Donald Trump has become the surprise Republican frontrunner early on in the 2016 US presidential cycle. His popularity – and fame – is reflected in the wide media coverage he has been enjoying. His policies, such as they are, have had less attention

For more from Economist Radio visit soundcloud.com/theeconomist

A full transcript of the telephone interview is available below. The questions are lightly edited for clarity.

The Economist: What are Trump supporters looking for? What are they hearing from him that they don’t hear from others in GOP?

Donald Trump: Well, I think that, more than anything else, they want to see us become great again. It’s my theme, my whole theme is, “Make America Great Again.” It’s a concept of greatness for this country. They are tired of being ripped off by every single country that does business with us. Whether it’s China, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam—which is in there big and heavy right now—Japan with the cars. And you know, the one-way street. They’re tired of looking at what happens, they are tired of us having our… let’s say finest and brightest not being involved in the most important decisions, and being someplace else. They want to see great trade deals, they want to see a strong military. They want to see reduced debt, because we are at a point where we are going to be soon at $19 trillion and they just, you know, they can’t stand seeing it. They want to see our veterans taken care of, because they are not, they are being absolutely mistreated. There are many things they want to see. There are many points of anger in this country.

The Economist: People say they are sick of today’s corrupt politicians. Are politicians really worse than before, or are voters nostalgic for post-war growth and prosperity?

DT: Well, they’re looking at the politicians as being all talk, no action. They talk the big game, then they go to Washington, they look at the magnificent hallowed halls as you would say, or the beautiful vaulted ceilings and they say, “darling, I’ve arrived,” to their loved one or their wife. They say “darling, I’ve arrived” and all of a sudden they become nothing. They become nothingness and they don’t do the job that they got elected to do. And it happens time and time again. And people are tired of seeing politicians as all talk and no action. They just don’t get it done. They are tired of being out-negotiated on every front. Whether it is militarily, with ISIS where we can’t stop ISIS, where we have 2,300 Humvees, the latest and the greatest, armour-plated, stolen because one bullet is shot in the air and the allies run and the enemy takes over our weapons. Including 2,300 Humvees, which is incredible when you think of the number of them. I thought, there must be a mistake, it is 2,300.

The Economist: To take trade, first of all, the pessimistic view is that America simply faces much more global competition, so America doesn’t have as much leverage as it used to.

DT: We have the cards, and I’ll go into that in a second. We have politicians that are grossly incompetent. We have leaders that are incompetent and we have negotiators that are incompetent. You notice that I have Carl Icahn ready to go out and do battle. And I have many others that are great negotiators, ready to go out and do battle on our behalf. And by the way, we’ll get along better with these countries in the end than we get along with them now. We have, as in the case of China and so many others, they don’t even like us and yet they are eating our lunch in trade. So, with China, their primary weapon in China is what they’ve done with the devaluation of their currency. And in the trade pact you know that was recently agreed to, I said you have to talk about devaluation. Because that’s been their single greatest asset in terms of what they are doing to us. And even just a week ago, they devalued it, the biggest devaluation they’ve had in two decades, two decades, that’s a long time. And nobody thought they were going to devalue again because of the fact that you know just nobody thought… because they have been playing the devaluation game for a long time. Without us, they would... We rebuilt China, we rebuilt other places but we rebuilt China. The money they took out of the United States is the greatest theft in the history of our country. The money they’ve taken out, the jobs they’ve taken out, the base. You know, the whole thing. They have taken so much out of our country. And they have rebuilt China. Now, China has other problems, but the devaluation has allowed them to make it impossible for us to compete.

The Economist: On China. The counter-argument from big CEOs, friends of yours, would be, look at last week when Apple stock was being hammered, how did the CEO stop that slide? He emailed CNBC to say our Chinese sales are strong, and that was enough to regain $66bn in value. What does that say about leverage?

