the phone with the president of Mexico
when the prime minister of Canada called. And they both asked almost identical questions.
We would like to know if it would be possible to negotiate as opposed to a termination.
And I said, Yes, it is. Absolutely. So, so we did that and well start.

We have a problem because we have a ridiculous provision in NAFTA that we have, you
know, to go on the fast track. Fast track is the slowest track Ive ever seen. To go on the fast
track you have to give notice. Well we gave notice 70 days ago. Its called a cooling-off
period, OK? But thats not the way life works because when they call and they want to make
a deal, I dont want to have to wait a hundred days. So I put the papers in almost 70 days ago,
to get the approval for fast track in Congress. And they still havent given me approval. And
the reason they havent is because our trade negotiator, who, as you know, the provision goes
with your negotiator. It doesnt go from the time you put it in, it goes with your negotiator.
So he just got approved. Hell be in sometime, I guess next week?

Steve Mnuchin: Yep, yep.

President Trump: And the clock starts ticking. But here you have two people calling saying,
Can we negotiate? I say yes and I have to wait for a hundred days. I dont know what a
hundred days is going to be like. Whats it going to be like? So NAFTAs a horrible one-
sided deal thats cost us millions and millions of jobs and cost us tens of billions of dollars.

It sounds like youre imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair
NAFTA look like?
Big isnt a good enough word. Massive.

Huge?
Its got to be. Its got to be.

What would it look like? What would a fair NAFTA look like?
No, its gotta be. Otherwise we're terminating NAFTA.

What would a fair NAFTA look like?

I was all set to terminate, you know? And this wasnt likethis wasnt a game I was playing.
Im not playingyou know, I wasnt playing chess or poker or anything else. This was, I
was, Id never even thought aboutits always the best when you really feel this way. But I
wasI had no thought of anything else, and these two guys will tell you, I had no thought of
anything else but termination. But because of my relationship with both of them, I said, I
would like to give that a try too, thats fine. I mean, out of respect for them. It wouldve been
very disrespectful to Mexico and Canada had I said, I will not.

37
But Mr President, what has to change for you not to withdraw?
We have to be able to make fair deals. Right now the United States has a 70almost a $70bn
trade deficit with Mexico. And it has about a $15bn dollar trade deficit with Canada. The
timber coming in from Canada, theyve been negotiating for 35 years. And its beenits
been terrible for the United States. You know, its just, its just been terrible. Theyve never
been able to make it.

Does that $70bn deficit have to come to zero to be fair?

Not necessarily. And certainly it can come over a, you know, fairly extended period of time,
because Im not looking to shock the system. But it has to become at least fair. And no, it
doesnt have to immediately go to zero. But at some point would like to get it at zero, where
sometimes we can be up and sometimes they can be up.

Youve talked about reciprocal taxes. Do you imagine that with lots of countries on lots of
products or is that a negotiating tool?
No, I think it can be conceivably with lots of countries. The thing thats bad about the
hundred days is, I said the other day, I said, When do we start this negotiation? They said,
Sir, it hasnt kicked in yet because it goes with [Robert] Lighthizer, whos our, you know,
our representative, who I think is going to do a very good job. I said, You must be kidding.
So its a real deficit. Now thats a NAFTA thing. Because everything in NAFTA is bad.
Thats bad, everythings bad. But in the case of South Korea we have a deal that was made by
Hillary Clinton, its a horrible deal. And that is the five-year anniversary and its up for
renegotiation and weve informed them that well negotiate. And again, we want a fair deal.
We dont want a one-sided deal our way but we want fair deals. And if we can have fair deals
our country is going to do very well.

Some people think this is a negotiating tacticthat you say very dramatic things but
actually you would settle for some very small changes. Is that right?
No, its not, really not a negotiation. Its really not. No, will I settle for less than I go in with?
Yes, I mean who wouldnt? Nobody, you know, I always use the word flexibility, I have
flexibility. [Goes off the record.] [Our] relationship with China is long. Of course by China
standards, its very short [laughter], you know when Im with [Xi Jinping], because hes
great, when Im with him, hes a great guy. He was telling me, you know they go back 8,000
years, we have 1776 is like modern history. They consider 1776 like yesterday and they, you
know, go back a long time. They talk about the different wars, it was very interesting. We got
along great. So I told them, I said, We have a problem and were going to solve that
problem. But he wants to help us solve that problem.

