Jim Kim's presidency wasn't very, very controversial. David Adler is a policy coordinator for DM-25. It's a new political party led by the former Greek finance minister, Yannis Morofakis. They say the World Bank is on the brink. A very direct question here, why? Why is the World Bank on the brink? Well, as you mentioned, Jim Kim is stepping down three and a half years ahead of his scheduled departure. And he's heading off for a private equity firm known as Global Infrastructure Partners. So for one of the most powerful institutions in the world, as you mentioned, governing billions of dollars of investment, this is a tremendous crisis and signals a real need for reform at the World Bank. And in particular for Jim Kim, who really positioned himself as a principled visionary for the World Bank, you know, he's a career physician who prided himself on fighting poverty in the Global South. This is a tremendous own goal. It's quite the equivalent of a progressive Supreme Court justice hanging up his robes in the middle of a Republican White House. Because you go from Jim Kim, this global health expert to a Donald Trump appointed head of the World Bank. Now, we can get into a longer conversation about what it signals about the deeper problems of the World Bank, that it is, in fact, the President of the United States, who has historically appointed the head of this tremendously powerful multilateral institution. But certainly, it's a touch of absurd that the job has now fallen into the hands of Ivanka Trump, obviously building on years of global fashion diplomacy. But having said that, that doesn't mean that the White House isn't able to, you know, pick a skilled person to run this. And certainly if you're interviewing somebody like Muhammad Al-Aryan, I think that his credibility stands for itself. Having said that, why don't we turn to the World Bank itself, you know, in terms of what you guys are suggesting, which is a massive international investment program. I mean, I thought the U.S.-China trade talks were ambitious until I read this. Can you succinctly let us know what the vision is there? Because you know how many visions for the World Bank have made the rounds within the World Bank itself, and have gone absolutely nowhere. That's true, but I think actually to answer your question, we have to go back to the very ambitious vision of the Bretton Woods system that was set out in 1944, that famous New Hampshire conference. This was an amazing experiment of multilateralism. 730 delegates from 44 countries coming together to think through questions like, how do we manage the international economy? Now, what we would argue is that that spirit was lost, that multilateral spirit was lost to a kind of unilateral control of the United States. So it's not just about the short term crisis of leadership that Jim Kim's resignation represents, but a much longer term loss of the kind of multilateral ambition. So, tell us your question, where did they go wrong? Your viewers may remember the World Bank, any IMF, as the architects of the Washington consensus. This brutal program of privatization and austerity that was attached to lending programs, primarily in the global south. And this is just built into the architecture of the New Bretton Woods system, this shredded ambition from the 1944 conference. And what it means is that, as Jim Kim was frustrated by, they have to rely on private finance to deliver the kind of development programs that they need. Now, the vision we're putting forward is to build precisely on the foundation set out in 1944. John Keynes, the chief British negotiator, and one of the architects of Bretton Woods, argued for an international clearing union that would help rebalance the global economy. Now, the chief irony here is that the World Bank would be one of the architects, as I mentioned, of major imbalances in the global economy, trapping southern countries in relations of economic dependence to the core countries of the United States. What we're calling for is to redeem the radical spirit at the heart of Bretton Woods and put these amazing institutions, which tremendous investment power to use and service. Okay, but I just challenge you on this. You're putting this forward. In terms of whoever the next president of the World Bank is going to be, what is your sell job to them in order to help them convince them that the kind of reform that you're talking about, and it again, it seems to be a multilateral approach that many countries are discarding right now for better or for worse. How do you convince them that it's the way to go? And where do they get that multilateral consensus from? Yeah, so I think that the major shift we have to do is between two different types of multilateralism. The former type of multilateralism, which is getting a lot of flak, is this sort of flagellating multilateralism. I cut down, if you cut down, it's the kind of thing we've seen with the UN environmental negotiations. I'll cut my emissions, only if you cut your emissions. It's sort of a race to the bottom. Well, we're proposing by putting these institutions in service of what we call a global green new deal is a much different kind of multilateralism. It's a positive sum multilateralism. So you may say it's a radical vision, but it's actually quite easy to maneuver by changing the remit of the IMF and the World Bank to roll those investment programs out, not as instruments of private finance, to socialize the risks of finance for the many and privatize the gains for the few. But to initiate a massive ecological transition through these investment programs that can not only rebuild economies that have been devastated since the global crash in 2008, but also save the human race from extinction. So that's the kind of urgent remit of this global green new deal. And it is an intriguing program, which no doubt you will get some kind of an audience with whoever leads the World Bank and will look forward to continuing this debate. Because, believe me, there's a lot of controversial debate right now about how best to go forward with the World Bank. David, thanks so much. Really appreciate it. Now, we're going to completely switch gears here. The Super Bowl is coming to CNN's hometown. You got a stadium there, so we're throwing a party. And yes, you're all invited, doesn't it look good? I mean, come on. Got pizza and Pepsi.