Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 2: I'm Joe Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway. Tracy, it is
Speaker 2: April twenty second. It is twelve oh nine and fifty
Speaker 2: two seconds as of the time that I am talking
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 3: Soon we'll have to do fractions of a second.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 2: The market is actually up today. We're recording this on today.
Speaker 2: We just got a headline apparently Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant,
Speaker 2: at a JP Morgan event in Washington said besn't cees
Speaker 2: de escalation with China situation unsustainable. That sent market surging.
Speaker 2: You know, everyone's looking for a little shred of hope,
Speaker 2: right We're a little shred of optimism that like things
Speaker 2: can settle down, we get clarity that the two.
Speaker 3: Biggest economies in the world aren't going to go completely
Speaker 3: head to head.
Speaker 2: Right like, because if I mean, this is really the story,
Speaker 2: right even with the walk back on April ninth, the
Speaker 2: week after Liberation Day, even if and we're not getting
Speaker 2: any deals yet, at least so far, we haven't gotten
Speaker 2: a deal with Indial, we haven't gotten the deal with Japan,
Speaker 2: let alone the EU. But you know, even if we
Speaker 2: got all those deals sometime in the next three months,
Speaker 2: and typically trade deals take like years to work out,
Speaker 2: there's still the fact of an economic rupture between the
Speaker 2: world's two biggest economies, right.
Speaker 3: I think that's certainly a possibility. The one other thing
Speaker 3: I would say is, so you're right. Stocks are up
Speaker 3: this morning because Bessend has been saying, you know, some
Speaker 3: mildly potentially positive things on this issue. But there is
Speaker 3: still this huge question of who would make the first
Speaker 3: move in this particular standoff. And I think it is
Speaker 3: a standoff. And I think, you know, both respective policy
Speaker 3: making groups here, the Trump administration and the CCP under
Speaker 3: Sheashon Paging, I think they both care about who is
Speaker 3: seen to be making the biggest concession here. So I
Speaker 3: think everyone can reasonably say that we would want some
Speaker 3: sort of I was about to say peace steal between
Speaker 3: China and the US. Peace steal isn't right, some sort
Speaker 3: of reconciliation, but the path to getting there seems like
Speaker 3: very confused and uncertain to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot. I mean, look, people call it
Speaker 2: a trade war, so I don't see why we can't
Speaker 2: have a piece, trade pieceeal, a detent of some sort.
Speaker 2: And look, we both know the stakes, right because the
Speaker 2: US relies substantially on China booth for finished goods of
Speaker 2: all kinds of things that US consumers enjoy, but also
Speaker 2: intermediate goods that are used for actual manufacturing. And we
Speaker 2: also know that at least in the short term, there
Speaker 2: is not some quick substitute for the sheer amount of
Speaker 2: demand that comes from the US consumer. And so we've
Speaker 2: seen all the tiktoks of factories in China, you know,
Speaker 2: trying to figure out ways to go direct to do
Speaker 2: this consumer at least in the short term, economies have
Speaker 2: a lot to lose, it would seem. And so there's
Speaker 2: all this question of like, you know, who blanks first. Anyway,
Speaker 2: there's a POTENTI there, you know, and you just see
Speaker 2: it in the market pricing. There is a lot of
Speaker 2: pain being priced in immediately today, maybe accepted from the
Speaker 2: persistence of this trade war.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm very excited. One of my favorite guests, I've
Speaker 2: talked to him, We've talked to him on the podcast before,
Speaker 2: I've talked to him on the TV. Always energetic and
Speaker 2: always has just sort of interesting thoughts, A fun guy
Speaker 2: to talk to, also very serious. We're going to be
Speaker 2: speaking with David Wu. He is the CEO of David
Speaker 2: Wu Unbound, and prior to that, he was the head
Speaker 2: of Global Rates, Currency, Emerging Markets, fixed Income, and Economics
Speaker 2: research at Bank of America. I always want to get
Speaker 2: David's takes on things, So David, thank you so much
Speaker 2: for coming back on odd blots.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me the pleasure.
Speaker 2: Is this a type of war that we're seeing right
Speaker 2: now that you know, whether trade war? You know, I
Speaker 2: guess it seems like the obvious thing, but like how aggressive,
Speaker 2: how provocative, how combative are Trump's actions against China.
Speaker 5: I think it's very combative. I think this is much
Speaker 5: more than just a trey war. I think this is
Speaker 5: war actually, And then I think, you know, from that
Speaker 5: point of view, is not that surprising the way it
Speaker 5: is gone, because in a way, the whole thing has
Speaker 5: been heating up under Biden.
Speaker 4: I mean, I will tell you, yeah, and.
Speaker 5: I think in a way, you know, it's actually very
Speaker 5: interesting in a way, Trump is picking up where Biden
Speaker 5: left off.
Speaker 2: Who picked up where Trump left off?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 5: Okay, let me let me just take it back from
Speaker 5: you and what I mean, explain better what I meant
Speaker 5: by that sentence. Right, did you remember when Biden became president? Okay,
Speaker 5: Harvard University Belfare Center publish a big report in which
Speaker 5: they did a massive ranking of the technology leaderships across
Speaker 5: the major tech races. Okay, it was a report sponsor
Speaker 5: by Eric Schmid, the former CEO.
Speaker 4: Of Google, who was a big patriot.
Speaker 5: And in this report they come to the conclusion the
Speaker 5: US and China were in basically debt heat in first
Speaker 5: or second place in all the leading technologies in the world.
Speaker 5: And soon after that, Eric Schmid went on a pr
Speaker 5: or political campaign across you know, the Beltway, essentially lobbrying
Speaker 5: every Congressman, every senators who listened to him that this
Speaker 5: is time to basically stop the access of China from
Speaker 5: in advanced technology so that the US has a chance
Speaker 5: to essentially regain the leadership.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: So therefore, under Biden, the most important thing, you know,
Speaker 5: in terms of Visa VI China, it was not so
Speaker 5: much the trade war, but rather they put in punishing
Speaker 5: sanctions in terms of the ability of China to be
Speaker 5: able to access you know, semiconductor advance conductors and in
Speaker 5: manufacturing equipments for advanced conductors. All that was meant to
Speaker 5: basically give the US two to three year basically like
Speaker 5: head start okay in AI, semiciconductors, in automation, robotics, and
Speaker 5: so on and so forth.
Speaker 4: Guess what lessen?
