WEBVTT - Daybreak Weekend: Jackson Hole Preview, UK Immigration, Tim Walz’s China History

0:00:02.920 --> 0:00:13.480
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. This is Bloomberg Daybreak Weekend,

0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:15.480
<v Speaker 1>our global look at the top stories in the coming

0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.280
<v Speaker 1>week from our Daybreak anchors all around the world. Straight

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:20.000
<v Speaker 1>ahead on the program, and look at what some of

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:22.919
<v Speaker 1>the top fed officials may have to say at this

0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:26.840
<v Speaker 1>year's Jackson Hole Symposium. I'm Tom Busby in New York.

0:00:27.360 --> 0:00:31.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm Karlin Hepburn London, where we're dissecting the UK's immigration dilemma.

0:00:32.479 --> 0:00:35.920
<v Speaker 3>I'm Doug Prisoner looking at Tim Walls's relationship with China

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:39.040
<v Speaker 3>as he prepares to take the stage at the Democratic

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:39.920
<v Speaker 3>National Convention.

0:00:41.520 --> 0:00:45.520
<v Speaker 4>That's all straight ahead on Bloomberg Daybreak Weekend on Bloomberg

0:00:45.560 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 4>Eleve Them three Own New York, Bloomberg ninety nine to one, Washington, DC,

0:00:49.680 --> 0:00:53.720
<v Speaker 4>Bloomberg one O six one, Boston, Bloomberg nine sixty, San Francisco,

0:00:53.960 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 4>DAB Digital Radio, London, Sirius XM one nineteen and around

0:00:58.240 --> 0:01:00.760
<v Speaker 4>the world on Bloomberg Radio dot Com. Come and buya

0:01:00.800 --> 0:01:02.080
<v Speaker 4>the Bloomberg Business app.

0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:08.319
<v Speaker 1>Good day to you. I'm Tom Busby. We begin today's

0:01:08.360 --> 0:01:11.480
<v Speaker 1>program with a look at the Annual Economic Policy Symposium

0:01:11.520 --> 0:01:14.959
<v Speaker 1>in Jackson Hall, Wyoming this week the Federal Reserve Bank

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:20.520
<v Speaker 1>of Kansas City will host dozens of central bankers, policymakers, academics, economists.

0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:20.840
<v Speaker 5>From all over the world.

0:01:21.200 --> 0:01:24.880
<v Speaker 1>FED Chair J Powell expected to give remarks on Friday,

0:01:24.880 --> 0:01:27.360
<v Speaker 1>and the big questions will he set the table for

0:01:27.440 --> 0:01:30.200
<v Speaker 1>a September interest rate cut and how big a cut

0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:33.560
<v Speaker 1>could we see? For more, we're joined by Michael McKee,

0:01:33.600 --> 0:01:38.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent. Well, Michael Powell has

0:01:38.360 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 1>said all along any change in rates will be a

0:01:40.959 --> 0:01:44.520
<v Speaker 1>data driven decision. Let's talk about the data and what

0:01:44.520 --> 0:01:45.760
<v Speaker 1>you're expecting this week.

0:01:45.959 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 6>Well, we've got data driving the economy towards a rate

0:01:50.240 --> 0:01:54.320
<v Speaker 6>cut in September. This past week, we saw inflation come

0:01:54.360 --> 0:01:59.559
<v Speaker 6>down significantly and also symbolically as the headline CPI number

0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:01.720
<v Speaker 6>comes in two point nine percent, the first time it's

0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 6>been below three percent since the beginning of the pandemic.

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:08.919
<v Speaker 6>So good news on the inflation front. And then we

0:02:09.000 --> 0:02:12.880
<v Speaker 6>saw late in the week the retail sales numbers come

0:02:12.919 --> 0:02:17.360
<v Speaker 6>in strong, stronger than expected certainly, and Americans are still spending.

0:02:17.400 --> 0:02:20.040
<v Speaker 6>So the idea of a recession is kind of off

0:02:20.080 --> 0:02:23.799
<v Speaker 6>the table, but this kind of lines everything up for

0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:27.560
<v Speaker 6>a rate cut in September. Now there's more data to

0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:31.600
<v Speaker 6>come in September, but no significant data before Jay Powell speaks.

0:02:32.040 --> 0:02:34.560
<v Speaker 1>Let me take a step back. Two weeks ago, we

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:38.120
<v Speaker 1>saw the Dow tumble one thousand points. Some people on

0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:40.359
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street, yes, there was the carry trade in Japan,

0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:42.720
<v Speaker 1>which was a big part of that. But also some

0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:45.000
<v Speaker 1>people on Wall Street said it's because the Fed missed

0:02:45.000 --> 0:02:48.959
<v Speaker 1>the boat on just prior to that, leaving rates unchanged

0:02:48.960 --> 0:02:51.280
<v Speaker 1>for I think the eighth meeting in a row. But

0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:54.880
<v Speaker 1>the Fed didn't budge, no emergency cut, no panicking. What

0:02:54.919 --> 0:02:57.760
<v Speaker 1>does this tell you about Jay Powell and the Fed

0:02:58.000 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 1>that they just ignore the noise and carry on.

0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 6>How did you survive the great recession of August date?

0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:09.080
<v Speaker 6>It tells you that the Fed is not the market.

0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:11.040
<v Speaker 6>The market is trying to adjust on a day by

0:03:11.080 --> 0:03:14.560
<v Speaker 6>day basis, and people get into herd behavior or panic behavior,

0:03:14.960 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 6>and we see that all the time. The Fed is

0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:21.280
<v Speaker 6>going to be much slower to react. First of all,

0:03:22.240 --> 0:03:25.520
<v Speaker 6>they don't really care whether the market goes up or

0:03:25.639 --> 0:03:28.680
<v Speaker 6>down as long as you can still trade. If the

0:03:28.800 --> 0:03:33.160
<v Speaker 6>market is functioning, then the Fed tends to leave it alone.

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:35.240
<v Speaker 6>The only time they really jump in with any kind

0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 6>of emergency help is when the market sees up because

0:03:38.480 --> 0:03:41.520
<v Speaker 6>people won't trade, and that's not the case. It wasn't

0:03:41.520 --> 0:03:44.560
<v Speaker 6>the case that week either. It was just that those

0:03:44.600 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 6>who were trading were losing money, and that's not the

0:03:47.360 --> 0:03:50.400
<v Speaker 6>Fed's job to keep them to keep them there. And

0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:52.520
<v Speaker 6>what's funny is you see we saw this at the

0:03:52.520 --> 0:03:54.760
<v Speaker 6>beginning of the year, six rate cuts, price did and

0:03:54.760 --> 0:03:57.400
<v Speaker 6>then we got down to like one, and then we

0:03:57.440 --> 0:04:00.440
<v Speaker 6>got down to is the Fed going to cut it all?

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 6>And then all of a sudden we had people panicking

0:04:02.720 --> 0:04:05.680
<v Speaker 6>and saying we're going to get four or five rate cuts,

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 6>and the Fed through all this hasn't changed anything. The

0:04:09.600 --> 0:04:11.000
<v Speaker 6>interest rate has stayed the same.

0:04:12.000 --> 0:04:12.160
<v Speaker 4>Now.

0:04:12.200 --> 0:04:14.280
<v Speaker 1>I know you mentioned the jobs report though, or what

0:04:14.320 --> 0:04:17.040
<v Speaker 1>we're going to get before the next meeting September sixth.

0:04:17.040 --> 0:04:19.320
<v Speaker 1>We're going to get the August jobs report. I know

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:21.960
<v Speaker 1>it's far off, but we have seen what the FED

0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:24.960
<v Speaker 1>was expecting, a little slow down in job creation. Are

0:04:25.000 --> 0:04:27.440
<v Speaker 1>you expecting more of the same for the month of August.

0:04:27.960 --> 0:04:28.400
<v Speaker 7>We are.