Now then you never know whats going to happen. But they said to me that on the currency
manipulation, Donald Trump has failed to call China a currency manipulator. Now I have
to understand something. Im dealing with a man, I think I like him a lot. I think he likes me a
lot. We were supposed to meet for ten minutes and they go to 40-person meetings, OK, in
Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach. And the ten minutes turned out to be three hours, alone, the two
of us. The next day it was supposed to be ten minutes and then we go to our 40-person

38
meeting. That, too, he was, nobecause you guys were waiting for a long time. That ten
minute meeting turned out to be three hours. Dinner turned out to be three hours. I mean, hes
a great guy.

Now, with that in mind, hes representing China and he wants whats best for China. But so
far, you know, hes been, hes been very good. But, so they talk about why havent you called
him a currency manipulator? Now think of this. I say, Jinping. Please help us, lets make a
deal. Help us with North Korea, and by the way were announcing tomorrow that youre a
currency manipulator, OK? They never say that, you know the fake media, they never put
them together, they always say, he didnt call him a currency [manipulator], number one.
Number two, theyre actually not a currency [manipulator]. You know, since Ive been
talking about currency manipulation with respect to them and other countries, they stopped.

Mr Mnuchin: Right, as soon as the president got elected they went the other way.

One last question on trade. Do you think youve permanently changed the Republican
Partys position on trade?
No. Because therell always be someone that comes along with another idea but its not a
better idea. We have the better idea. But yeah, I think that a lot of the, like for instance today,
health care. Very big thing. Very big. And it wasnt two bites of the apple. It was one bite.
Somebody set a time limit and that was mistake, I said never set a time limit but somebody
set a time limit. So when they didnt meet that time limit they said, We didnt get it there,
well, they shouldnt have set a time limit.

On another element of Trumponomics, immigration

Right.

Do you want to curb legal immigration?

Oh sure, you know, I want to stop illegal immigration.

And what about legal immigration? Do you want to cut the number of immigrants?
Oh legal, no, no, no. I want people to come into the country legally. No, legally? No. I want
people to come in legally. But I want people to come in on merit. I want to go to a merit-
based system. Actually two countries that have very strong systems are Australia and Canada.
And I like those systems very much, theyre very strong, theyre very good, I like them very
much. Were going to a much more merit-based system. But I absolutely want talented
people coming in, I want people that are going to love our country coming in, I want people
that are going to contribute to our country coming in. We want a provision at the right time,
we want people that are coming in and will commit to not gettingnot receiving any form of
subsidy to live in our country for at least a five-year period.

But the numbers of those people could be as high as the numbers that are coming in
legally now? Youre not looking to reduce the numbers?
Oh yeah, no, no, no, no, we want people coming in legally. No, very strongly. Now theyre

39
going to be much more strongly vetted as you see. You know, weve broken the all-time
record [of detentions at the border] by many times, 73, were up to 73, its going to go up to
almost 80% at the border, weveyou know, really stopped it. We also want farm workers to
be able to come in. You know, were going to have work visas for the farm workers. If you
look, you know we have a lot of people coming through the border, theyre great people and
they work on the farms and then they go back home. We like those people a lot and we want
them to continue to come in.

Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases
the deficit? Ronald Reagans tax reform didnt.
Well, it actually did. But, but its called priming the pump. You know, if you dont do that,
youre never going to bring your taxes down. Now, if we get the health-care [bill through
Congress], this is why, you know a lot of people said, Why isnt he going with taxes first,
thats his wheelhouse? Well, hey look, I convinced many people over the last two weeks,
believe me, many Congressmen, to go with it. And theyre great people, but one of the great
things about getting health care is that we will be saving, I mean anywhere from $400bn to
$900bn.

Mr Mnuchin: Correct.

President Trump: That all goes into tax reduction. Tremendous savings.

But beyond that its OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?
It is OK, because it wont increase it for long. You may have two years where youllyou
understand the expression prime the pump?

Yes.
We have to prime the pump.

Its very Keynesian.

Were the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this
particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I havent heard it. I mean, I justI
came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. Its what you have to do.

Its
Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.