Speaker 5: A month after Trump became president, we had the Deep
Speaker 5: Seek news, the Deep Seat news. Basically it was a
Speaker 5: massive piece of news. I mean, it was a game changer.
Speaker 5: Let me tell you this, I mean Deep Seek News
Speaker 5: for me, is no proof of China's technological prowess, but
Speaker 5: it is proof that AI can be easily copied. All
Speaker 5: of a sudden, overnight, all the sanctions that happened under Biden,
Speaker 5: it was for nothing. Okay, to an extent that if
Speaker 5: these sanctions were designed to protect the monopoly of the
Speaker 5: big US tech companies, okay, all of a sudden, that
Speaker 5: meant nothing, because anything that could be copied is worth
Speaker 5: nothing commercially. And this is the reason why, by the way,
Speaker 5: I know, the data DeepC news came out I shortened
Speaker 5: basically nastac and it's you know, it was a great trade,
Speaker 5: by the way, but I.
Speaker 4: Think that's what it gets down.
Speaker 5: All the China hawks, I mean, Trump has brought a
Speaker 5: lot of China Hawks into his administration. To tell you that,
Speaker 5: for the China Hawks, if they thought that they had
Speaker 5: been more time with China, I think after DeepC news
Speaker 5: came out, literally there was this new sense of urgency.
Speaker 5: We need to basically stop China now. The only way
Speaker 5: they can do that is to bankrupt China economically, because honestly,
Speaker 5: at this point, I mean, let's be honest, when you're
Speaker 5: talking about the one hundred and forty five percent tariff, Yeah,
Speaker 5: you're not engaging the trade war. You're engaging in basically
Speaker 5: economic murder. I mean, that's it. I mean, I don't
Speaker 5: see how China is going to be able to explore
Speaker 5: anything the US with one hundred and forty five percent.
Speaker 5: So I think point of view this to me was,
Speaker 5: I think the so called trade war that we call
Speaker 5: as such really was always intended as an economic blow
Speaker 5: that will be so great to China that China will
Speaker 5: no longer be in a position to threaten New Wes hegemony.
Speaker 5: So again, this is why I said, this is more
Speaker 5: than a trade war. This is much more than a
Speaker 5: trade war. This is meant to protect US hegemony.
Speaker 3: Right, sort of existential in that sense. Let me press
Speaker 3: you on one thing you said. So, you know, you
Speaker 3: mentioned the importance of deep seek and you kind of
Speaker 3: suggested that some of the severity of the action taken
Speaker 3: on China was because of the deep seek threat. But
Speaker 3: I mean, we know that Trump from his campaign was
Speaker 3: going to take a really hardline stance against China. So
Speaker 3: how can you connect deep seek with some of the
Speaker 3: policies that we've seen coming out of the administration. Can
Speaker 3: you make that direct link?
Speaker 4: Crazy? I think that's an excellent question. But let's think
Speaker 4: about this from moan.
Speaker 5: Okay, I've always said, you know, listen, I'm probably the
Speaker 5: only person you know like it's been on your show.
Speaker 5: We've read the back to back, one hundred page you know,
Speaker 5: essentially faced one agreement that was time between Trump and
Speaker 5: the Chinese back in two thousand point I.
Speaker 2: Bet Dan Wong is yeah, the other one, keep going,
Speaker 2: keep going.
Speaker 5: Yeah, tell you this it was probably I mean, I
Speaker 5: have a PhD in international trade from Columbia University, and
Speaker 5: let me tell you this. That trade agreement, in my
Speaker 5: humble opinion, was one of the best trade agreements signed
Speaker 5: between two countries in the last fifty years. And the
Speaker 5: reason was because it was a win win basically deal.
Speaker 5: And if people tend to think, oh, whoa whatever, I mean,
Speaker 5: people didn't read the whole thing. I mean, it's pretty
Speaker 5: amazing what that whole thing actually meant. Now, in my
Speaker 5: humble opinion, the difference between Trump and Biden is whereas
Speaker 5: Biden saw the US China rivalry as largely a zero
Speaker 5: sound game. That is, if China wins, will lose. If
Speaker 5: we win, then China will lose. I think Trump in
Speaker 5: his whole entire career sees things through the lenses of deals.
Speaker 5: And Trump always understands that basically to do a deal,
Speaker 5: there has to be enough for everybody around the table.
Speaker 5: So from that point of view, in my humble opinion,
Speaker 5: if you look back on the first day of Trump's inauguration,
Speaker 5: what do you do this? I still remember, I don't
Speaker 5: remember you guys covered the story. I still remember he
Speaker 5: didn't press conference in the Oval office late at night,
Speaker 5: you know, on the auguration day. And it was just
Speaker 5: when he announced the twenty percent tariff on Canada and
Speaker 5: Mexico over the fentannel, okay, And he was asked during
Speaker 5: that press conference, why not China? You promised to eat
Speaker 5: China hard. So why did you decide to hit Canada
Speaker 5: and Mexico by not China, he asked. His response was, Oh,
Speaker 5: because we hit China pretty hard my first time.
Speaker 4: We're going to give them pass this time.
Speaker 5: It was now until the next day he announced the
Speaker 5: twenty percent for China. And then three weeks later, of
Speaker 5: course we all you know know now like you know,
Speaker 5: basically the tariff was extended for Mexico and Canada and
Speaker 5: China was hit by twenty percent, okay, and then the
Speaker 5: list goes on and off. In my humble opinion, you
Speaker 5: know again, we were sitting here and thinking that Trump
Speaker 5: is in the driver's seat.
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 5: I think at this point Trump is no longer a
Speaker 5: driver's seat to the extend, einting the Chin in a
Speaker 5: hawks or actually in a private seat.
Speaker 4: I think the.
Speaker 5: China Hawks are maneuvering him in a position that he's
Speaker 5: increasingly struggling to back away from. So it gets more extreme,
Speaker 5: and that is a different story. This is why, to me,
Speaker 5: this is not just about Pete Navarro versus basically Scott Besson.
Speaker 5: This is about the China Hawks represented by Vance by
Speaker 5: basically rule bio by Waltz and all of them actually,
Speaker 5: So from that point of view, again, this is this
Speaker 5: is what we're talking about. I think Trump really wanted.