0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:30.520
<v Speaker 6>I've talked to a number of economists. It's too early

0:04:30.560 --> 0:04:33.280
<v Speaker 6>for them to make forecasts, but basically they're thinking that

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:37.039
<v Speaker 6>we are going to rebound from the July numbers and

0:04:37.760 --> 0:04:40.560
<v Speaker 6>go back up in terms of job creation and maybe

0:04:41.240 --> 0:04:45.560
<v Speaker 6>even go down in terms of the unemployment rate. But

0:04:45.640 --> 0:04:48.359
<v Speaker 6>they don't have a great firm grasp on number. But

0:04:48.400 --> 0:04:51.400
<v Speaker 6>they do think that we may not go above job

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:54.200
<v Speaker 6>creation as we saw it for much of this year,

0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:58.080
<v Speaker 6>but that it will be higher than the number we

0:04:58.120 --> 0:04:59.039
<v Speaker 6>saw in July.

0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:02.880
<v Speaker 1>Well that's good. Now, eight meetings in a row, rates

0:05:02.920 --> 0:05:06.080
<v Speaker 1>have been left unchanged. The last change in rates a

0:05:06.160 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 1>hike in July of last year. The last cut was

0:05:09.080 --> 0:05:11.680
<v Speaker 1>over four years ago, at the start of the pandemic,

0:05:11.839 --> 0:05:16.200
<v Speaker 1>so historically there hasn't been much movement since then, you know,

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:21.680
<v Speaker 1>little incremental certainly the past year. What do you hear

0:05:21.800 --> 0:05:25.360
<v Speaker 1>from not just Jerome Powell, but other FED governors and

0:05:25.440 --> 0:05:30.200
<v Speaker 1>presidents about what's coming up in September and what are

0:05:30.240 --> 0:05:34.640
<v Speaker 1>the hints allegations of what we can expect to see.

0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:38.560
<v Speaker 6>Well, they basically are kind of united around the idea

0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:41.840
<v Speaker 6>that it is almost time to cut interest rates. There's

0:05:41.880 --> 0:05:45.520
<v Speaker 6>some difference between them in terms of whether they really

0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:47.880
<v Speaker 6>think they need to go in September or whether they

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:51.080
<v Speaker 6>could wait. But I think when you get to the

0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:54.760
<v Speaker 6>September eighteenth meeting. If we don't see any big data

0:05:54.800 --> 0:05:58.320
<v Speaker 6>surprises between now and then, you'll get another unanimous decision,

0:05:59.480 --> 0:06:03.040
<v Speaker 6>because there isn't a real argument for keeping rates as

0:06:03.160 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 6>high as they are right now. The housing industry would

0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:10.719
<v Speaker 6>certainly love to see rates go down. That's the one

0:06:10.880 --> 0:06:14.720
<v Speaker 6>lagging part of the economy. And so if they get

0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:19.560
<v Speaker 6>December September eighteenth, I think they start the process, and

0:06:19.640 --> 0:06:22.760
<v Speaker 6>probably not with a fifty basis point cut, but they

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:26.400
<v Speaker 6>may cut two more times this year and into next

0:06:26.480 --> 0:06:29.360
<v Speaker 6>year as they feel their way toward what a neutral

0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:30.039
<v Speaker 6>level will be.

0:06:30.880 --> 0:06:32.960
<v Speaker 1>Now a little plug here, Michael, you're going to be

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:35.480
<v Speaker 1>in Jackson hole. Who are you going to speak with

0:06:35.560 --> 0:06:36.279
<v Speaker 1>this coming week?

0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:42.200
<v Speaker 6>I'm Tom Keen. He's welcome, He's welcome. We're going to

0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:45.880
<v Speaker 6>speak with raphae Albostik from Atlanta, who justice last week

0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:49.440
<v Speaker 6>said he's open to a September rate cut. We'll talk

0:06:49.480 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 6>to Austin Goolsby from Chicago, who's been one of the

0:06:51.880 --> 0:06:57.400
<v Speaker 6>more dubbish and interested in seeing a rate cut. And

0:06:57.480 --> 0:07:00.800
<v Speaker 6>we'll talk to Patrick Harker from Philadelphia, who has been

0:07:01.400 --> 0:07:05.040
<v Speaker 6>somewhat quiet about his views, but I think he's going

0:07:05.120 --> 0:07:07.200
<v Speaker 6>to be on board with the idea of a rate

0:07:07.279 --> 0:07:08.880
<v Speaker 6>cut as well. We're also going to talk to Est

0:07:08.960 --> 0:07:12.760
<v Speaker 6>George and lare Mester, two familiar names who are no

0:07:12.840 --> 0:07:16.880
<v Speaker 6>longer at the FED, but are still invited to the conference,

0:07:16.960 --> 0:07:19.720
<v Speaker 6>so they'll give us their views from the outside of

0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:20.760
<v Speaker 6>what the FED could be doing.

0:07:20.800 --> 0:07:20.880
<v Speaker 8>Well.

0:07:20.920 --> 0:07:22.120
<v Speaker 1>It's always nice to be invited.

0:07:22.160 --> 0:07:22.320
<v Speaker 8>Well.

0:07:22.320 --> 0:07:26.720
<v Speaker 1>Our thanks to Michael McKee, Bloomberg International Economics and Policy correspondent.

0:07:27.320 --> 0:07:29.880
<v Speaker 1>While we wait for that Jackson Hole summit, we focus

0:07:29.960 --> 0:07:32.880
<v Speaker 1>now a bit more on the US consumer now. Last week,

0:07:32.920 --> 0:07:36.560
<v Speaker 1>after a strong Q two earnings report, Walmart raised its

0:07:36.600 --> 0:07:39.560
<v Speaker 1>sales guidance for the full year, expecting even more bargain

0:07:39.600 --> 0:07:42.160
<v Speaker 1>hunting shoppers to head to its stores and its website.

0:07:42.640 --> 0:07:46.600
<v Speaker 1>This week. A top discount competitor, Target Stores, reporting second

0:07:46.640 --> 0:07:50.320
<v Speaker 1>quarter earnings on Wednesday. That follows a disappointing first quarter.

0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:52.480
<v Speaker 1>The question though, how is the chain holding up in

0:07:52.480 --> 0:07:55.960
<v Speaker 1>this high inflation environment? What will its results tell us

0:07:55.960 --> 0:07:58.080
<v Speaker 1>about the health of the US consumer? And for more

0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:01.640
<v Speaker 1>on that and what to expect, Joined by Jennifer Bartasha's

0:08:01.880 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence Senior analyst Retail, Staples and packaged Foods. So

0:08:07.120 --> 0:08:10.040
<v Speaker 1>Jennifer A. Lot of consumers. Well, they are spending money,

0:08:10.120 --> 0:08:13.760
<v Speaker 1>but they want bargains. My question to you are they

0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:15.840
<v Speaker 1>finding them at Target? And what do you expect to

0:08:15.880 --> 0:08:17.400
<v Speaker 1>see in its earnings report.

0:08:17.720 --> 0:08:20.480
<v Speaker 8>It's a question at the top of everyone's minds. So

0:08:20.680 --> 0:08:23.880
<v Speaker 8>with regards to Target, one of the things to remember

0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:26.920
<v Speaker 8>is that they have a much easier comparison in second

0:08:27.000 --> 0:08:29.960
<v Speaker 8>quarter than they did a year ago because last year

0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:31.840
<v Speaker 8>at this time, it was the quarter where they had

0:08:31.880 --> 0:08:35.240
<v Speaker 8>the backlash from all the consumer boycotts with regards to

0:08:35.280 --> 0:08:38.480
<v Speaker 8>their Pride assortment. So they had a very poor quarter

0:08:38.640 --> 0:08:41.240
<v Speaker 8>a year ago, So the comparisons are a lot easier

0:08:41.600 --> 0:08:45.840
<v Speaker 8>now that said, consumers are still seeking value. One of

0:08:45.840 --> 0:08:47.880
<v Speaker 8>the things that Target has done is they made an

0:08:47.880 --> 0:08:51.800
<v Speaker 8>announcement in July about rolling back prices, especially on food

0:08:51.800 --> 0:08:54.880
<v Speaker 8>and essentials, and that seemed to resonate with people. So

0:08:55.000 --> 0:08:57.520
<v Speaker 8>hopefully we'll see some stronger traffic into stores for the

0:08:57.559 --> 0:08:58.160
<v Speaker 8>second quarter.

0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:01.760
<v Speaker 1>Now, I think the of the Target customer for many

0:09:01.760 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 1>people a little bit of a higher earner than your

0:09:04.480 --> 0:09:08.200
<v Speaker 1>typical Walmart customer. How do you think Target compares to Walmart?