DT: Well, sure, sure, I’d like to see Apples built in the United States, not built in China. I’d like to see them have factories in the United States. At least, partially. They make nothing in the United States, virtually. I would like to see with Japan… two weeks ago I was in Los Angeles. I saw the biggest ships you have ever seen with cars pouring off from Japan, into Los Angeles. Just pouring off these ships, and I am saying to myself, we send them beef, it’s a tiny fraction, and, by the way, they don’t even want it, they have to fight in order to take it in because they don’t even want it, and it’s very perishable, they’ll send it back, they’ll find reasons not to take it. And yet the ships, the boats, the ships are loaded up with cars, thousands of cars and they are just pouring off. And I say, isn’t that a shame, it’s so one-sided. Now you look at Mexico. Many, many factories, many plants. Nabisco’s now moving to Mexico, their big Chicago plant. You look at Ford is building one of their biggest factories in Mexico, one of their biggest assembly plants in Mexico. They are doing a two and a half billion dollar plant, that by the way is a major plant, two and a half billion dollars. They’re doing a two and a half billion dollar plant. A plant, an auto, another foreign company was going to build a plant in Tennessee and they’re now as you know going to Mexico, it was a big shock right at the end it was all set to be signed and they said right at the last moment oh we’re going to Mexico. So Mexico is not only beating us at the border, they are also beating us at trade.

The Economist: What would you say to the boss of Apple to make him move production, what if he says China is his best market?

DT: So I have a friend who is a great manufacturer, and he deals with China. He deals with many countries, but he deals with China all the time. He said it is impossible, it is so hard to do business in there, it’s so hard to get my goods into China. And he makes a great product, OK? It doesn’t matter, I don’t want to embarrass him, but he makes a great product. And he said it’s so hard to get our goods into China. And when we do get in they charge us a huge surtax. They call it a surtax or a tariff. I call it a tax, OK? But when we do get in, and the number he gave was so high that it almost seemed ridiculous, it was over 40%, four-oh, and he said, these people are absolutely killing us because they send their stuff tax-free no problem, don’t worry about it. But if we want to do business over there... And look at Boeing where they took all of their copyrights, and all of their patents in order to buy planes, they said but we want - because they’re going to make their own factories now, they’re building them now, they are going to build their own planes - but they took... and even if Boeing didn’t give it they’d have copied it, because they’ve been very lax.

The Economist: So you would put tariffs on Chinese imports?

DT: No, unless... Here’s what I would do. I would tell them, you have devalued your currency yet again; it is not going to happen. The value of that is the equivalent of a 7% tax or a 12% tax. Because of the fact that you have done that we are going to charge you 12% coming in. And you know what? They’re going to stop playing games with us. Look, they have taken our jobs, they have taken our money, and on top of that they have loaned the money to us and we actually pay them interest now on money. We owe China and Japan each $1.4 trillion.

The Economist: You’d make that threat to China?

DT: It wouldn’t be a threat. It would be a beyond a threat. And if they continue to do… because they’re killing us. If you look at Caterpillar now [in Japan] with what’s going on. Abe is a great leader. Who is our chief negotiator? Essentially it is Caroline Kennedy. I mean give me a break. She doesn’t even know she’s alive. It’s Caroline Kennedy. So Caterpillar is having a hard time selling because Komatsu is under-cutting them. Japan is doing a big number on the yen, devaluing it, and it’s very… I don’t know if you have heard me say this story, but a friend of mine he’s an excavator, he owns a big excavation company. And he buys a lot of excavators, earth-moving equipment. And for the first time in his life he bought Komatsu. He said Caterpillar can’t compete because they have so killed the yen. And he feels very unhappy about it. It’s a nice machine, but it is not probably as good but it’s pretty close. And he said, I bought Komatsu tractors because nobody could compete with the price because of the fact… because of the dollar. It has nothing to do with the machinery, it is just that they have devalued the yen to such an extent that he said, he can’t compete. So he ended up buying Komatsu and he is very unhappy about it. That’s happening, by the way, that’s happening more and more.

The Economist: If the terms of trade can be changed, as you say, why haven’t today’s politicians of either party done it?

DT: Because they’re grossly incompetent. And they are not negotiators. And they are grossly incompetent. And I have friends from China - by the way I love China. I love Japan. I have people that buy my apartments, I have people that work for me from China. I love Mexico. I mean, Mexico, I have thousands of people from Mexico that work for me. Thousands. Hispanics. In fact a poll just came out, Public Policy Polling, where I am leading with Hispanics, can you believe that, after what you have been hearing? I’m leading, I’m number one with Hispanics.

The Economist: Do you like the label economic nationalist? Some people use that about you.