Speaker 5: I think Trump was so eager to do a TikTok
Speaker 5: deal on the first day that he spoke with basically
Speaker 5: Jijing being things We're going to go very differently. But
Speaker 5: I think with a series of mistakes that have now
Speaker 5: allowed the China Hawks to take over, and I think
Speaker 5: Trump now in a way is a little bit powerless,
Speaker 5: and I think, you know, it's we can talk about
Speaker 5: the process and the sequencing, but I think this is
Speaker 5: where I'm at right now, which is is not entirely
Speaker 5: up to Trump anymore.
Speaker 2: So, first of all, I just want to say I
Speaker 2: appreciate the out of consensus perspective, because I would describe
Speaker 2: the consensus perspective is the only active force that happens
Speaker 2: or what's happening in Trump's brain. And so, first of all,
Speaker 2: you're disagreeing with that, and I respect that. Second of all,
Speaker 2: you know, from my perspective, Trump strikes. I know he
Speaker 2: likes to do deals, and he loves talking about doing deals,
Speaker 2: et cetera. When he pulled that chart out on Liberation
Speaker 2: Day April second and basically slammed every country in the world.
Speaker 2: This did not come across to me as someone who
Speaker 2: likes positive some deals. This strikes me as someone who
Speaker 2: finds any trade gap is per se bad, that if
Speaker 2: you're running a trade surplus with the United States, you
Speaker 2: must be you must be relative, and so like, give
Speaker 2: me the counter argument here. Also, you know this idea.
Speaker 2: You know people have been using the good Czar bad
Speaker 2: Blowyers characterization. Oh, it's the it's the Navarros of the world.
Speaker 2: It's the vances Trump is being blah blah blah. And
Speaker 2: I tend to not find those things. But just convince
Speaker 2: me that Trump is not a zerosome thinker when it
Speaker 2: comes to convince you.
Speaker 5: And by the way, I want to say this, there's
Speaker 5: a big difference between China versus everybody else.
Speaker 4: Okay, I think Trump.
Speaker 5: Understands that everybody else he thought that the US is
Speaker 5: so big he can just pushing them around. I think
Speaker 5: China is a very different story. Just think about this
Speaker 5: for a moment. The day that he unleash whatever on
Speaker 5: I mean, whatever the time schedule on a liberation there.
Speaker 4: Yeah, China was only hit with a twenty five percent. Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's true.
Speaker 5: Which is actually right in the middle of the range.
Speaker 5: By the way, it's not like he China thirty percent.
Speaker 5: I mean, listen, I mean, I mean Thailand was twenty
Speaker 5: nine person in Switzerland thirty five percent. You can say,
Speaker 5: look across, you know, I mean, China was actually doing
Speaker 5: the low. And by the way, if you think about
Speaker 5: that for a moment, I think that was a sign
Speaker 5: that Trump did not you know, I mean, because I
Speaker 5: mean again, you know, I think Trump understands depending on
Speaker 5: who you're dealing with here, if you're dealing with a
Speaker 5: little guy, you're gonna basically like literally knock the other
Speaker 5: guy dead. And I think Trump feels like, you know,
Speaker 5: this is the reason why I mean, I'm you know,
Speaker 5: I think Mexico is a great example because Mexico, unlike
Speaker 5: any other country, has literally been bending forward backward to
Speaker 5: meet Trump, like forget about half the weigh like ninety
Speaker 5: nine percent of the way. I thought Trump should have
Speaker 5: rented a deal to basically shining bomb literally like three
Speaker 5: weeks into his presidency, and he didn't. And the reason
Speaker 5: is because apparently he saw Mexico as being a push around. Okay,
Speaker 5: was China, I think is a different story. So I think,
Speaker 5: you know, we cannot basically apply the same logic to
Speaker 5: what Trump is saying. But you know what's interesting though,
Speaker 5: what is interesting is the fire that as of today,
Speaker 5: right now, as we speak, if I look at you know,
Speaker 5: like you know, yesterday, I was, I mean, I didn't
Speaker 5: you know, as you know, I've got a YouTube channel now,
Speaker 5: you know, and and I was trying to basic the
Speaker 5: I'm trying to upgrade my lighting. So I wanted to
Speaker 5: buy this very expensive light. This is a very high
Speaker 5: end lights to have manufacturing in China.
Speaker 3: Well, you need one of those one of those circle lights,
Speaker 3: like like a ring light, like a proper, proper influence
Speaker 3: much more than a ring line.
Speaker 4: I'm talking.
Speaker 5: This is a professional basicly spotlight, right, So this is
Speaker 5: a very high in case you don't know, like literally
Speaker 5: ninety percent of the high end spotlights now are manufacturing China. Okay,
Speaker 5: I mean that that's just that's just a factor, right,
Speaker 5: So they don't just make a low end stuff.
Speaker 4: This is really high end stuff.
Speaker 5: And you know, as you know, I live in Israel now,
Speaker 5: and I mean there's no inventory of this light in
Speaker 5: all of Israel. I literally like got in touch with
Speaker 5: every store the importer. Nothing, So I decided to call
Speaker 5: up be An H in New York. Of course they
Speaker 5: have it in stock, even though it's from China. And
Speaker 5: guess what it costs. Literally have the price of what
Speaker 5: I wouldn't paid if I bought the like in Israel. Unfortunately,
Speaker 5: they don't have it in Israel anyway. So I was
Speaker 5: asking to be and H guy. So wal, no, listen,
Speaker 5: what about the tariff? He said, well, you know, listen,
Speaker 5: we're not raising prices until we've actually depleted art stock.
Speaker 5: But the point I'm trying to basically tell you is
Speaker 5: like Americans have not even begun to feel the even
Speaker 5: iota of the tariff. I mean, the stock market obviously
Speaker 5: has gone down a bit, that kind of thing, but
Speaker 5: it's like nothing.
Speaker 4: I mean, I think.
Speaker 5: People don't realize what this really means, because right now
Speaker 5: what's happening is that the inventory in the system. And
Speaker 5: then there's no doubt inventory got built up in Q
Speaker 5: one because a lot of companies anticipated the tariff increase,
Speaker 5: that is providing a bit of a buffer. Wait until
Speaker 5: we get into June when prices either will go up
Speaker 5: that there will be no stock to the extent that
Speaker 5: just you know, whatever you want to basically buy simply
Speaker 5: not available. I don't even know how Hollywood can basically
Speaker 5: to do with They're lighting without Chinese lights right now
Speaker 5: at this point, because there's very low degree of substitutability.