0:09:08.520 --> 0:09:12.760
<v Speaker 1>It's customer, it's offerings, its prices, price points.

0:09:13.280 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 8>Historically there was a gap between the typical Target consumer,

0:09:17.400 --> 0:09:20.760
<v Speaker 8>which was a little bit higher income versus the Walmart consumer,

0:09:20.840 --> 0:09:23.600
<v Speaker 8>and their core consumer was usually associated with the lower

0:09:23.600 --> 0:09:27.079
<v Speaker 8>to middle lower income bands. But we've heard Walmart talk

0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 8>about the last two quarters that reported earnings that they're

0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:34.000
<v Speaker 8>pulling more higher income households into its sphere and that

0:09:34.120 --> 0:09:37.440
<v Speaker 8>more higher income households are shopping at Walmart. That is

0:09:37.480 --> 0:09:39.679
<v Speaker 8>a bit of a concern for Target because that's kind

0:09:39.720 --> 0:09:43.120
<v Speaker 8>of creeping into what has traditionally been their core consumer.

0:09:43.559 --> 0:09:46.120
<v Speaker 8>So in order to combat that, it really comes down

0:09:46.160 --> 0:09:48.720
<v Speaker 8>to things that Target is good at but just needs

0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:52.439
<v Speaker 8>to continue to execute well. Private label and their fashion,

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:56.280
<v Speaker 8>you know, being fashion forward, being exactly what consumers want

0:09:56.280 --> 0:09:58.640
<v Speaker 8>before they realize they need it. Those are the things

0:09:58.679 --> 0:10:01.560
<v Speaker 8>that historically have made Target it really stand out from Walmart.

0:10:02.280 --> 0:10:05.000
<v Speaker 8>And you know, it's a little bit hard when discretionary

0:10:05.000 --> 0:10:07.960
<v Speaker 8>spending is still a bit soft, but that's really where

0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:10.880
<v Speaker 8>they differentiate and can continue to differentiate from Walmart.

0:10:11.080 --> 0:10:13.720
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and I think their brands is Market, Pantry, Good

0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:16.600
<v Speaker 1>and Gather. Then they have home furnishings like deal Worthy,

0:10:17.040 --> 0:10:18.800
<v Speaker 1>really a big draw I think for a lot of.

0:10:18.720 --> 0:10:22.440
<v Speaker 8>Consumers it really is. And you know, part of what

0:10:22.440 --> 0:10:25.600
<v Speaker 8>what Target is very good at is being fashion forward,

0:10:25.600 --> 0:10:28.360
<v Speaker 8>whether that's in a parallel whether that's in home decor

0:10:28.679 --> 0:10:32.040
<v Speaker 8>whether that's in food and finding things that are you know,

0:10:32.280 --> 0:10:34.400
<v Speaker 8>the developing trends, I think is the way you want

0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:36.880
<v Speaker 8>to say it. And so as long as they can

0:10:36.920 --> 0:10:39.920
<v Speaker 8>stay agile and continue to meet those that is a

0:10:40.000 --> 0:10:43.400
<v Speaker 8>draw for their consumers. One of the things that could

0:10:43.400 --> 0:10:46.640
<v Speaker 8>be in an area of concern for this quarter is

0:10:46.679 --> 0:10:49.040
<v Speaker 8>that in the last three quarters, beauty has been sort

0:10:49.080 --> 0:10:52.640
<v Speaker 8>of something that Target has highlighted. We ran a Bloomberg

0:10:52.679 --> 0:10:56.480
<v Speaker 8>Intelligence Survey consumer survey on beauty and for the first

0:10:56.480 --> 0:11:00.040
<v Speaker 8>time in multiple years, we've seen softening in demand and

0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:02.800
<v Speaker 8>for beauty. So it will be interesting to see if

0:11:02.800 --> 0:11:06.520
<v Speaker 8>that translates through to Target as well. But it is

0:11:06.640 --> 0:11:10.439
<v Speaker 8>kind of a broader indicator that that category, which has

0:11:10.640 --> 0:11:12.839
<v Speaker 8>been pretty strong for Target, is starting to show a

0:11:12.840 --> 0:11:13.720
<v Speaker 8>little bit of weakness.

0:11:13.840 --> 0:11:17.719
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, the lipstick indicator in the economy, that's not that scary. Well,

0:11:17.760 --> 0:11:20.400
<v Speaker 1>I have another question about Target, and it's about e commerce.

0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:23.600
<v Speaker 1>You know, obviously Amazon is the king, but are they

0:11:23.640 --> 0:11:26.280
<v Speaker 1>in the same league as some of their competitors. Are

0:11:26.360 --> 0:11:27.480
<v Speaker 1>they a little behind?

0:11:27.840 --> 0:11:31.320
<v Speaker 8>Well, Target executes very well on e commerce, but they

0:11:31.400 --> 0:11:33.800
<v Speaker 8>have a different strategy. They're not trying to conquer the

0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:37.640
<v Speaker 8>world with regards to e commerce. So Target traditionally has

0:11:37.800 --> 0:11:41.400
<v Speaker 8>been very has taken an approach it's more curated. So

0:11:41.679 --> 0:11:44.520
<v Speaker 8>it's a curated a selection that's on their website. So

0:11:44.960 --> 0:11:48.560
<v Speaker 8>although they have third party sellers, it's only items that

0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:50.960
<v Speaker 8>they think their consumers will want, versus kind of those

0:11:51.040 --> 0:11:54.160
<v Speaker 8>endless aisles that you expect from Amazon or even from Walmart.

0:11:54.880 --> 0:11:58.240
<v Speaker 8>And so by kind of keeping that that tailored environment,

0:11:58.679 --> 0:12:01.520
<v Speaker 8>it's easier for them to dish up results when people

0:12:01.559 --> 0:12:04.720
<v Speaker 8>are searching for things that are relevant to them. So

0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:09.120
<v Speaker 8>that has helped make targets e commerce platform pretty successful.

0:12:09.920 --> 0:12:11.839
<v Speaker 8>And the other thing that is a strength for them

0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:13.800
<v Speaker 8>is that a lot of those orders that they get

0:12:13.800 --> 0:12:17.640
<v Speaker 8>are fulfilled in stores. When they fulfill orders from stores,

0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:21.000
<v Speaker 8>it means that the product is actually closer to the customer,

0:12:21.200 --> 0:12:23.560
<v Speaker 8>which means it's cheaper to deliver it to the customer,

0:12:23.640 --> 0:12:26.960
<v Speaker 8>and that helps make the profitability of e commerce a

0:12:27.000 --> 0:12:30.400
<v Speaker 8>lot better. And so those are sort of the strengths

0:12:30.400 --> 0:12:33.840
<v Speaker 8>that Target has and I think that investors appreciate that

0:12:33.880 --> 0:12:37.360
<v Speaker 8>they're doing it. Their own way and not just trying

0:12:37.400 --> 0:12:40.920
<v Speaker 8>to chase any sale at the cost of the profitability

0:12:40.960 --> 0:12:41.520
<v Speaker 8>of the business.

0:12:41.760 --> 0:12:44.080
<v Speaker 1>Well a lot to look forward to. Second quarter earnings

0:12:44.080 --> 0:12:47.559
<v Speaker 1>from Target out this Wednesday are thanks to Jennifer bartashis

0:12:47.640 --> 0:12:51.959
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence Senior Analyst, Retail, Staples and packaged Food. Coming

0:12:52.000 --> 0:12:54.720
<v Speaker 1>up on Bloomberg day Break weekend, we'll dissect the UK's

0:12:54.960 --> 0:13:11.200
<v Speaker 1>immigration dilemma. I'm Tom Busby and this is Bloomberg. This

0:13:11.280 --> 0:13:13.600
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg Daybreak Weekend, our global look ahead at the

0:13:13.600 --> 0:13:16.200
<v Speaker 1>top stories for investors in the coming week. I'm Tom

0:13:16.240 --> 0:13:18.880
<v Speaker 1>Busby in New York. Up later on our program, we'll

0:13:18.920 --> 0:13:22.280
<v Speaker 1>look at vice presidential candidate Tim Waltz's relationship with China

0:13:22.559 --> 0:13:25.079
<v Speaker 1>as he prepares to take the stage at the Democratic

0:13:25.160 --> 0:13:28.840
<v Speaker 1>National Convention. But first, the UK still reeling from its

0:13:28.880 --> 0:13:32.880
<v Speaker 1>worst rioting in over a decade, fueled by anti immigrant sentiment.