DT: No, I don’t think so, because it sounds too harsh. I just want to be fair. I want to be a fair trader. I want to be a firm and fair trader. We’re being taken advantage of because we have leaders who are incompetent. They don’t even know. When I went out and told them three months ago, you know in their trade deal they didn’t even discuss the devaluation, they didn’t even discuss it. At least they started discussing it, only because of me. They didn’t even have it as part of their deal, I don’t think they still do. But at least it got discussed. And a group came to me, a very important group, and they said could we do a commercial; they actually did a commercial where they actually paid for it, talking about what I was saying about trade. Because, you know what I’m talking about? You know, I did a commercial four months ago for them? I was the voice of the commercial. They asked me would I do it, and I said I’d gladly do it. They didn’t even want my money, they had all the money… I talked about the devaluation that was the primary point of the commercial, that the trade deal was no good, number one. No good for us, good for them. So what happens is; we have tremendous strength, because they want to take our money. We have the money, we have the market. They want to take this from us. And because of that we have tremendous power. The problem is, we have leaders and negotiators that don’t realise we have the power. And they’re essentially incompetent. And we would be able to straighten out that thing. China only did the biggest devaluation in 20 years, only for one reason. Because they could get away with it.

The Economist: Are you pointing to a bigger problem for Republicans, that they are very good at populist attacks on Barack Obama and firing people up about Washington not looking out for the middle class, but their policies are the same old Chamber of Commerce priorities?

DT: Well, I can tell you, some of the people I’m running against don’t have a clue as to—we’re talking now Republicans—as to what to do about what we are talking about, devaluations. And I do. That’s what I do, and I am really good at this stuff. I will make great deals with China and they will like us more than they do now. You know they don’t even like us. You know in Businessweek magazine, they did a story a while ago about one of the ten things that the Chinese most want. One of the ten things was “Anything Trump”. And I thought about that. And they respect me. They have to respect you. China does not respect us and they don’t respect our leaders. I have done great in China.

The Economist: What would President Trump do about China building reefs and air bases in the South China Sea?

DT: Well, I don’t like it, it’s very far away. I do not like it. It’s very hostile. It’s a hostile move. And I would be talking to them very seriously about it. However, it is very far away, and we have a lot of problems, OK? And they’re already built. And to be honest with you I think Japan and other people are going to have to start talking about things like that. I’ll give you another example, the Ukraine. Russia’s fighting in the Ukraine and we are right out front. We are right out front and we are sending brand-new F-22 fighters, the latest and the greatest, and everything else. And here’s Germany that’s making a fortune, and all of these European countries, who truly have a much bigger impact and effect than we do and are affected far greater than we are. And they just sit back and watch us go out there and put our heads on the line. And another thing is South Korea. I just ordered 4000 television sets from South Korea, you know. They are only made in South Korea, other than Sony. You know, Samsung, LG, Sharp. They’re all South Korean. So I’m a negotiator, I made a deal, I made a good deal, it’s fine, you know. I ordered 4,000. There’s no televisions made in the United States. So I’m ordering 4,000 television sets from South Korea, and yet they are making a fortune as a country - you look at the balance, you look at the deficits we have with all of these countries. We have deficits with everybody. Who do we have a positive with? We have deficits with everybody. So I ordered all of these sets and I’m thinking to myself, this is ridiculous. We don’t even make televisions here. Now, when North Korea rears its head, we send our ships, we send our planes, we get ready, we got our 28,000 soldiers on the border, that’s a seriously dangerous border by the way, they’ve got their million and a half man army and we have 28,000 soldiers. But here we are, doing this, protecting, and I am saying to myself, we don’t even get money; we don’t get anything for doing this.

The Economist: You’re surely right that lots of American presidents are frustrated by wimpy, free-loading allies. But what if they don’t step up?

DT: By the way, I don’t mind being at their side, with respect to the Ukraine. But why should we always be out front? How many times can we be out in front on these issues? We just mentioned four of them in a minute and a half. You mention the South China Sea, we mention North Korea, South Korea, we mention Ukraine. We could mention five others. Yemen, and this, and that. How many places can we do this? We have a country that is a debtor nation, we have an infrastructure that is crumbling all over the place, 60% of the bridges we have in this country are in trouble.

The Economist: Lots of Americans share your frustration. But what if the allies don’t step up, and China and Russia start bullying their neighbours?