Speaker 5: But the point here is that I think, you know,
Speaker 5: in a way, I think you know, the pain is
Speaker 5: like absolutely, and I think this is where Trump is
Speaker 5: very missing formed by the way, I truly believe Trump
Speaker 5: is surrounded by some really terrible advisors who at least
Speaker 5: didn't tell him the full story, because when it comes
Speaker 5: to the trade war, and I can just tell you,
Speaker 5: I mean, I think that every step of the way,
Speaker 5: I think, you know, they misfired. For one thing, I
Speaker 5: think the presumption that tariff was not going to be
Speaker 5: inflationary was I don't know what they got that from,
Speaker 5: and I'll tell you where they got that from, by
Speaker 5: the way, And that was perhaps the biggest, biggest, basically
Speaker 5: you know, essential, the assumption that we're making when they
Speaker 5: basically unleashed this trade war because Trump figured that well,
Speaker 5: first time trade war didn't have any impact on prices,
Speaker 5: so he expected this time the same to happen as well,
Speaker 5: and that unfortunately, I don't care where Pritnavar got his PhD.
Speaker 5: Is worth nothing. His degree is not worth a piece
Speaker 5: of papers written on. But let me tell you what.
Speaker 5: The reason why the inflationary effect associated with Trump's trade
Speaker 5: War one was so limited was because Chinese companies were
Speaker 5: able to set up shop very quickly somewhere else in
Speaker 5: the Philippines, Indonesia.
Speaker 4: And whatever they want.
Speaker 5: They were able to circumvent the US tariff by continuing
Speaker 5: to export to the US at whatever price they were
Speaker 5: selling previously the US. So in a way, if there
Speaker 5: was very little price impact was because Chinese companies were
Speaker 5: able to circumvent the tiff. This time, the entire tariff
Speaker 5: is designed to leave Chinese companies with no place to hide.
Speaker 5: As you know, like the only reason why like Trump
Speaker 5: hasn't take out the whatever even the fists in basically,
Speaker 5: I mean, you know, hasn't basically did not apply additional
Speaker 5: reciprocal tariff on Mexico is because Mexico had already agreed
Speaker 5: to adopt the same US tariff on Chinese imports. So
Speaker 5: this time, no, this is the why Southeast Asia got
Speaker 5: hit really hard this time, you know, in the reciprocal
Speaker 5: terraff It's because precisely, Navarro and others. They understand they
Speaker 5: need to. They want to close the back doors to China,
Speaker 5: so this time there is no cushion in the system.
Speaker 4: You're gonna see.
Speaker 5: One pass through in terms of prices. In fact, the
Speaker 5: Chinese government apparently has decided that the more passed thorugh
Speaker 5: the better. The reason being that, you know, we all know.
Speaker 5: Only a couple of weeks ago, I think the Chinese
Speaker 5: uh in Beijing, Chinese officials met with Costco, with Walmart
Speaker 5: and warned them against applying pressure on Chinese suppliers to
Speaker 5: basically to take the hit on terror. The reason is
Speaker 5: because I think from the Chinese perspective, they think that
Speaker 5: once the price effect associated with the tariff is unleashed
Speaker 5: onto the US economy, onto the US consumers, it's going
Speaker 5: to get so bad that Trump will have no choice
Speaker 5: but to basically stand down then. And I think this
Speaker 5: is the reason why, in a way I said that
Speaker 5: we're right now in round two of this trade war.
Speaker 5: I think the round one basically ended the last week.
Speaker 5: We're now round two Round two. You know, you could
Speaker 5: argue that China enjoyed the advantage in so far that
Speaker 5: time is on their side, and I think, you know,
Speaker 5: I think things are going to give wrong.
Speaker 3: I have many questions, but just to start with, okay,
Speaker 3: why should I care whether it's Trump or his policy
Speaker 3: advisors being you know, uber hawkish on China. Why does
Speaker 3: that matter when the policy result seems to be, you know,
Speaker 3: pretty much the same. And then secondly, you talked about
Speaker 3: the pain potentially coming this summer. We've seen a lot
Speaker 3: of people in markets start to talk about the idea
Speaker 3: that maybe there isn't a Trump put right, like, maybe
Speaker 3: he doesn't care about stock prices this time around. So
Speaker 3: what exactly is going to be the catalyst for some
Speaker 3: sort of detent.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Cracie, I think it's a very good point. But
Speaker 5: you see, again, this is whether Trump or somebody else
Speaker 5: around him, I think it makes a very big difference
Speaker 5: in so far in this respect, let me basically take
Speaker 5: it back for a second and you would allow me,
Speaker 5: because I think, please, this is connected to a lot
Speaker 5: of other things start.
Speaker 4: On the table right now.
Speaker 5: For example, I thought it was a huge mistake that
Speaker 5: Trump started his presidency by making stopping the war in
Speaker 5: Ukraine a top priority. Okay, he thought that he was
Speaker 5: going to be able to stop in twenty four hours.
Speaker 5: Forget about twenty fourth let to say he was indeed
Speaker 5: being sarcastic. But you know, I can tell you this.
Speaker 5: At the beginning of his presidency, polymarket was giving a
Speaker 5: seventy percent chance that he was going to stop the
Speaker 5: war basically by one hundred days into his presidency, and
Speaker 5: now it's right now currently less than three percent.
Speaker 4: Chants.
Speaker 5: Now, this is why Trump went on this you know,
Speaker 5: trauma offensive with Putin, that he appeased Putin and literally
Speaker 5: was you know, I'm not going to use any more
Speaker 5: exaggerated adjective at this point, but let's put it this way.
Speaker 5: Trump didn't understand that there was no way in hell
Speaker 5: that Putin was going to agree to a ceasefire without
Speaker 5: having taken control of the rest of Donskue, where they've
Speaker 5: been stuck in basically very very thrown out battles for
Speaker 5: the last six months.
Speaker 4: But it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 5: The point here is that I think three months in
Speaker 5: his presidency, Trump has got nothing to show for visa
Speaker 5: the Ukraine, even though he has rupture transatlantic relations. He
Speaker 5: has sold Ukraine down the river, and he's got nothing
Speaker 5: to show for and Putin is not buying it. Guess
Speaker 5: what At this point, in my humble opinion, Trump has
Speaker 5: one of two choices. He could either pivot by getting
Speaker 5: much tougher with Putin. Okay, so you see an increase
Speaker 5: in geopolitical risk in bullish gold, or that he has
Speaker 5: to go even tougher in China because at this point,
Speaker 5: you know what, you cannot be.