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:36.000
<v Speaker 1>As even more arrivals are expected, it's become a major

0:13:36.000 --> 0:13:39.320
<v Speaker 1>flashpoint for Prime Minister Keir Starmer's new government, which has

0:13:39.400 --> 0:13:42.080
<v Speaker 1>promised to limit the number of new entrants to the country.

0:13:42.120 --> 0:13:45.000
<v Speaker 1>For more, Let's go to London and bring in Bloomberg Daybreak.

0:13:45.000 --> 0:13:47.600
<v Speaker 1>Europe banker Caroline hepger Tom.

0:13:47.800 --> 0:13:50.840
<v Speaker 2>More than a thousand people have now been arrested following

0:13:50.880 --> 0:13:54.200
<v Speaker 2>several days of anti immigrant disorder across the UK at

0:13:54.200 --> 0:13:57.360
<v Speaker 2>the end of July and beginning of August. The rioting

0:13:57.480 --> 0:14:00.840
<v Speaker 2>was sparked by the fatal stabbings of three young girls

0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:05.120
<v Speaker 2>attending a Taylor Swift themed dance class in Southport, in

0:14:05.200 --> 0:14:07.760
<v Speaker 2>the northwest of England on the twenty ninth of July.

0:14:08.640 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 2>Misinformation about the attacker being a Muslim asylum seeker spread

0:14:13.320 --> 0:14:18.359
<v Speaker 2>swiftly online and encouraged by far right activists and protesters.

0:14:18.640 --> 0:14:23.520
<v Speaker 2>It resulted in days of anti immigration demonstrations that turned violent,

0:14:23.840 --> 0:14:29.080
<v Speaker 2>targeting the police, migrant support facilities and mosques. Prime Minister

0:14:29.160 --> 0:14:32.800
<v Speaker 2>Kirs Starmer has now placed an emphasis on speedy and

0:14:32.960 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 2>tough punishment in a bid to restore calm That seems

0:14:37.080 --> 0:14:40.240
<v Speaker 2>to have largely worked, but it remains to be seen

0:14:40.320 --> 0:14:43.800
<v Speaker 2>how his Labor Party will approach the issue of migration,

0:14:44.120 --> 0:14:48.320
<v Speaker 2>a political flashpoint over the last few years that successive

0:14:48.360 --> 0:14:52.920
<v Speaker 2>governments have been forced to reckon with Bloomberg's EMEA Equalities

0:14:53.080 --> 0:14:57.480
<v Speaker 2>editor Syrage Datu says that the recent disorder fueled by

0:14:57.520 --> 0:15:03.000
<v Speaker 2>that online misinformation lay is bare the scale of the challenge.

0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:06.960
<v Speaker 9>And very very quickly things online turned quite violent. And

0:15:07.000 --> 0:15:10.640
<v Speaker 9>so you had that misinformation right from the start that

0:15:10.760 --> 0:15:13.760
<v Speaker 9>largely at the beginning happened on X and then you

0:15:13.840 --> 0:15:20.000
<v Speaker 9>started having groups organizing on different platforms, places like Telegram,

0:15:20.080 --> 0:15:25.440
<v Speaker 9>places like discord where they're not necessarily available to their public.

0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:30.240
<v Speaker 9>You really had a very quick virality of this misinformation

0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:33.920
<v Speaker 9>that the key thing that happened in this time was

0:15:34.000 --> 0:15:36.840
<v Speaker 9>that it played on the fears that people have, and

0:15:36.960 --> 0:15:39.120
<v Speaker 9>very quickly y had that they're escalated into violence.

0:15:39.440 --> 0:15:41.160
<v Speaker 10>How much do you think that foreign states have been

0:15:41.400 --> 0:15:44.320
<v Speaker 10>interfering in this in this business, the.

0:15:44.320 --> 0:15:47.440
<v Speaker 9>Government is very much looking into the idea of foreign

0:15:47.480 --> 0:15:50.280
<v Speaker 9>interference and foreign involvement, and this is you know, this

0:15:50.360 --> 0:15:53.320
<v Speaker 9>is not necessarily new. We know that our style states

0:15:53.360 --> 0:15:57.240
<v Speaker 9>have been involved in missing and spreading sharing misinformation for

0:15:57.320 --> 0:15:59.680
<v Speaker 9>some time. But what I will say is I spoke

0:15:59.720 --> 0:16:03.840
<v Speaker 9>to a called Logically, a group that counters disinformation, and

0:16:03.880 --> 0:16:06.520
<v Speaker 9>they spoke to me about a group called Channel three now,

0:16:06.600 --> 0:16:08.720
<v Speaker 9>which is a fake news channel, and they were one

0:16:08.720 --> 0:16:11.680
<v Speaker 9>of the first accounts on x to share this fake name.

0:16:12.480 --> 0:16:15.600
<v Speaker 9>And it started out as a YouTube channel that was

0:16:15.640 --> 0:16:19.120
<v Speaker 9>sharing Russian home videos. It then made the shift to

0:16:19.400 --> 0:16:24.360
<v Speaker 9>Pakistani content. It went through a cycle of different branding,

0:16:24.560 --> 0:16:28.520
<v Speaker 9>different fake news organization names, and then now it's registered

0:16:28.560 --> 0:16:30.880
<v Speaker 9>in Lithuania. And what they said to me is it

0:16:31.000 --> 0:16:36.120
<v Speaker 9>mirrors the tactics of a Russian disinformation campaign. But then

0:16:36.240 --> 0:16:40.280
<v Speaker 9>cautioned and added, but the problem is that real people,

0:16:40.640 --> 0:16:43.840
<v Speaker 9>especially in their ways, people who are extremely online people

0:16:44.520 --> 0:16:47.880
<v Speaker 9>tend to post online in a way that mirrors bots.

0:16:48.000 --> 0:16:50.160
<v Speaker 9>That's why it's so hard to retell who's behind some

0:16:50.280 --> 0:16:50.480
<v Speaker 9>of this.

0:16:51.200 --> 0:16:54.240
<v Speaker 2>What about Elon Musk and his role you mentioned x

0:16:54.800 --> 0:16:59.040
<v Speaker 2>he has found the flames one can argue of extremism

0:16:59.120 --> 0:17:01.520
<v Speaker 2>in the UK. What's his involvement here?

0:17:03.320 --> 0:17:06.919
<v Speaker 9>This is a really interesting one. So obviously, even masked

0:17:07.000 --> 0:17:11.320
<v Speaker 9>the owner effects, he's made really provocative posts on his

0:17:11.359 --> 0:17:16.920
<v Speaker 9>own platform saying that civil war is inevitable. Henry Parker

0:17:16.960 --> 0:17:21.560
<v Speaker 9>from Logically told me that actually he's really going against

0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:24.560
<v Speaker 9>the terms and conditions off his own platform. This, you know,

0:17:24.600 --> 0:17:28.520
<v Speaker 9>this isn't really this sort of language isn't acceptable. But

0:17:28.560 --> 0:17:30.040
<v Speaker 9>of course he has the owners. I don't think they're

0:17:30.040 --> 0:17:33.119
<v Speaker 9>going to delete his account. But what we have seen recently,

0:17:33.160 --> 0:17:36.600
<v Speaker 9>people like Tommy Robinson whose real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon,

0:17:37.200 --> 0:17:40.879
<v Speaker 9>who's been inspiring a lot of the protests in person,

0:17:40.960 --> 0:17:45.240
<v Speaker 9>but while he's been abroad reportedly in Cypress on holiday,

0:17:45.880 --> 0:17:47.920
<v Speaker 9>he wasn't allowed on Twitter. Just a few years ago

0:17:48.640 --> 0:17:51.520
<v Speaker 9>he was banned and he's been allowed back on x

0:17:52.040 --> 0:17:55.920
<v Speaker 9>so I think Mask's role has been twofold. It's not

0:17:56.040 --> 0:18:00.000
<v Speaker 9>just potentially, you know, getting into clashes with Prime Minie,

0:18:00.840 --> 0:18:03.320
<v Speaker 9>but also the way that he has led his company.