DT: If we step back they will protect themselves very well. Remember when China… Japan used to beat China routinely in wars. You know that, right? Japan used to beat China, they routinely beat China. Why are we defending? You know the pact we have with Japan is interesting. Because if somebody attacks us, Japan does not have to help. If somebody attacks Japan, we have to help Japan. That’s the kind of deals we make. And that’s why I am at 40%. The new Gravis poll just came out at 40% by the way.

The Economist: Would you consider revisiting the treaty with Japan?

DT: Why is it, I ask you this, why is it that if somebody hits us they do not have to come to our aid in any way, shape or form? But if they get hit we are mandatory, we have to come to their aid.

The Economist: Now, lots of your GOP rivals would look at the rise of ISIS and say they are not frightened of America, and that’s Obama’s fault

DT: True.

The Economist: And the next thing they would say is, regrettably America is going to have to play cop again and sort out the Middle East. Do you think America has any business sorting out the Middle East?

DT: I think we should keep the oil.

The Economist: How do you keep that oil?

DT: You take the oil. It’s simple. You take the oil. There are certain areas which ISIS has the oil and you take the oil, you keep it. You just go in and take it.

The Economist: And would you have American troops guarding that?

DT: Yes, we could do that very easily. And yet I get criticised by some people, and some people love it. We cannot continue to be a policeman for the rest of the world. We are a debtor nation, and we owe now $19 trillion and it’s going to go up very fast by the way from this point. We’re up to almost $19 trillion. We can’t be the policeman for the rest of the world.

The Economist: Just to be clear, would you have American forces guarding that oil?

DT: Yes, I would have American forces guarding the oil, absolutely. Nobody is going to take it back. Without our very strong approval. Nobody else is taking it back.

The Economist: Do Americans look at the Middle East and a decade of war and think it is beyond fixing?

DT: No, I think ISIS has overplayed its hand. You have to understand, I was totally against the war in Iraq, you can check Reuters, July of oh-four, I was against it, I said you are going to destabilise... So I am the most militaristic person but you have to know when to use the military. Or have it so strong that nobody is going to mess with you, which is my ultimate goal, to be honest with you. Because our military has been greatly weakened by a lot of bad decisions and other things. But anyway, but I was against the war with Iraq. First of all, they didn’t knock down the World Trade Centre. It wasn’t Iraq that knocked down the World Trade Centre. If you look at where the people sent their families, you know where it was, it wasn’t Iraq, ok? So it wasn’t Iraq. They didn’t send their families home to Iraq. In fact out of the 18 or so I think none went to Iraq. So it was not Iraq that knocked down the World Trade Centre. I said in 2004 - I brought that up as a point by the way - but I said, in fact a group was sent to me from the White House to try talk to me, because I was getting a lot of publicity. I seem to get a lot of publicity for whatever reason. But I said you shouldn’t do it, it was actually in 2003 I said it, which was early enough. But I said it in 2004, you’re going to destabilise the Middle East, Iran is going to take over Iraq… and somebody else is going to help and that turned out to be ISIS. It’s an exact…I wish you could read, I’d send you the article if you want it, but it’s in, it’s Reuters of July of 2004.

The Economist: Back in 2003 and 2004 what did you make of those calling for building Western-style democracies around the world? Should America be nation-building?

DT: We should be building a nation and it should be called the United States of America. That’s the nation we should be building. We are spending all our money nation-building in other places and they don’t even want us. Now, with that being said, we cannot allow, you know I told you we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. Look, Iraq and Iran would fight for years and years and years, it went on forever. They were almost identical strengths, and the line would never move, right? Then they would go home and rest for ten years and then they would start fighting and they’d rest, that was it. We knocked out one of those two pegs, and so now Iran is taking over. I mean, what Iran is going to do with all of the money they are getting. That’s another thing, the deal is so stupid. Your name is David, right? David, the deal with Iran is so stupid, it’s so insanely stupid, that when people vote for me, they know I don’t make deals like that. I get our prisoners back, I don’t have 24 day inspection periods, I don’t have self-inspection where they inspect themselves, I don’t give them $150 billion that they can use for terrorism all over the world. I would have doubled up and tripled up the sanctions and made a good deal. I like the idea of a deal, it’s got to be a good deal. So when you say, why do people like me, they like me for reasons like that. Because I don’t make deals like that. I don’t make a deal with Sergeant Bergdahl, where we get Bergdahl, a traitor, and they get their five people that they most wanted. Five for one.