Speaker 4: Seen as being weak on both Russia and China. Forget
Speaker 4: about you.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's pretty amazing what basically Steve Wikoff is
Speaker 5: now proposing. By the way, capping Iranian Richmond at three
Speaker 5: point sixty seven percent was the key component of the
Speaker 5: Obama you clear agreement with the Iran that Trump walked
Speaker 5: away from. So Trump is like going super dubbish rat
Speaker 5: shot a basically in Iran. Guess what If he wants
Speaker 5: to continue that dubbish approach, then he will have to
Speaker 5: throw some red meat to the China Hawks within this administration,
Speaker 5: which means getting tougher on China. In my view, there
Speaker 5: is very little I mean, I you know, I feel
Speaker 5: sorry for Scott Beston. Guess Scott's a very nice Scott. No, Scott,
Speaker 5: Scott is not a China Hawk. I wouldn't say Scott
Speaker 5: is a China hawk. He's certainly you know, he he
Speaker 5: doesn't hate China in that sense, but there are a
Speaker 5: lot of people within the administrations who think that this
Speaker 5: is the time to destroy the Chinese economy once for all, right,
Speaker 5: Because the point here is it's not just about the
Speaker 5: fact that while Chinese export to the US, it's probably
Speaker 5: around five percent of Chinese GDP if you look at
Speaker 5: both the wrect and indirect you know, forty percent of
Speaker 5: Chinese industrial production. But more important is the fact that
Speaker 5: the Chinese economies already on his knees, you know, forty
Speaker 5: percent of GDP's investment. If we can someholp decimate China's export,
Speaker 5: then we can basically bankrupt their business model, and then
Speaker 5: you know, the whole economy goes into the recession and
Speaker 5: who knows what happens.
Speaker 4: And then they will be able to play catch up
Speaker 4: with us.
Speaker 5: So what I'm telling you is that, in fact, actually
Speaker 5: it is interesting because you only win Trump can actually
Speaker 5: keep going with this trade war by getting the support
Speaker 5: from the general public, from Congress and say you know
Speaker 5: what this is about China. Nobody right now will say,
Speaker 5: oh wow, let's you know, let's be nicer to the Chinese,
Speaker 5: because right now, anybody who stands up to the Chinese,
Speaker 5: they're seen as traders right away. And that to me
Speaker 5: is the most interesting part of the story, which is
Speaker 5: that I think the China Hawks in many ways have prevailed,
Speaker 5: and Trump right now is having two essentially see the
Speaker 5: grounded that because in a way, he's got nothing to
Speaker 5: show for right now, and then he wants to keep
Speaker 5: the trade work going. The only way you can do
Speaker 5: that is by saying this is about China.
Speaker 3: Right So, just on the second part of the question,
Speaker 3: then what is the catalyst for a detente and is it,
Speaker 3: you know, some sort of policy win for the Trump
Speaker 3: administration that maybe allows him to back down a little
Speaker 3: bit on behalf of the China Hawks. I guess I
Speaker 3: think you know that.
Speaker 5: I mean political actually write a very interesting story answerably
Speaker 5: on Friday Saturday, Okay, which I think makes sense. I mean,
Speaker 5: I don't believe everything they say, but in this particular case,
Speaker 5: I think it sort of makes some sense, which is
Speaker 5: that forget about like Trump and she are not talking
Speaker 5: like even if back channel is not working. The one
Speaker 5: reason is interesting because Trump wants to basically manage the
Speaker 5: entire process on his own. He wants to talk to
Speaker 5: she think, think directly. This is why he doesn't want
Speaker 5: to send people to China, talk to the Chinese. He
Speaker 5: wants to get on the phone with she didn't think
Speaker 5: and she think right now? Is not returning the call?
Speaker 5: Well right, it doesn't want to talk, okay, And I
Speaker 5: can perfectly understand why, by the way, but interesting things
Speaker 5: I think Trump listen. Trump is very suspicious of everybody
Speaker 5: around him, including Rubio by the way, but just think
Speaker 5: about this, you ask yourself Steve Wikoff, why is Steve
Speaker 5: Wikoff like the hardest working man in the Trump administration.
Speaker 5: This is the man who has already met with Putin
Speaker 5: three times. He's the guy who basically met with the
Speaker 5: Iranians twice. He is the guy who basically negotiated the
Speaker 5: the cease fire Gaza. This guy seems to be the
Speaker 5: unofficial Secretary of State. In my humble opinion, the reason
Speaker 5: why Steve Wikoff is everywhere is not because it's not
Speaker 5: a reflection of his diplomatic savvy, but because Trump trusts him.
Speaker 5: Because guess what, I think he's no more than Trump's messenger.
Speaker 5: And so from that point of view, because Trump doesn't
Speaker 5: trust anybody Trump. The fact that Steve Wikoff is so
Speaker 5: prominent means that Trump is running US foreign policy or
Speaker 5: by himself. And I think this is going to be
Speaker 5: specially so in terms of discussion negotiation with the Chinese.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Steve wouldcof He's a real estate guy from New York.
Speaker 2: So he does seem to like he doesn't have a
Speaker 2: real diplomatic background. He's a real estate guy in New
Speaker 2: York who's now the uh Special Envoy to the Middle East.
Speaker 2: And so I'm not surprised that maybe Uh Trump sees
Speaker 2: him as the best.
Speaker 5: Now the special period. He's the presidential He's not just
Speaker 5: a special envoy for the Middle East. His title now
Speaker 5: is a special Envoy.
Speaker 2: But it does seem like Trump himself, as you say,
Speaker 2: like he wants to shake she's hand. He I mean
Speaker 2: he did. He went to Singapore right in the first
Speaker 2: administration Kim Jong un, right, and like this was like
Speaker 2: what he lives for, right, This is what really getshim excited.
Speaker 2: The opportunity to be on stage and shake hands with
Speaker 2: these guys and be part of it and come up
Speaker 2: with negotiation that strikes me is actually a sort of
Speaker 2: very useful read into how Trump thinks about international relations.
Speaker 5: I mean, TikTok is a great example, right, I mean,
Speaker 5: the fact is that one day before inauguration, everybody thought
Speaker 5: TikTok was finished.
Speaker 4: Yeah right, I mean with you know, Congress already.