0:18:03.800 --> 0:18:06.600
<v Speaker 10>Something that you must posted about people being arrested for

0:18:06.680 --> 0:18:10.840
<v Speaker 10>social media posts, people being arrested on the Communications Act

0:18:10.920 --> 0:18:14.040
<v Speaker 10>for posting on social media. But this is a controversial error,

0:18:14.040 --> 0:18:16.840
<v Speaker 10>isn't it. Can the UK really police the Internet in

0:18:16.880 --> 0:18:17.280
<v Speaker 10>this way?

0:18:18.119 --> 0:18:20.919
<v Speaker 9>Yeah? Again, this is a of course it's going to

0:18:20.920 --> 0:18:23.719
<v Speaker 9>be controversial. I guess it comes down to the idea

0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:29.800
<v Speaker 9>that should incitement of hatred only apply in person or

0:18:29.880 --> 0:18:33.399
<v Speaker 9>should you be charged for incitement of hatred wherever it happens.

0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 9>And obviously the Communications Act means that you know, and

0:18:36.840 --> 0:18:40.399
<v Speaker 9>the government decided that it should be so that it's

0:18:40.440 --> 0:18:42.679
<v Speaker 9>not necessarily it's not really new, something that's been happening

0:18:42.680 --> 0:18:46.479
<v Speaker 9>for quite a while, but obviously in situations like this,

0:18:46.600 --> 0:18:49.560
<v Speaker 9>where there are inflamed tensions where we do have violence.

0:18:50.160 --> 0:18:53.919
<v Speaker 9>Perhaps we're hearing about these charges being made more whereas

0:18:53.960 --> 0:18:56.560
<v Speaker 9>in normal circumstances it just happens behind the scenes. I

0:18:56.560 --> 0:18:58.679
<v Speaker 9>should terrify you know that the people who have been

0:18:58.760 --> 0:19:01.960
<v Speaker 9>charged on this, who have been saying things like go

0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:05.360
<v Speaker 9>and burn hotels that have asylums because in them it's

0:19:05.400 --> 0:19:08.960
<v Speaker 9>not language that is it's not tempered language. Obviously you

0:19:08.960 --> 0:19:11.919
<v Speaker 9>know that it is quite a violent language.

0:19:12.200 --> 0:19:15.639
<v Speaker 2>That was Sirage Datu speaking to me on the Bloomberg

0:19:15.720 --> 0:19:21.120
<v Speaker 2>UK Politics program. Well aside from questions about social integration,

0:19:21.400 --> 0:19:26.159
<v Speaker 2>immigration is also heavily tied to the UK's economic performance.

0:19:26.640 --> 0:19:29.720
<v Speaker 2>Just last month, the Confederation for British Industry, the main

0:19:29.840 --> 0:19:34.600
<v Speaker 2>business lobby here, one that curves on migration could hinder

0:19:34.640 --> 0:19:39.160
<v Speaker 2>the country's economic outlook. So what will the government's approach

0:19:39.359 --> 0:19:42.800
<v Speaker 2>be to this issue. Kirs Starmer has talked about wanting

0:19:42.880 --> 0:19:46.520
<v Speaker 2>to quote smash the gangs, quite similar really to Rishi

0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:50.520
<v Speaker 2>Sunac's stop the boat's message when it comes to people

0:19:50.720 --> 0:19:54.560
<v Speaker 2>who are coming illegally to Britain. But the new government

0:19:54.600 --> 0:19:58.720
<v Speaker 2>has yet to settle on its overall migration policy. Since

0:19:58.760 --> 0:20:03.080
<v Speaker 2>the landslide elect victory of July. Join me now to

0:20:03.160 --> 0:20:06.760
<v Speaker 2>discuss this in greater depth is Bloomberg's UK economics reporter

0:20:07.080 --> 0:20:11.240
<v Speaker 2>Lucy White, Lucy Fogods, have you on the program. There

0:20:11.280 --> 0:20:16.400
<v Speaker 2>are various different kinds of migration statistics and that can

0:20:16.480 --> 0:20:18.439
<v Speaker 2>get a lot of people into a lot of trouble

0:20:18.560 --> 0:20:22.440
<v Speaker 2>very quickly. What do you think though, that the migration

0:20:22.680 --> 0:20:26.159
<v Speaker 2>numbers overall are looking like for the UK and the

0:20:26.240 --> 0:20:27.800
<v Speaker 2>debate in Britain at the moment.

0:20:28.400 --> 0:20:30.960
<v Speaker 11>So we had the last time we had migration data

0:20:30.960 --> 0:20:33.439
<v Speaker 11>out that was from the Office for National Statistics, a

0:20:33.480 --> 0:20:37.200
<v Speaker 11>big set of migration data, and that was around long

0:20:37.320 --> 0:20:41.480
<v Speaker 11>term migration to the UK, and that showed migration falling

0:20:41.720 --> 0:20:44.800
<v Speaker 11>to six hundred and eighty five thousand net migration, so

0:20:44.920 --> 0:20:48.080
<v Speaker 11>that the total number of people coming in compared to

0:20:48.119 --> 0:20:50.600
<v Speaker 11>those going out falling to six hundred and eighty five

0:20:50.640 --> 0:20:53.359
<v Speaker 11>thousand in twenty twenty three from seven hundred and sixty

0:20:53.400 --> 0:20:56.399
<v Speaker 11>four thousand a year earlier. That's obviously quite a big drop,

0:20:56.720 --> 0:21:00.040
<v Speaker 11>but it's still showing migration at very high levels and

0:21:00.600 --> 0:21:03.400
<v Speaker 11>away off the tens of thousands that David Cameron spoke

0:21:03.400 --> 0:21:05.199
<v Speaker 11>about when he was trying to get elected back in

0:21:05.200 --> 0:21:09.400
<v Speaker 11>twenty ten. Brexit has changed the type of migration coming

0:21:09.480 --> 0:21:12.000
<v Speaker 11>into the UK. So before we tended to have a

0:21:12.000 --> 0:21:14.879
<v Speaker 11>lot of European migrants coming to the UK, many of

0:21:14.880 --> 0:21:17.520
<v Speaker 11>whom would fill you know, kind of more casual roles

0:21:17.560 --> 0:21:21.240
<v Speaker 11>bar work and you know, hospitality as well as other roles.

0:21:21.840 --> 0:21:24.680
<v Speaker 11>But while there's a huge focus on the small boats elements,

0:21:24.680 --> 0:21:28.240
<v Speaker 11>as you just mentioned, they only constitute a tiny proportion

0:21:28.440 --> 0:21:31.520
<v Speaker 11>of the people coming in to the UK. The vast

0:21:31.520 --> 0:21:33.720
<v Speaker 11>majority of people who are now coming into the UK

0:21:33.960 --> 0:21:38.000
<v Speaker 11>are through government approved routes, So that's work visas, that's

0:21:38.920 --> 0:21:42.080
<v Speaker 11>through humanitarian routes, although that is falling off now. So

0:21:42.240 --> 0:21:44.239
<v Speaker 11>that was such as you know, the people coming in

0:21:44.400 --> 0:21:47.920
<v Speaker 11>due to conflict in Ukraine and conflict in Hong Kong.

0:21:48.840 --> 0:21:52.840
<v Speaker 2>So what does the relationship then look like between immigration

0:21:53.160 --> 0:21:55.680
<v Speaker 2>and economic performance in the UK.

0:21:56.040 --> 0:21:58.399
<v Speaker 11>I mean, there's varying takes on this, depending on whose

0:21:58.440 --> 0:22:01.320
<v Speaker 11>research you look at, and what data they are looking at,

0:22:01.840 --> 0:22:04.920
<v Speaker 11>how they interpret it, what other factors they're taking into account.

0:22:05.320 --> 0:22:05.840
<v Speaker 12>But it is.

0:22:05.840 --> 0:22:12.000
<v Speaker 11>Widely accepted that migration does generally boost productivity in developed countries,

0:22:12.040 --> 0:22:15.480
<v Speaker 11>so the value of work done per hour. Essentially it

0:22:15.520 --> 0:22:20.600
<v Speaker 11>gives employers more choice over who they employ. You know,

0:22:20.600 --> 0:22:22.800
<v Speaker 11>you've got you've got a bigger labor pool to look at,

0:22:22.880 --> 0:22:25.840
<v Speaker 11>so you can you can pick and choose a little more.