The Economist: You use the phrase “silent majority” that Nixon used in 1969. Do you hear echoes of that time now?

DT: No, it doesn’t echo. I’ll tell you what. I’ve heard the term, but for the last 20 years I really haven’t heard the term. But I went to a rally in Alabama, and there were 31,000 people there, you’ve seen it, you’ve read about it. It was the largest, the most amount of people – a lot of people say in the history of primaries, because you know, I mean, you are talking about...certainly in the history of early primaries. Because 31,000 people. It was going to be in a hotel, 500 people, and then it turned out to be 10,000 people and then it turned… so we went from a hotel to a convention centre to a football stadium. So we had 31,000 people and it was amazing. And I looked and I said, this is the silent majority. Though they weren’t silent, because they want to see proper change, not Obama change. And what happened is, I thought of that term, I just said the words silent majority. Now, it hasn’t been used in a long time because I guess it is associated somewhat with Nixon. But honestly it’s two words, that when you put together describe what is happening very well. There’s a group of people, great people in this country that have been disenfranchised. Their country has been taken away from them. Things have happened, having to do with many things including political correctness, where people are so worried about being politically correct that they are unable to function. And with me, hey, look I’m politically correct, I went to a great school, I was a good student, look, I’m a smart guy. I built a great company. I did “The Art of the Deal” which is the number one selling business book of all time, I did many other best-sellers. You know, I did 12 best-sellers. I did “The Apprentice”, which was one of the most successful television shows of the last 25 years. You know, all that stuff. But the words “silent majority”, the words “silent majority” are very descriptive of what is happening with me.

The Economist: And who are the disenfranchised that you see at your rallies? What is the Trump coalition?

DT: I’m going to go by polls. A recent poll came out in New Hampshire where I'm at 35%, to [others on] 11 and 9 and 2 and 3 and 1. And don’t forget, that’s with 17. How about getting 35% with 17 people? Ok. That’s a very lot of people. When I started, before I announced I was at 3% and they said, "Oh, well that’s his cap,” 3%. Then I announced I went to 9%, then it went to 18%. Every time I went up they said “Oh well, that’s his cap, that’s his cap.” The next week, “That’s his cap, that’s his cap.” Well, then I had 35%. They said, “Well, we might as well not say that anymore,” because 35, that’s an awfully high number. But when they did a poll, they were shocked. Because they thought I’d do well with Tea Party, they thought I’d do well with… but I do, I do great with Tea Party, I do great with conservatives I do great with moderates, I do great with evangelicals, I do great with everybody. It’s across the board and that’s what people are most surprised at. It’s not just with one group. We do great with people across the board, David… And we do great with African Americans, because they know I’m going to… and today we have a poll come out where I actually do great with Hispanics. Public Policy Polling.

The Economist: And with all these groups, do they have one thing in common, that similar forces have hurt them?

DT: They have been disenfranchised. Look at evangelicals, you can’t even use the word “Christmas” any more, Macy’s doesn’t use the word “Christmas”. I mean you can’t even use the word “Christmas” anymore. And you know, with me, it is going to stop, it is going to stop, and they understand that.

The Economist: Who has had the rawest of raw deals?

DT: I think hard-working, great people in the United States have been disenfranchised. People, I’ll give you an example, it has always been the way to do it, to work hard, save your money, put your money in the bank, get interest on your money and retire wealthy, at least modestly wealthy. Well, the people that have done that have been hurt terribly because there is no interest on your money. You get no money. I just signed for some CDs where you are getting a quarter of one percent. A quarter of one percent! They don’t even want your money, the banks. So the people that did it the way they were supposed to do it, the way they were taught in school: save your money, so that when you retire… you understand. They get nothing. They have nothing. They were going to live off the interest of the money. They don’t have money. And then on top of it you had the problems of nine years ago with the mortgages so half of them their houses have been taken away. The many - and by the way, white, black, Asian, it covers everybody. Evangelicals, conservatives, Tea Partyers. Everybody has been hurt by the incompetent way that our government is run. By incompetent negotiators.

The Economist: What do you make of the fact that pundits predicted that this election would be all about inequality, then a billionaire can come in and sweep the field?