Speaker 5: Voted, the Supreme courts had already gone along, and then
Speaker 5: it was it. And then guess what, Trump managed to
Speaker 5: revive it because over a phone call was seeking pink.
Speaker 4: That was it. So from that point of view, again, I.
Speaker 5: Think Trump's made a lot of mistakes, I think, but
Speaker 5: it doesn't take away from the fact that he is
Speaker 5: a dealmaker. He wants to do deals, okay, and I
Speaker 5: think from that point of you he still thinks that he.
Speaker 4: Can pull off a deal with the Chinese.
Speaker 5: The biggest challenge I think he has right now is
Speaker 5: to how to basically repair the total loss of trust
Speaker 5: okay on the Chinese side visa VI Trump, right, because
Speaker 5: I've no doubt, like you know, I mean, I think
Speaker 5: she Ping was like, well, you know, he got the
Speaker 5: invitation to go to the inauguration, he didn't go, but
Speaker 5: he thought that was a real nice gesture. And then
Speaker 5: he spoke with Trump over the phone, and then you know,
Speaker 5: and then even after basically, you know, China was hit
Speaker 5: by the percent tariff on fentannel.
Speaker 4: He was probably thinking that.
Speaker 5: This is going to be okay, But it's like it's
Speaker 5: giving getting wars every single day, you know. What's very interesting.
Speaker 5: So I'm conducting a daily survey believe or not? Okay,
Speaker 5: I mean for the last three year. I mean, I
Speaker 5: have a joint venture, you know, with reewe, which is
Speaker 5: a Toronto based online survey technology company. They're actually a
Speaker 5: list of company in Canada and the one of the
Speaker 5: leading you know, online survey technology companies in the world.
Speaker 5: So it's part of my you know, research process. So
Speaker 5: we have joined forces to conduct proprietary surveys okay for
Speaker 5: my clients. And one of the surveys is what I
Speaker 5: call Cold World two survey. So I'm conducting surveys of
Speaker 5: Chinese people and Americans every single day to gauge how
Speaker 5: they feel about each other, you know, in terms of
Speaker 5: US China relations. It is fascinating, okay. I can tell
Speaker 5: you even until a week ago, the Chinese people, when
Speaker 5: you asked them, like is the US an enemy or
Speaker 5: an ally most Chinese people said all as opposed to enemy.
Speaker 4: Believe or not?
Speaker 5: More people said al eth livi okay. And that tells
Speaker 5: me that even though things were like, you know, getting
Speaker 5: worse and worse and worse, the Chinese media was very careful,
Speaker 5: not too basically stoke, you know, nationalistic fervor in China.
Speaker 5: They were still trying to basically, you know, find a
Speaker 5: way out of this. But the last week, I mean,
Speaker 5: there was this huge spike in terms of percentage of
Speaker 5: my respondents in China who said the US it's an
Speaker 5: enemy and adversary. Now basically forty six percent of Chinese
Speaker 5: said America is an adversary or an enemy versus only
Speaker 5: forty percent of Americans who considered China as such. And
Speaker 5: so that is very very interesting. So from that point
Speaker 5: of view, I think this is the biggest problem, which
Speaker 5: is that EID in China sort of feels like, you know,
Speaker 5: they game Trump three months and then things got worse
Speaker 5: and worse and worse. Maybe they have no idea if
Speaker 5: it's Trump or Trump's advisor, the China Hawks and so
Speaker 5: and so forth, or I knows that they can no
Speaker 5: longer engage, okay, basically, so therefore they're preparing the population
Speaker 5: in China for a long standoff This is why people
Speaker 5: are wrong to call this thing, oh game of chicken,
Speaker 5: because in a game. I'm a professor of economics here
Speaker 5: in Israel, and I teach game theory in game theory. Yeah,
Speaker 5: I mean everybody who's taking the course in game theory,
Speaker 5: they think about game of chicken gaming chicken. By the way,
Speaker 5: it's completely irrelevant at this point because in a game
Speaker 5: of chicken, as you know, one side will capitulate before
Speaker 5: the collision, so that nothing happens. Okay, nothing happens, So
Speaker 5: somebody stops before something bad happens. I would argue, we've
Speaker 5: already gone beyond a game of chicken. We're now in
Speaker 5: a war of attrition. A war of Attrician is another
Speaker 5: game in game theory, except war of Attrician. Basically, the
Speaker 5: game continues even though it continues to inflict pain on
Speaker 5: both sides, but both sides sort of hang on until
Speaker 5: one side finally capitulated because the pain becomes unbearable, a.
Speaker 4: Little bit like World War One if you like it.
Speaker 4: And I think the Chinese are now preparing for this
Speaker 4: war attrition. And this is why I think Trump is
Speaker 4: still thinking he's gonna get the Chinese, gonna get basically
Speaker 4: shooting being on the phone he's gonna do this, and
Speaker 4: that I am doubtful. I mean even Scott Besson, as
Speaker 4: I said before, because Scott is not really he's not
Speaker 4: a political type. He doesn't understand the hatred there is
Speaker 4: for China in Washington, and I think from that point
Speaker 4: of view, Trump is going to be It's going to
Speaker 4: be difficult for Trump, but anybody can do but it's
Speaker 4: still Trump. But I'm just saying it's gonna be very difficult.
Speaker 2: Tracy. In our episode with Martin Wolf, I brought up
Speaker 2: the fact that, you know, for the first time, I
Speaker 2: actually think it's really important to read those surveys of
Speaker 2: international perspectives on China or on the US, and David
Speaker 2: giving a great example of like why for any leader
Speaker 2: globally now just China, the domestic attitudes probably really matter
Speaker 2: if any leader wants to maintain domestic legitimacy.
Speaker 3: Sure, although one thing I would say in China is
Speaker 3: there is a rather authoritarian government. Sure that probably makes
Speaker 3: a difference in that dynamic. But David, I want to
Speaker 3: ask you a question. So you're a smart guy, reasonably
Speaker 3: smart guy. That's one of the biggest compliments I've ever
Speaker 3: given on all blots.
Speaker 2: By the way, is so thrial.
Speaker 3: But do you worry at all that when it comes
Speaker 3: to I should say, you're obviously a very keen watcher
Speaker 3: of the White House and everything that's going on there
Speaker 3: and trying to disaggregate you know, what's driving certain policy makers.