0:22:26.640 --> 0:22:29.320
<v Speaker 11>There is some worry that among some people, and you know,

0:22:29.359 --> 0:22:32.920
<v Speaker 11>this is possibly what we saw inflaming some of those

0:22:33.000 --> 0:22:36.280
<v Speaker 11>riots that you were talking about earlier, that this can

0:22:36.400 --> 0:22:40.719
<v Speaker 11>lead to fewer job opportunities for people in the country

0:22:40.760 --> 0:22:44.280
<v Speaker 11>and lower wages for people in the country. But according

0:22:44.280 --> 0:22:47.560
<v Speaker 11>to the government's Migration Advisory Committee, who've looked at a

0:22:47.560 --> 0:22:50.840
<v Speaker 11>lot of evidence on this historically, there's actually been very

0:22:51.000 --> 0:22:55.160
<v Speaker 11>little evidence that migration does have a huge impact on wages.

0:22:56.200 --> 0:22:57.720
<v Speaker 2>So what do you think it means then, for this

0:22:57.920 --> 0:23:00.560
<v Speaker 2>still quite new Prime minister, I mean only about six

0:23:00.600 --> 0:23:03.879
<v Speaker 2>weeks into his term of office, Kirs Starmer. I mean

0:23:03.880 --> 0:23:06.160
<v Speaker 2>he's got to balance then the warnings that I mentioned

0:23:06.200 --> 0:23:10.520
<v Speaker 2>from the CBI about curbs on migration hurting or stunting

0:23:10.560 --> 0:23:14.680
<v Speaker 2>economic growth and then at the same time public services

0:23:14.960 --> 0:23:16.320
<v Speaker 2>being very very stretched.

0:23:16.440 --> 0:23:18.639
<v Speaker 11>I think Britain does have to face a reckoning at

0:23:18.640 --> 0:23:20.320
<v Speaker 11>the moment. I mean, the truth is that we are

0:23:20.400 --> 0:23:23.640
<v Speaker 11>hugely reliant on migrant workers in many sectors. I mean

0:23:23.960 --> 0:23:26.879
<v Speaker 11>I spoke about the increase in the number of people

0:23:26.880 --> 0:23:29.320
<v Speaker 11>coming for work. A huge number of those are coming

0:23:29.359 --> 0:23:33.520
<v Speaker 11>on health and social care visas. These tend to be

0:23:33.600 --> 0:23:36.560
<v Speaker 11>lower wages, lower paid jobs, you know, in the care sector,

0:23:37.240 --> 0:23:41.480
<v Speaker 11>and we are hugely reliant on these people. If we're

0:23:41.480 --> 0:23:45.920
<v Speaker 11>to raise wages and you know, encourage more British workers

0:23:45.960 --> 0:23:48.080
<v Speaker 11>to work in this sector, that's going to take a

0:23:48.160 --> 0:23:52.200
<v Speaker 11>huge amount of public funding and possibly a whole rejig

0:23:52.240 --> 0:23:55.920
<v Speaker 11>of the social care system. So, I mean, Kirs Darma

0:23:55.960 --> 0:23:59.080
<v Speaker 11>really does have a balancing act here. And I obviously

0:23:59.280 --> 0:24:04.080
<v Speaker 11>migration does pose worries about pressure on public services. You know,

0:24:04.119 --> 0:24:07.120
<v Speaker 11>there are more people who'll be wanting houses, more people

0:24:07.200 --> 0:24:11.280
<v Speaker 11>who'll be wanting to use education, to use hospitals. But

0:24:11.520 --> 0:24:13.600
<v Speaker 11>at the same time, you know, we do have to

0:24:13.640 --> 0:24:17.159
<v Speaker 11>remember that migrants do also you know, kind of add

0:24:17.200 --> 0:24:20.520
<v Speaker 11>to the demand in the economy, so will also be

0:24:20.640 --> 0:24:23.159
<v Speaker 11>you know, kind of paying their taxes as well. So

0:24:23.640 --> 0:24:25.760
<v Speaker 11>we do have to balance at the end of the day,

0:24:26.320 --> 0:24:30.240
<v Speaker 11>whether we can afford to be less reliant on migrants.

0:24:30.280 --> 0:24:34.520
<v Speaker 2>I suppose yeah, Well, especially with an aging population within

0:24:34.600 --> 0:24:37.360
<v Speaker 2>the UK. I mean, the other big theme has been

0:24:37.440 --> 0:24:40.720
<v Speaker 2>about kind of talent UK universities could be at risk

0:24:41.280 --> 0:24:45.399
<v Speaker 2>from have been at risk from immigration and crackdowns that

0:24:45.560 --> 0:24:49.040
<v Speaker 2>then deter foreign students. You know, that's long been the

0:24:49.119 --> 0:24:52.879
<v Speaker 2>kind of golden goose for universities and colleges in the UK,

0:24:53.320 --> 0:24:56.119
<v Speaker 2>you know, for an advanced economy like ohs tell us

0:24:56.119 --> 0:24:56.600
<v Speaker 2>about that.

0:24:56.800 --> 0:24:59.360
<v Speaker 11>Yeah, I mean, I've heard a lot of concerns from

0:24:59.440 --> 0:25:03.480
<v Speaker 11>academics in universities. They are becoming more and more reliant

0:25:03.480 --> 0:25:05.840
<v Speaker 11>as we've seen you know, kind of pressures on domestic

0:25:05.920 --> 0:25:09.160
<v Speaker 11>funding for universities. They are becoming more and more reliant

0:25:09.320 --> 0:25:14.360
<v Speaker 11>on the international students who are paying higher fees. And

0:25:14.880 --> 0:25:17.840
<v Speaker 11>we're seeing a huge reduction in the number of students

0:25:17.880 --> 0:25:20.359
<v Speaker 11>who are coming to use UK universities at the moment,

0:25:20.440 --> 0:25:24.800
<v Speaker 11>since the government imposed a ban on most students bring

0:25:24.960 --> 0:25:28.359
<v Speaker 11>their dependence into the country. That has for some people

0:25:28.400 --> 0:25:30.919
<v Speaker 11>made it less attractive to come to a UK university

0:25:31.359 --> 0:25:34.680
<v Speaker 11>when you're comparing that with you know, very good institutions

0:25:34.480 --> 0:25:37.360
<v Speaker 11>in Europe, in the US where they might otherwise go.

0:25:37.880 --> 0:25:40.159
<v Speaker 11>So there is a lot of concern within universities that

0:25:40.320 --> 0:25:43.160
<v Speaker 11>on a global stage, we are becoming less competitive.

0:25:43.280 --> 0:25:47.280
<v Speaker 2>It remains a potent topic, a huge you know, economic

0:25:47.800 --> 0:25:50.520
<v Speaker 2>issue for Britain. As well many thanks to Bloomberg's UK

0:25:50.680 --> 0:25:54.119
<v Speaker 2>economics reporter Lucy White. I'm Caroline Hepge here in London.

0:25:54.359 --> 0:25:57.280
<v Speaker 2>You can catch us every weekday morning for Bloomberg Daybreak.

0:25:57.320 --> 0:25:59.840
<v Speaker 2>You up beginning at six am in London. That's one.

0:26:00.000 --> 0:26:01.399
<v Speaker 2>I am on Wall Street, Tom.

0:26:01.760 --> 0:26:04.679
<v Speaker 1>Thank you, Caroline. And coming up on Bloomberg day Break Weekend,

0:26:04.720 --> 0:26:08.280
<v Speaker 1>we'll look at Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Waltz's relationship

0:26:08.640 --> 0:26:22.879
<v Speaker 1>with China. I'm Tom Busby and this is Bloomberg. This

0:26:22.920 --> 0:26:25.280
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg day Break Weekend, our global look ahead at

0:26:25.280 --> 0:26:27.880
<v Speaker 1>the top stories for investors in the coming week. I'm

0:26:27.920 --> 0:26:31.160
<v Speaker 1>Tom Busby in New York. The Democratic National Convention will

0:26:31.160 --> 0:26:34.960
<v Speaker 1>take place in the week ahead. Democrats rallying around Kamala

0:26:34.960 --> 0:26:37.680
<v Speaker 1>Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walts of Minnesota,

0:26:37.840 --> 0:26:41.080
<v Speaker 1>who has a long history with China. Let's look now

0:26:41.119 --> 0:26:44.440
<v Speaker 1>at how that relationship might play out during the campaign.