40
Mr Mnuchin: And as we talked about, economic growth under the Trump administration
could increase revenues as much as $2trn over the ten-year period of time. So priming the
pump in the short term leads to growth.

So you would have a bigger deficit, a stimulus, to prime the pump that would lead to faster
growth?
So I happen to think that 3% is low. But you cant do it if your companies are leaving the
country because taxes are too high. Now, Im going to do something there too. If our
companies leave the country, number one theyre leaving for numerous reasons but one of the
big reasons is the taxes are so high. When they leavego back to trade for a second, when
they leave the country, go to a certain country wherever it may be, and they fire all their
workers in the United States and on the assumption they build cars or air conditioners or
whatever theyre building, and they open a plant someplace else and then they send the air
conditioner or the car into our country with no tax, thats not going to happen anymore.
Theyre going to have a very large tax to pay, in the vicinity of 35%.

Now when you do that, number one they're not leaving the country anyway. So were not
leaving. I dont know if you saw whats happening. Ford has announced massive expansions
in the United States. General Motors cancelled a big plant in Mexico and a big plant in
Europe. Theyre all cancelling plans because I told them, I saidI get along with them great.
But I said, Look, we dont mind if you leave the country. You can build all you want out of
country, I hope you enjoy your plant. But when you build your car, youre going to have a
35% tax when you bring it back in. And if your numbers work, we wish you well. But thats
what youre going to have. Youre going to have a 35% tax.

So I mean, I have, it has, I havent been given massive credit for it yet, but I have been given
some because I just see polls out in Michigan and different places, that really are affected by
this, have been unbelievable, you know, much bigger than election day. But thats not a tax
increase, thats no tax. In other words, all you have to do is dont leave and you wont have
abut were bringing our taxes down so low that you wont even need the barrier because
the taxes are so low, that people are going to stay.

The other thing, just in case weI believe it could be anywhere from $4trn to $5trn outside,
you know dont forget weve been talking about $2.5trn for four years now. Ive been using
$2.5trn, the same number weve all been using for years. Well, you know, it grows. I think
itI wouldnt be surprised if it was $5trn but, you know, were close. Were letting that
money come back in. And that has two barriers which you have to watch. Its got a barrier of
the tax, which we will take care of. Were going to make it 10%. Now its 35%...

Sorry, 10%? The repatriation taxes?

The repatriation. Inversion. The corporate inversions, which is a disaster, with the companies
leaving. But they want to bring back their money. Number one, the tax is too high but the
other thing thats too high is the bureaucracy.

41
Mr Mnuchin: Correct.

President Trump: I have a friend who said even if you wanted to bring it back in you cant
because you have to go through so many papers, so many documents, so many

Mr Mnuchin: Were going to make it simple

President Trump: You have to doSteve, they told me youve got to sign books and books
of stuff, you pay millions of dollars in legal fees and they almost dont allow you to bring it
back in.

Can I ask you a question about the politics of tax?

It should be like one page.

The politics of this? Do you need to get Democratic support to get this tax plan passed?
Um. Little bit.

And to get Democratic support, they prefer

Depending. It depends on which plan, you know, which concept weve got tobut it could
be. But I think the Democrats are going to like it. We may align it with infrastructure, which
they like. They like it as much as the Republicans like it. We need infrastructure in our
country. This country has wasted $6trn in the Middle East. Wasted. Like taking it and
throwing it right out that window. Right in to the Rose Garden. See that beautiful Rose
Garden? Look at those very nicely dressed people. Its religious liberty out there. [NB.
Immediately after this interview, President Trump was due to sign an executive order
promoting religious liberty.]

Mr President, can I just try you on a deal-making question? If you do need Democratic
support for your tax plan, your ideal tax plan, and the price of that the Democrats say is
for you to release your tax returns, would you do that?
I dont know. Thats a very interesting question. I doubt it. I doubt it. Because theyre not
going tonobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. Oh, at some point Ill
release them. Maybe Ill release them after Im finished because Im very proud of them
actually. I did a good job.

Hope Hicks [White House director of strategic communication]:Once the audit is over.

President Trump: I might release them after Im out of office.