Speaker 3: But do you worry that there's a degree of overthinking
Speaker 3: at play here or you know, sane washing perhaps of
Speaker 3: Trump and the administration that you're trying to like put
Speaker 3: a framework on what's happening. That maybe isn't the case,
Speaker 3: Like maybe it is just quite chaotic and people are
Speaker 3: unsure of what they're doing, unsure of what the ultimate
Speaker 3: goals are.
Speaker 5: I do agree with that. I do think that, like
Speaker 5: in a way I was hoping for more. I mean
Speaker 5: to the extent that you know, like for example, Dulge
Speaker 5: is a good example. Right, So Elon Mosk was like,
Speaker 5: you know what he had three months after? Yeah, the elections,
Speaker 5: prepare for those, right, I mean he supposedly had like
Speaker 5: hundreds of legal advice. There's also some people they figured
Speaker 5: out everything and guess what, it's gone from two trillion
Speaker 5: dollars to one trillion dollars and then whatever. Ten days ago,
Speaker 5: he declared Jub's cabinet He's going to find one hundred
Speaker 5: and fifty million dollars of cuts for the twenty twenty
Speaker 5: six budget. I mean, I track the daily US Treasury statement, okay,
Speaker 5: which tracks every single like whatever, in aggregate, but in
Speaker 5: very detailed form every dollar that goes out of the
Speaker 5: Treasury count that the US federal government keeps with the
Speaker 5: Federal Reserve where all this money goes in and out.
Speaker 5: And let me tell you this, I cannot see any
Speaker 5: evidence of any spending come so far. Okay, So what
Speaker 5: I'm telling you is this, I mean, and that's Ela Mosque,
Speaker 5: you know, which scares me because I've always thought about
Speaker 5: Elamsk is supposed to be a very smart guy.
Speaker 4: You know this guy.
Speaker 5: I mean, you don't become the richest man in the
Speaker 5: world just by talking big. Well maybe he does. Maybe
Speaker 5: American capitalism is all about talking big, whatever it is.
Speaker 5: But this is a good example of basically literally like
Speaker 5: you know, talking out of I don't know, I didn't
Speaker 5: want to use any you know things I'm going to
Speaker 5: basically regret. But that's why this trade war thing is
Speaker 5: very important, As I said before, because Trump thought Trump
Speaker 5: is in his political advisors decided that because trade war
Speaker 5: in his first term was not inflationary, therefore it's not
Speaker 5: going to be inflationary this time. Therefore, there's no reason
Speaker 5: for the FAT not to cut interest rates. Okay, and
Speaker 5: that as completely like so you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 5: How that is important because now it's like, well, you know,
Speaker 5: like what Trump now you want you want to fire
Speaker 5: basically power. Why did you think about that three weeks
Speaker 5: ago or a month ago, or even two months ago
Speaker 5: when you're planning this.
Speaker 4: Whole tariff business.
Speaker 5: Okay, because I thought, you know, if you could get
Speaker 5: Elon Moss to cut spending and that would be deflationary,
Speaker 5: which could potentially offset any inflationary effect associated with the tariff,
Speaker 5: and then you could get the FED on your side
Speaker 5: if this fiscal tightening. But right now we haven't got
Speaker 5: any fiscal tightening because Elon Muss hasn't been able to
Speaker 5: deliver other than talking big about spending cuts, and the
Speaker 5: tariff is going to be definitely inflationary this time.
Speaker 4: There is no way.
Speaker 5: It doesn't matter whether it's how anybody else it was.
Speaker 5: The German of Federal Reserve, no chairman of Federal Reserve
Speaker 5: will be cutting interest rates right now under the circumstances.
Speaker 5: So from that point of you, for Trump to be
Speaker 5: basically throwing in tangent right now, Pennant Tables said, well,
Speaker 5: how's not doing his job? That to me again just
Speaker 5: shows that this administration is off to a terrible start.
Speaker 5: To extend that, the assumptions that they're making for where
Speaker 5: they get to now were completely wrong. And unfortunately, I'm
Speaker 5: sorry to say this. I think Scott is a great guy.
Speaker 5: But Scott did not have the same kind of relationship
Speaker 5: that Steve Mnuchen had with Trump in his first term.
Speaker 5: If you remember, Steve Mnuchen was Trump's answer the uh,
Speaker 5: you know, campaign campaign share person. Okay, So from that
Speaker 5: point of view, there was much more trust and I
Speaker 5: think therefore Munuchuen was a much more careful person. And
Speaker 5: then where I think Scott business more of an academic philosopher,
Speaker 5: a hedge fun guy who thinks big in terms of
Speaker 5: like the theory, but I think in terms of the
Speaker 5: day to day stuff, I don't know how much influence
Speaker 5: he has over Trump. As a result, I kind of
Speaker 5: feel like I think there are a lot of mistakes
Speaker 5: that have been made, And what worries me more than
Speaker 5: anything else is that maybe these mistakes cannot be undone.
Speaker 2: Okay, what happens when the crunch drives? As you said,
Speaker 2: Americans outside of investors haven't actually felt any of this
Speaker 2: impact at all, Say, like, how does Hollywood even continue
Speaker 2: with something as simple as losing access to affordable advanced lightings?
Speaker 2: And that's just a fairly small sliver of the US economy.
Speaker 2: What does this summer look like to you in the
Speaker 2: United States? Given this war of attrition dynamic that's going on.
Speaker 5: I think it's gonna look a shit show. I really
Speaker 5: believe it's going to be a shit show. I think
Speaker 5: we're going to be going to a recession. I think
Speaker 5: Trump's approval rating is gonna collapse, Okay, And I think
Speaker 5: you know the point here is this? I mean again,
Speaker 5: you know, like obviously you know, there's only one question
Speaker 5: of any interest to anybody right now, which is okay, fine,
Speaker 5: So when will Frump and Shiginging get on the phone?
Speaker 5: That's the only question, right I mean, I think we
Speaker 5: we can only we can say right now that things
Speaker 5: will probably bartom once the two men I've gotten on
Speaker 5: the phone. Where for that matter, from announced that he's
Speaker 5: going to be on his way to Beijing. To me,
Speaker 5: things are not bad enough for him to get to
Speaker 5: that point. So from that point of view, this is
Speaker 5: why I think, you know, at least in the New
Speaker 5: York term, I think stocks are still going lower. I think,
Speaker 5: you know, from that point of view because precisely the
Speaker 5: Chinese believe that time is on their side and Trump.