0:26:44.720 --> 0:26:47.600
<v Speaker 1>Here's Bloomberg Daybreak Asia co host Doug Krisner.

0:26:48.040 --> 0:26:52.720
<v Speaker 3>Tom. This connection goes back decades. Walls taught English in Foshan, China,

0:26:52.760 --> 0:26:55.600
<v Speaker 3>in nineteen eighty nine and nineteen ninety. That city is

0:26:55.680 --> 0:26:59.240
<v Speaker 3>in the southern Guangdong province and Walts was in China

0:26:59.280 --> 0:27:02.600
<v Speaker 3>after the Ken Men's Square massacre in nineteen eighty nine.

0:27:02.680 --> 0:27:05.280
<v Speaker 3>You know, he is the first person on a presidential

0:27:05.320 --> 0:27:09.800
<v Speaker 3>ticket with experience of living in China since George H. W. Bush,

0:27:09.840 --> 0:27:12.719
<v Speaker 3>who served as US ambassador to Beijing in the nineteen

0:27:12.760 --> 0:27:16.520
<v Speaker 3>seventies and as a Minnesota congressman in two thousand and seven.

0:27:16.960 --> 0:27:19.920
<v Speaker 3>Walls aligned with politicians on both sides of the aisle

0:27:20.119 --> 0:27:23.840
<v Speaker 3>focused on China's weak human rights record. He often spoke

0:27:23.880 --> 0:27:27.000
<v Speaker 3>affectionately about the Chinese people. As a member of the

0:27:27.000 --> 0:27:32.280
<v Speaker 3>House Agriculture Committee, Walls was interviewed for Agripol's Communications in

0:27:32.359 --> 0:27:33.200
<v Speaker 3>twenty sixteen.

0:27:33.640 --> 0:27:36.040
<v Speaker 13>I lived in China, and as I said, I've been

0:27:36.040 --> 0:27:38.800
<v Speaker 13>there about thirty times. But if someone tells you and

0:27:38.840 --> 0:27:40.879
<v Speaker 13>they're an expert on China, they're probably not telling you

0:27:40.920 --> 0:27:43.680
<v Speaker 13>the truth because it's complex country, but it's critically important

0:27:43.680 --> 0:27:46.200
<v Speaker 13>for us. I don't fall into the category that China

0:27:46.280 --> 0:27:49.800
<v Speaker 13>necessarily needs to be an adversarial relationship. I totally disagree,

0:27:49.800 --> 0:27:51.320
<v Speaker 13>and I think we need to stand firm on what

0:27:51.320 --> 0:27:53.600
<v Speaker 13>they're doing in the South China Sea, but there's many

0:27:53.680 --> 0:27:57.000
<v Speaker 13>areas of cooperation that we can work on.

0:27:57.200 --> 0:28:00.280
<v Speaker 3>That's Tim Walls speaking in twenty sixteen, and after he

0:28:00.320 --> 0:28:03.359
<v Speaker 3>returned from China in nineteen ninety, he described the Chinese

0:28:03.400 --> 0:28:06.920
<v Speaker 3>people to a local newspaper in Nebraska. He said, if

0:28:06.960 --> 0:28:10.119
<v Speaker 3>they had proper leadership, there are no limits on what

0:28:10.200 --> 0:28:12.600
<v Speaker 3>they could accomplish. He went on to say, they are

0:28:12.640 --> 0:28:16.880
<v Speaker 3>such a kind, generous, capable people. I got reaction earlier

0:28:17.000 --> 0:28:20.160
<v Speaker 3>from Michael Sobolik, he is senior fellow at the American

0:28:20.200 --> 0:28:21.359
<v Speaker 3>Foreign Policy Council.

0:28:21.800 --> 0:28:25.040
<v Speaker 7>Governor Walls tapped into something that is still true today

0:28:25.080 --> 0:28:28.760
<v Speaker 7>in twenty twenty four, which is, the Chinese people are

0:28:28.800 --> 0:28:31.480
<v Speaker 7>not the enemies of the American people at all, nor

0:28:31.560 --> 0:28:35.040
<v Speaker 7>should they be. I've been to China as well, and

0:28:35.119 --> 0:28:40.920
<v Speaker 7>I've experienced that same hospitality and generosity that Walls experienced

0:28:40.920 --> 0:28:43.520
<v Speaker 7>when he was there too, and I think many Americans

0:28:43.560 --> 0:28:46.640
<v Speaker 7>would attest to the same thing. The problem for Washington

0:28:46.720 --> 0:28:50.640
<v Speaker 7>policymakers is not the Chinese people, it's the Chinese Communist Party.

0:28:51.000 --> 0:28:54.280
<v Speaker 7>And that distinction is quite meaningful, and I am gratified

0:28:54.320 --> 0:28:57.160
<v Speaker 7>greatly that Governor Walls recognizes that difference.

0:28:57.280 --> 0:29:00.360
<v Speaker 3>That's an important distinction to make. But in terms of

0:29:00.440 --> 0:29:04.200
<v Speaker 3>influencing policy, imagine a world where Kamala Harris is the

0:29:04.240 --> 0:29:07.320
<v Speaker 3>next president. Is it the role of the vice president

0:29:07.360 --> 0:29:10.200
<v Speaker 3>at all to kind of get involved with setting the agenda?

0:29:10.360 --> 0:29:13.400
<v Speaker 7>So that's going to vary from administration to administration to

0:29:13.520 --> 0:29:15.920
<v Speaker 7>be sure, but ultimately, if she wins, she is going

0:29:16.000 --> 0:29:19.360
<v Speaker 7>to face this million dollar question in American foreign policy?

0:29:20.040 --> 0:29:23.800
<v Speaker 7>Is China the Chinese Communist Party a potential competitor or

0:29:23.800 --> 0:29:27.920
<v Speaker 7>an adversary? And Hijinping, the leader of China, is not

0:29:28.000 --> 0:29:30.920
<v Speaker 7>really leaving America with much of a choice. We're going

0:29:31.000 --> 0:29:32.280
<v Speaker 7>to have to choose one or the other.

0:29:32.480 --> 0:29:35.480
<v Speaker 3>How do you imagine Beijing would react to this type

0:29:35.480 --> 0:29:39.920
<v Speaker 3>of situation where you have someone in the administration who

0:29:39.960 --> 0:29:42.200
<v Speaker 3>knows so much about China.

0:29:42.240 --> 0:29:45.840
<v Speaker 12>I think they'll probably try to play this much like

0:29:45.960 --> 0:29:50.160
<v Speaker 12>they have attempted to work with President Joe Biden and

0:29:50.400 --> 0:29:52.760
<v Speaker 12>what not, just she at the most highest levels.

0:29:52.760 --> 0:29:56.240
<v Speaker 7>But what Chinese diplomats will often do is try to

0:29:56.320 --> 0:30:01.000
<v Speaker 7>fall back on mutual feelings of friendship and cooperation and

0:30:01.040 --> 0:30:05.840
<v Speaker 7>shared cultural experiences to try to get American politicians to

0:30:05.960 --> 0:30:09.720
<v Speaker 7>give a little bit on the competitive agenda. I am

0:30:09.880 --> 0:30:11.760
<v Speaker 7>certain they will try to do the same thing with

0:30:11.880 --> 0:30:15.040
<v Speaker 7>Walls if he assumes the Vice Presidency. In fact, as

0:30:15.120 --> 0:30:18.960
<v Speaker 7>governor of Minnesota, he's already received some of those diplomatic overtures.

0:30:19.360 --> 0:30:21.960
<v Speaker 3>How do you think he's going to frame the conversation

0:30:22.080 --> 0:30:24.040
<v Speaker 3>around the South China Sea.

0:30:24.080 --> 0:30:27.160
<v Speaker 7>So he's on record as a member of Congress saying

0:30:27.560 --> 0:30:30.720
<v Speaker 7>that the United States needs to stand up to China

0:30:30.760 --> 0:30:33.600
<v Speaker 7>and call out their illegal territorial claims in the South

0:30:33.680 --> 0:30:37.000
<v Speaker 7>China see And listen, that's great. We need to hold

0:30:37.320 --> 0:30:41.280
<v Speaker 7>the Chinese Communist Party accountable for their illegal actions with

0:30:41.320 --> 0:30:43.880
<v Speaker 7>our rhetoric, but we are at a point in our

0:30:43.920 --> 0:30:47.719
<v Speaker 7>security situation where we need to move beyond words. We

0:30:47.840 --> 0:30:52.360
<v Speaker 7>need to start making the Chinese Communist Party pay for

0:30:52.600 --> 0:30:55.719
<v Speaker 7>endangering the security of our allies and our partners and

0:30:55.760 --> 0:30:59.000
<v Speaker 7>frankly American interests in the South China see. And this

0:30:59.080 --> 0:31:00.880
<v Speaker 7>is the big question with Governor Wallas.