Mr Mnuchin: Just so you know, Ive already started meeting with Democratic senators and,
you know, the support has been pretty interesting. I mean, I think a lot of the Democratic
senators actually believe were on to the right tax plan to bring back business to America, and
thats what theyre all about, they want to grow jobs in their states, just like the president
does.

42
Ms Hicks: And our plan has things like child-care tax credits which have never been
presented before

President Trump: By the way, so as you know Im under routine audit, so theyre not going
to be done. But you know, at a certain point, thats something I will consider. But I would
never consider it as part of a deal.

Right, got that.

I would never do it. That would beI think that would be unfair to the deal. It would be
disrespectful of the importance of this deal. Because the only people that find that important
are the reporters.

Well, the Democrats say its important.

Well, don't forget I got elected without it. Somebody said, Oh but you have to do it, I said,
Look where I am. I was, you know, I was out front, I was asked that question, every debate,
I said, you know, Im under routine audit.

Mr Mnuchin: And the presidents financial disclosure has been longer than any

President Trump: Plus my financial disclosure is 104 pages.

Ms Hicks: I think when people say that that makes it about the president and the politics
versus the people, which is what were focused on.

President Trump: Right.

Can I ask you about the focus of the tax cut because youve spoken about a massive tax cut
for ordinary workers
Right, this would be the biggest tax cut in the history of the country.

But the biggest winners from this tax cut, right now, look as though they will be the very
wealthiest Americans.
Well, I dont believe that. Because theyre losing all of their deductions, I can tell you.

But something like eliminating the estate tax.

I get more deductions, I mean I can tell you this, I get more deductions, they have deductions
for birds flying across America, they have deductions for everything. There are more
deductionsnow youre going to get an interest deduction, and a charitable deduction. But
were not going to have all this nonsense that they have right now that complicates things and
makes ityou know when we put out that one page, I said, we should really put out a, you
know, a big thing, and then I looked at the one page, honestly its pretty well covered. Hard
to believe.

Will you keep interest deduction in the corporate tax? Will corporate interest payments
Do you want to answer?

43
Mr Mnuchin: Were contemplating it. Were contemplating it.

Contemplating getting rid of it?

Mr Mnuchin: No, were contemplating keeping it. Thats our preference. But well look at
everything.

So what would your preference be Mr President? You know about that very well.
No, I would say probablyI think were contemplating is the word. And it hasnt been
determined yet, but were contemplating.

Contemplating
Were contemplating variousI have to say, were contemplating various things, but one of
the things thats very important is simplicity. We want to keep it as simple as possible.
Because even if you do, its complicated. I mean even if you keep it simple with taxes it gets
complicated.

And are you contemplating things outside of corporate income tax? For example a VAT,
which many countries have?
Well, you know, a lot of people consider the border tax a form of VAT.

Are you still

Part of the problem with NAFTA is that Mexicos a VAT. So Mexico is paying almostwe
pay 17%. So we are now down 17%, going into Mexico when we trade. So thats like, you
have a football team and every time they play a game, theyre down, you know, 25 points.
How can you possibly do good?

But would you consider

You could actually make the case, that the 17 is doubled. You can make that case. You know,
its 17 and its really 17 and its a double.

Mr Mnuchin: Right

Would you consider a VAT for the United States?

Well the concept of VAT I really like. But let me give you the bad news. I dont think it can
be sold in this country because were used to an income tax, were used to apeople are used
to this tax, whether they like it or don't like, theyre used to this tax. I fully understand
because I have a lot of property in the UK. And its, sort of, not a bad tax. And every time I
pay it, they end up sending it back to me. In fact, my accountant is always saying

Thats a good tax.

No, its really not so bad. Like, I own Turnberry in Scotland. And every time I pay they say,
Yes sir, you pay it now but you get it back next year. I said, What kind of tax is this,
I like this tax. But the VAT isI like it, I like it a lot, in a lot of ways. I dont mean because
of, you know, getting it back, you dont get all of it back, but you get a lot of it back. But I
like a VAT. I dont think it can be sold in this country, I think its too much of a shock to this

44
system. I can tell you if we had a VAT it would make dealing with Mexico very much easier.
Because it could neutralise. And I really mean that. Part of the problem with NAFTA, the day
they signed it, it was a defective deal. Because Mexico has almost a 17% VAT tax and its
very much of a hidden tax, people dont see it. So, but these guys, instead of renegotiating the
following weekmany years ago, how old is that? 35?