Speaker 5: The problem is is when you have a one hundred
Speaker 5: and forty five percent tariff on China, how do.
Speaker 4: You even back down from that?
Speaker 5: Let's just say you say, okay, fine, let's go from
Speaker 5: one forty five to one percent, or even to one
Speaker 5: hundred percent. You know what, it makes no difference. And
Speaker 5: one five percent and to one hundred percent, that doesn't
Speaker 5: mean that China is going to be able to explot
Speaker 5: anymore to the US. So from that point of view,
Speaker 5: let's think about that'smare Joe for a second in a negotiation.
Speaker 5: I thought from the very beginning, that's why I thought
Speaker 5: TikTok was a very good beginning. I thought, the only
Speaker 5: way Trump can do deals with China is by doing
Speaker 5: a bunch of small deals they venture add up to
Speaker 5: a big one. But right now, with Tarifa one hundred
Speaker 5: and forty five percent. The only kind of deal you
Speaker 5: can do will be a very big deal. I think
Speaker 5: we can we can all agree right now to do
Speaker 5: a big deal. It's going to be very difficult. For
Speaker 5: one thing, it takes a long time, a lot of time,
Speaker 5: and moreover, it takes a lot of political capital that
Speaker 5: Trump doesn't have. But again you have to remember, you know,
Speaker 5: with elamsk trying to cut spending, the only thing that
Speaker 5: the House and the Senate can agree on is to
Speaker 5: increase defense spending.
Speaker 4: Like this, the only.
Speaker 5: Difference is, well, the House most to increase defense spending
Speaker 5: only by one hundred billion dollars next year. The Senate
Speaker 5: wants to increase about one hundred and fifty billion dollars
Speaker 5: next year. Everything else is going to be going down.
Speaker 4: That's it.
Speaker 5: So when the politicians believe that, you know, China is
Speaker 5: extensive as an existential threat, that these people are evil,
Speaker 5: we need to basically stop them before they stop us,
Speaker 5: then you know what, it would be very very difficult
Speaker 5: for Trump to make that big deal that I think
Speaker 5: is necessary right now to stop this whole thing. And
Speaker 5: this is why I cannot see me just if I
Speaker 5: put my hat as a game theorist on right now.
Speaker 5: I'm struggling to see a way out right now. But
Speaker 5: maybe you know, I'm sure you'll find better, you know,
Speaker 5: more more smart.
Speaker 4: I guess now you do. No, let me know, like
Speaker 4: you know what is the way out here?
Speaker 2: David WU, that was a blast. Really appreciate your perspective.
Speaker 2: And uh, maybe in a six months or a year,
Speaker 2: or when Trump and shouldn't Pin get on the phone,
Speaker 2: we'll have you back. Thank you so much for coming
Speaker 2: back on odd lots.
Speaker 4: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: I always feel like I have to catch my breath
Speaker 2: a little bit after talking with David. I knew that
Speaker 2: it's always like, it's always that energy.
Speaker 3: You did say that in the intro, didn't you energetic?
Speaker 2: He's an energetic fellow, that's for sure.
Speaker 3: Yes, for sure. And one thing I will say, I
Speaker 3: really do appreciate some of his insights into the Trump
Speaker 3: administration because in Trump won, you know, a lot of
Speaker 3: people got that call wrong and a lot of people
Speaker 3: thought that we would see in from trade war number one,
Speaker 3: and we didn't really get that. And so it is
Speaker 3: very interesting to me to hear someone who was pretty
Speaker 3: supportive of that administration the first Trump administration, sound quite
Speaker 3: negative on the second administration. And I guess our headline
Speaker 3: for this is going to be, you know, David wu
Speaker 3: on the coming sh show in America.
Speaker 2: Look, whether it's the Bizar, whether it's the Bowyer's, the
Speaker 2: conclusion is this is a very bad situation. Yeah, right,
Speaker 2: And as he said, they've literally gotten zero accomplishments so far.
Speaker 2: The war in Ukraine is still going. There's not even
Speaker 2: a TikTok deal. And then I really do think, you
Speaker 2: know again, like you know, it's useful this idea. It's
Speaker 2: not a game of chicken and the game the damage
Speaker 2: is being done today as we speak, with hardening of
Speaker 2: opinions on both sides and the domestic polity and you know,
Speaker 2: every leader, even an authoritarian one, has to maintain domestic
Speaker 2: legitimacy to varying degrees or another. So this idea that
Speaker 2: like we're you know, this is not a situation where
Speaker 2: someone could blink. There's already been the sort of like
Speaker 2: damage and it drags on further every single day. And
Speaker 2: I think part of what we're seeing in the market
Speaker 2: is no one can see what that obvious offering, even
Speaker 2: those dynamics.
Speaker 3: Yeah, It's funny you said that. I was literally about
Speaker 3: to say the same exact sentence that the off ramp
Speaker 3: is hard to see.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: One thing I realized we mentioned wit Coough going from
Speaker 3: like being a real estate guy to special envoy. One
Speaker 3: thing I appreciate about the Trump administration is the ability
Speaker 3: for personal progress in terms of careers like you have
Speaker 3: kind of become. You know, They're very into personal development
Speaker 3: and experimenting with new roles, which is interesting to see.
Speaker 2: That's nice.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wanted to end on a nice new Yes. Okay,
Speaker 3: shall we leave it there.
Speaker 2: Let's leave it there.
Speaker 3: This has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast.
Speaker 3: I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy allow and.
Speaker 2: I'm Joe Wisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart.
Speaker 2: Check out David Wu his stuff at David Wu Unbound.
Speaker 2: He's certainly unbound. Follow our producers Carman Rodriguez at Carman Arman,
Speaker 2: dash Ol Bennett at Dashbot and Kilbrooks at Kalebrooks. From
Speaker 2: our odd Laws content, go to bloomberg dot com slash
Speaker 2: odd Lots, where have all of our episodes and a
Speaker 2: daily newsletter that you should subscribe to and you can
Speaker 2: chat about all of these topics. We even have a
Speaker 2: China room in our discord discord dot gg slash.
Speaker 3: Odd Lots And if you enjoy odd Lots, if you
Speaker 3: like it when we talk about the off ramp from
Speaker 3: the trade war or lack thereof, then please leave us
Speaker 3: a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember,
Speaker 3: if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to
Speaker 3: all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need
Speaker 3: to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts
Speaker 3: and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening
Speaker 5: It