DT: Well, I actually think this election is going to be about competence. I’m a very competent person, ok? And this election, you know, a woman came up, there was a CNN poll where I lead by four times in leadership, I lead on economics – your magazine, right? – I lead big on finance and economics and the economy, big, big, like everybody else was 7, 8 , I was 48, and they’re like nothing by comparison. I lead on almost every kind…The only one I didn’t lead on was niceness. And that one I wasn’t even close to the top. And I actually said, I really think I am a nice person. But I said to the person that’s doing it. I was number one in the poll by far, but the one weakness I had was niceness. And I said, this is not going to be an election on niceness. This is going to be an election on competence. People are tired, and I believe that, I believe more than anything else, and part of that goes to what you just said. Because those are people that are being disenfranchised. Everything has been taken away.

The Economist: Is it going to be a bit about inequality?

DT: Inequality is going to be a big issue, but competence is going to be the biggest issue. They want to see somebody that’s super-competent and that’s me.

The Economist: On inequality, you have said you’d look at carried interest deductions, taxes on the super-rich?

DT: I didn’t say the super-rich, I said hedge-fund guys. I know hedge-fund guys that are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year and pay no tax. And I want to lower [tax] for the middle income. The middle class in this country has been decimated, David, decimated. I know hedge fund guys, they’re friends of mine, they pay no tax, they pay very little tax.

The Economist: So would you end the carried-interest deduction?

DT: Well, you may have to. And you certainly may have to for certain businesses. As an example, when a hedge-fund guy gets lucky because the market goes up, and he is going to make $200m, and you know $200 million, and he is going to pay almost no tax. I don’t think that is a good thing for the country, and you know, hey look, they are all supporting Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, all the hedge-fund guys. I don’t want their support, because I’m totally self-funding my campaign. I don’t need anybody’s money, it’s nice, you know? I’m totally self-funding my campaign, and the people like that, because you know, when they come to me after an election, where you win, and they say will you keep my taxes low? Or will you give us insurance here? Or do this or that or a thousand different things, or the lobbyists. I turned down five million dollars from a lobbyist who wanted to put up $5m for my campaign, a very strong lobbyist. I said, I don’t want your money.

The Economist: Would a President Trump pass new laws on campaign finance? Or is the trick having a president too rich to be bribed? Would you try to reform the system?

DT: I think you need clarity with financing. I do think this. I think that you need clarity, you have to be able to see who’s giving. You don’t even see that any...you don’t even see that. Because some of these things they put up on there, nobody knows who they are, where they are coming from etc etc. You need clarity. You have to be able to see, I don’t like restriction but I do want clarity.

The Economist: Was Citizens United a bad ruling for democracy?

DT: Well, it’s not good for me, because these guys are raising a lot of money in PACs and SuperPACs and although I know a lot of PACs have been set up, I know nothing about them. I know a lot of PACs where people like me so much, I understand that there is five or six PACs that have formed in order to, you know… I am not involved. As you know I am not allowed to be involved. But I know that there have been some PACs formed in order to… they call them, like, Trump PACs. But I don’t even know who. I saw on television the other day, two young guys, they formed a PAC, essentially a Trump PAC, they like Trump. But the truth is, I think that if money comes in, you should be able to spend your own money and do what you have to do. But there has to be clarity as to who is giving the money.

The Economist: You have started talking about law and order a lot, and scrutiny of the police. Do you think that explains some of the rise of murder rates in some cities?

DT: We have to bring back law and order in this country and I think the police are phenomenal people. I think there’s always bad apples, and I’ve seen things that I don’t like and you don’t like. But we have to bring back law and order. You have policemen now that are afraid to talk to anybody because they don’t want to lose their job.

The Economist: How bad is the situation?

DT: I think it is very bad. I think when you have Baltimore, which in the first night was practically wiped out or brought back 30 years. Because the police were instructed to stand down. You can’t let that happen.

The Economist: Has Obama used race to get involved in that stuff?

DT: Totally. Obama is the great divider, he has totally used race. And it should have been the other way around. He had an opportunity to unify and he didn’t do that.

The Economist: How would you describe race relations in 2015 in Obama’s America?

DT: Almost as bad as they have ever been in the history of the country.

The Economist: Where do you think it is going wrong?

DT: You see it, you see it, we are sitting on many powder kegs. Whether it’s Ferguson, or St Louis, or like the other night, or Baltimore. Or different parts of Chicago.