Mr Mnuchin: 35 years ago.

President Trump: But instead of negotiating, we suffered with this for, you know, for
decades.

But as you said Mr President, a border-adjustment tax has some similarities to that. Are
you still considering a border-adjustment tax?
We are dealing with Congressbecause its not really what Im considering. I mean look, on
health care, I think we have a great bill and theres still a little bit further to go because were
also dealing with the Senate, but the Senate I believe really wants to get something done
because Obamacare is dead, just so we understand. Obamacare is absolutely dead. The
insurance companies are leaving. Yesterday Aetna just announced theyre pulling out. You
have states that arent going to have any insurance companies. You know when people say,
Oh, Obamacare is so wonderful, there is no Obamacare, its dead. Plus were subsidising it
and we dont have to subsidise it. You know if I ever stop wanting to pay the subsidies,
which I will.

Youd pull the plug on that? If this bill doesnt go through youd stop those subsidies?
No, this bill only gives them one month. They dont realize that, thats another thing. Good
point. This bill gives them one month, it gave, you know the subsidy

The continuation of the subsidy?

The subsidy to the insurance companies, yes. Anytime I want because actually

But my question is if the bill doesnt pass

In actuality Congress has to approve it. Congress

If the bill doesnt pass would you cut the subsidies?

If the bill doesnt pass, Id be in a different position. Because, if the bill didnt pass the
Republicans would have let me down. And then Id have to decide what I want to do because
I want people to have health care. Our health care is much better than Obamacare. Its going
to be much less expensive. Were going to have competition, were getting rid of the state
lines, etc etc. The premiums are going to be low, the deductibles are going to be low. If it
didnt passits a great question, I dont want to think about that but the answer isI would
do something to make sure the people have health care, as bad as Obamacare is.

One of the things that was so different about your campaign message compared to other
Republicans was, you said things like I want everyone to be covered.
Were not going to let people die on the streets.
45
But some people will look at this bill and say, hang on, a lot of people are going to lose
their coverage.
OK. So we have a pool for people that are having difficulty. We have got a pool. Its a high-
risk pool. And this pool we just funded yesterday, were putting in $8bn, into the pool. So
depending on what states dobecause I would like to see states taking over health care, I
think they could do a better job than the federal government. Now in some cases thatll be
great, like in Florida that works fantastically with Rick Scott, and a couple of others. And in
some states it isnt, where theyre not equipped to do it. But ultimately, you know I use the
expression, If you have a bad knee, I would rather have the federal government focus on
North Korea than fixing your knee.

The state governments are in much better position to, you know, help people. In terms of, you
know, just the size, the mere size of it. But were putting in $8bn and youre going to have
absolute coverage. Youre going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. Youre going to have
it if youre a person going indont forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance
works. Insurance is, youre 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start
paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time youre 70, and you really need it,
youre still paying the same amount and thats really insurance.

But I believe its very important to have this. Because one thing Obamacare did, is it gave
that and it was a concept that people hadnt heard of. And now I don't want to end it. I dont
want to end it for somebody thatfirst of all I dont want to end it for the people that already
have it. And I dont want to end it for somebody that hasnt been buying insurance for all of
his life where he has a guarantee that for all of his life hes been buying the insurance and he
can buy it inexpensively when he turns 65 or 70 years old. So we put in a tremendous amount
and wereyou know, for the pre-existing conditions. We are going to have a great pool for
pre-existing conditions.

Now, that will even get better as its going along, its going to get better. But in a way you
could say, thats not really insurance, but it's there. And I want to make it asI want to make
it actually better than what they have in Obama[care]. Now, Obama[care] has something
thats very, very bad. Where you have to pay a penalty. And people don't realise, how many
people are forced to pay a penalty and they dont get any benefit out of it. We dont have that.
Were going to have much lower premiums and were going to have much lower deductibles.

But when you used to say the hard right of the Republicans cant be trusted to look after
people
They came through.

They came through? So do you still have to keep them in line.

Ill be honest with youDid anybody ever hear of a guy named Mike Pence? Vice-president
of the United States?

Mike Pence, the vice-president, enters the room: Morning all.

46
President Trump: Central casting.

Mr Pence: Please sit, sit, sit.

Ms Hicks: We got about two more minutes. So just one more question.

President Trump: So I know exactly the speeches youre talking about. I said, Im not
going to allow people to die on the streets, and I said it over and over and I meant it more
than anything and I probably mean it more now than even when I made the speech. Were
talking about the high-risk pools, Mike, and we just added $8bn to the high-risk pools.

Mr Pence: Yes, sir.

President Trump: People are going to havetheyre going to have great insurance. Now,
we have one more step to go. You know we have to go through the Senate and were refining
it even further. But I will tell you, Mike, I just spoke to a few of the senators and they have
some great ideas also and they want to get it there.

So, the problem with Obamacare? He rushed it through, he wantedalthough, when I say
rushed it through, at the end. They were giving up everything, they were taking out
everything. It wasnt a pure form of what they wanted anyway. They did the Nebraska trade
where basically it was, you know, the whole thing was given away.

Look, Obamacare was a disaster. Under Obamacare, you get your doctor; that was a lie. You
get your plan; that was a lie. With us, you get your doctor. You get your plan. With us youll
get hundreds and hundreds of plans. You know, one of the insurance companies, one of the
big ones came to see me yesterday. Theyre so anxious to start going crazy and you know its
going to be like life insurance. People that buy life insurance theyre inundated with carriers.
All different plans. Thats what this is going to be like. And I said to them, What do you
think the good plans are going to look like? He said, Mr President, were going to have so
many plans. Were going to have the low version, the high version, he used the word
Cadillac. I wont tell you what car he used for the low version because I dont want you to
write it because they happen to be friends of mine, you know, the head people. [Goes off the
record.]

Mr President, in business you keep score of your profits. How do you keep score in
Trumponomics and in politics?
Well I think the score is going to be the end of the game. To me the score is going to have to
be at the end of the game. I was saying, Mike, that were going to prime the pump with the
taxes because were going to take in perhaps a little bit less, but were going to have a lot
more business, were going to have companies coming back into the country.

I know a lot of companies that want to come back in but theyre not going to come back in
because of taxes. And we have a lot of companies that will come back into the country. They
were forced out of the country because the taxes were too high. Many, many. You look at

47
whats going on in certain countries. In fact I own a lot of property in certain countries where
they were forced out.

You look at Ireland. I own great property in Ireland that I bought during their downturn. And
I give the Irish a lot, a lot of credit. They never raised their taxes. You know you would have
thought when they were going through that reallythey wouldve double and tripled their
taxes. They never raised it a penny. And they got through it and they are thriving now.
Irelands done an amazing job. A lot of companies have moved to Ireland and they like it.

But were going to be getting a lot of companies moving back and were going to get very
few companies leaving the United States because we went from the highest tax rate ofnot
only major, you know they always say major countries, just about the highest tax rate period.
And then when you add all the other things. And then when you add the regulations to the
taxIve had people tell me, because Ive cut massive regulations and weve just started,
believe me. But weve cut regulations massively.

Ive had people tell me that the cutting of those regulations is more important to them than
bringing it down from 35% to 15%. And if you would have told me that, if I had a guess one
before I knew the answer, I wouldve said, nobody wouldve taken the regulations. 90% of
the people would rather have the regulations cut. So when you talk about the tax cut, the
regulation cut, Dodd-Frank, youll be doing a story on that fairly soon because were doing a
very massive overhaul on Dodd-Frank. Were doing things that are going to keep people real
happy.

And then ultimately, when I leave office, on the assumption [Mike Pence] doesnt follow me,
but he will. But when I leave office what happens is slowly theyll nip away at it, nip away,
nip away and then in 40, 50 years somebody else will come along and bring it back. But
were bringing back entrepreneurship. Were bringing back enthusiasm. And if you look at
the people that read your magazine, that are in this country, the enthusiasm levels, and you
know this because you see it, are the highest they've even been. The enthusiasm levels for
manufacturers went up 27 points in two months. If it goes up a quarter of point its like a
massiveit went up 27% in two months, up to 93%, theyve never been even close. The
enthusiasm for business is the highest its ever been.

Ms Hicks: And well have you guys back to talk about it. Sorry

Thank you so much, Mr President.

I hope you had enough time.

Youve been very kind.

48