The Economist: What do think could happen?

DT: I think there are powder kegs ready to explode.

The Economist: Who’s going to be leading the explosion? Do you think African-Americans are ready to explode?

DT: People. People….No, I think various places in this country are ready to explode. You asked about race relations, I think they’re very tense. I think that Obama has divided the country as far as race relations are concerned, and I think that you have certain sections, and you have lots of different locations within this country that potentially are powder kegs.

The Economist: What did you think of his response to the murders in Charleston, his response to the confederate flag issue and his eulogy?

DT: I thought his speech was good… Is that the one where he sang? I thought that was a good speech.

The Economist: Were you pleased to see those confederate flags coming down from those poles?

DT: Well, a lot of people are looking at that as a freedom of expression. And I hate to do anything that is going to stop or suppress free speech.

The Economist: What happened to the idea of conservative purity and primaries from the right? Are conservatives giving you a pass on issues where you are not on the right, because they love you on other things? Why are you immune to this purity test?

DT: I’m strongly into the Bible; I’m strongly into God and religion. I’m pro-life and different things. But I think they view me as somebody that can straighten out the country. And they view other people as wimps that can’t do it. And they look at my track record, I built up an amazing company, I don’t know if you looked at my filings, most people don’t even know how big they are. But I built up a net worth of much more than $10 billion, net worth, that means net worth. I built a great company, I have some of the most iconic assets, like even the Bank of America building in San Francisco, nobody even knew that until they saw the filing. A big chunk of it. The 1290 Avenue of the Americas, Trump Tower, 40 Wall St, many, many pieces of land all over the United States, in the best locations, on rivers, oceans and lakes. Like in Los Angeles, phenomenal land on the Pacific Ocean. You know, on the Potomac River, I have land. I own Doral, I own Turnberry in Scotland, one of the great resorts of the world. I own, you know, not just assets, I own the great assets, I own some of the greatest assets in the world. And people see that, and that gives you a lot of credibility. They have seen how I have done. By the way, as you know, I have never gone bankrupt, or close. But I use the bankruptcy laws, but so does everybody else. Everybody does it. Unfortunately when they use it they don’t get… I guess I get more publicity, who knows? But when I use it they say “oh look, what he did.” And I have used it, you know, very sparingly. So out of hundreds of deals I used it four times, so big deal? I actually did a deal, David, it was interesting, a friend of mine was in trouble, I bought his company for nothing, I called the banks and I said do you want to make a deal? Before I made the deal, I said you want to make a deal? No, we don’t want to do it, Donald. I knew the banks, you see. I said you are making a big mistake. Well, then I bought the company, I then said, are you sure you don’t want to do it? I chaptered it, and knocked the hell out of them. I made a great deal out of it, bought it for nothing, made a great deal out of it. But there was an article, oh Trump went bankrupt, and I never went bankrupt, you understand what I am saying?

The Economist: Yes, yes, these are legal things…

DT: I’m using the laws of the nation to my benefit. And I should do that, it’s to my benefit. Now, when, if I am running the country I will use that same ability that I have, because I have always had the ability to make a lot of money. I’ll use that same ability to make our nation rich again, because it sounds like, not nice, some people said, oh that’s a harsh word, “rich”. Well, until we are rich, you know this better with of your magazine, we can’t be great again until we are rich, because right now we are a debtor nation, our airports are third world, our highways are falling apart. Our roads, our bridges, everything, we’re like third world.

The Economist: Other Republican candidates talk about red tape; you’re talking about bigger things.

DT: Well, I talk about…now, regulation’s another thing. We are being regulated to a point that we can’t move. So that’s another thing. But honestly I think I am talking about an even bigger picture. But that’s a big thing… regulation, also, we will get rid of a lot of it.

The Economist: Well, thanks very much.

DT: When is this story coming out?

The Economist: This week, and I think it should be the cover DT: I love covers, especially, it would be an honour, especially if you write well. If it’s a cover where you write badly, that’s even ok. You have a great magazine.

The Economist: Are you in your office in Manhattan, so I can describe where you are calling?

DT: Yes, I’m in my office in Manhattan, and that’s where we’re talking. And if you need anything, call me back later, I’ll be around. If you need to finalise something. But, anyway, I appreciate, David…I would appreciate your fairness, I’ve done a good job, believe me, we will continue to do a good job.