0:31:01.160 --> 0:31:01.720
<v Speaker 12>He has a.

0:31:01.640 --> 0:31:05.480
<v Speaker 7>Strong rhetorical record on human rights with China, but he hasn't,

0:31:05.600 --> 0:31:08.080
<v Speaker 7>in the position of a representative, really been in a

0:31:08.160 --> 0:31:12.560
<v Speaker 7>position to make those hard executive level decisions on how

0:31:12.560 --> 0:31:14.600
<v Speaker 7>do you assess those tradeoffs, because if you want to

0:31:14.600 --> 0:31:17.520
<v Speaker 7>hold them accountable, you're probably going to have to give

0:31:17.560 --> 0:31:21.360
<v Speaker 7>a bit on the cooperative agenda with Beijing, and it's

0:31:21.600 --> 0:31:24.520
<v Speaker 7>really unclear how he's going to make that calculation if

0:31:24.680 --> 0:31:25.560
<v Speaker 7>he wins the selection.

0:31:25.680 --> 0:31:28.640
<v Speaker 3>With Kamala Harris, he is Michael Soberlik, Senior Fellow at

0:31:28.680 --> 0:31:32.040
<v Speaker 3>the American Foreign Policy Council. Joining me now for some

0:31:32.120 --> 0:31:36.280
<v Speaker 3>discussion is Nick Waddams. He is Bloomberg US National Security

0:31:36.320 --> 0:31:39.800
<v Speaker 3>Team leader. Nick is based in Washington, d C. Thanks

0:31:39.800 --> 0:31:41.640
<v Speaker 3>for making time to chat with us, Nick, So I

0:31:41.720 --> 0:31:44.280
<v Speaker 3>laid out a bit of the Walls backstory as it

0:31:44.320 --> 0:31:46.760
<v Speaker 3>relates to China. Is there anything that you would like

0:31:46.800 --> 0:31:47.920
<v Speaker 3>to add for context?

0:31:48.200 --> 0:31:53.200
<v Speaker 5>A couple interesting things there. One, it is notable, amid

0:31:53.280 --> 0:31:57.280
<v Speaker 5>all the questions about Tim Walls's attitude towards China, he

0:31:57.320 --> 0:32:02.280
<v Speaker 5>got married on the anniversary of the Tieneman Square crackdown

0:32:02.920 --> 0:32:06.600
<v Speaker 5>because he said he wanted to have a memorable anniversary date.

0:32:06.680 --> 0:32:10.080
<v Speaker 5>But also I think that was meant as a sort

0:32:10.120 --> 0:32:14.440
<v Speaker 5>of signal for himself that he did really side with

0:32:14.480 --> 0:32:17.800
<v Speaker 5>the Chinese people and he really believes quite strongly in

0:32:17.880 --> 0:32:20.960
<v Speaker 5>human rights. The other thing to point out is that

0:32:21.920 --> 0:32:24.680
<v Speaker 5>we have heard a fair amount from Tim Walls, but

0:32:25.040 --> 0:32:30.840
<v Speaker 5>only as you indicated, from around twenty sixteen, that's eight

0:32:30.920 --> 0:32:34.920
<v Speaker 5>years ago, and in the time. Since then, both parties,

0:32:35.600 --> 0:32:40.120
<v Speaker 5>Democrats as much as Republicans, have really undergone this fundamental

0:32:40.680 --> 0:32:45.400
<v Speaker 5>shift in how they view China. Generally, the policy is

0:32:46.000 --> 0:32:50.320
<v Speaker 5>much more adversarial, and Democrats as well as Republicans have

0:32:50.400 --> 0:32:53.840
<v Speaker 5>really shed this idea that it is possible to have

0:32:54.520 --> 0:32:59.040
<v Speaker 5>a really strong cooperative relationship with China. And in twenty

0:32:59.080 --> 0:33:02.480
<v Speaker 5>sixteen you really did see still some of the sort

0:33:02.520 --> 0:33:05.640
<v Speaker 5>of vestigial belief that it wasn't quite clear where Shi

0:33:05.720 --> 0:33:08.840
<v Speaker 5>Jinping was going with China and that it would be

0:33:08.920 --> 0:33:12.080
<v Speaker 5>possible to have a relationship. I mean, I remember living

0:33:12.120 --> 0:33:16.120
<v Speaker 5>in China for five years myself, seeing John Kerry and

0:33:16.200 --> 0:33:19.280
<v Speaker 5>Hillary Clinton go to Beijing, and the line they often

0:33:19.360 --> 0:33:21.600
<v Speaker 5>repeated was, you know, there's room enough in the world

0:33:21.640 --> 0:33:25.720
<v Speaker 5>for an established power and a rising power, saying essentially

0:33:25.760 --> 0:33:28.960
<v Speaker 5>there was room for China and the US, and that

0:33:29.160 --> 0:33:33.200
<v Speaker 5>is an idea that's very definitively been put aside.

0:33:33.280 --> 0:33:37.120
<v Speaker 3>What do we know about GOP criticism of Walls, his

0:33:37.120 --> 0:33:40.960
<v Speaker 3>history in China, and particularly in the context of being

0:33:40.960 --> 0:33:42.040
<v Speaker 3>on the Democratic ticket.

0:33:42.080 --> 0:33:44.440
<v Speaker 5>I think what you're going to see here is an

0:33:44.480 --> 0:33:48.479
<v Speaker 5>attack line from Republicans, whether or not it's true. You know,

0:33:48.520 --> 0:33:51.480
<v Speaker 5>we still have not heard a really definitive account from

0:33:51.520 --> 0:33:55.080
<v Speaker 5>Tim Walls lately, though I think it's safe to assume

0:33:55.800 --> 0:33:59.000
<v Speaker 5>that his thinking now is very much in line with

0:33:59.240 --> 0:34:02.080
<v Speaker 5>what Kamalah Grris' thinking is, which is also going to

0:34:02.120 --> 0:34:04.640
<v Speaker 5>be very much in line with what Joe Biden's thinking is,

0:34:04.680 --> 0:34:07.760
<v Speaker 5>which in some ways has been even more extreme in

0:34:08.280 --> 0:34:11.840
<v Speaker 5>the desire to sanction and punish and impose terrorists on

0:34:11.920 --> 0:34:15.479
<v Speaker 5>China than even Donald Trump was. So this is really

0:34:15.520 --> 0:34:19.360
<v Speaker 5>a situation where the two parties are in a race

0:34:19.680 --> 0:34:23.080
<v Speaker 5>to the extreme end of the spectrum to beat up

0:34:23.120 --> 0:34:27.440
<v Speaker 5>on China. I mean, there is just no political advantage

0:34:28.040 --> 0:34:31.759
<v Speaker 5>either side sees and suggesting even the little bit of

0:34:32.000 --> 0:34:36.000
<v Speaker 5>sort of softness towards China. So I think you have

0:34:36.120 --> 0:34:40.680
<v Speaker 5>already seen and will see Republicans raise the specter of

0:34:41.320 --> 0:34:47.040
<v Speaker 5>potential softness or sympathy towards China from Tim Walls based

0:34:47.080 --> 0:34:49.839
<v Speaker 5>on the fact that he lived there thirty years ago

0:34:50.000 --> 0:34:53.919
<v Speaker 5>or so. But we are still waiting to hear from him,

0:34:54.280 --> 0:34:57.600
<v Speaker 5>and I think he has already given an indication given

0:34:57.640 --> 0:35:02.080
<v Speaker 5>his strong support for human rights that and given the

0:35:02.120 --> 0:35:05.080
<v Speaker 5>pressure he'll also face within his own party that there's

0:35:05.120 --> 0:35:08.160
<v Speaker 5>not going to be much daylight between him and the

0:35:08.200 --> 0:35:11.280
<v Speaker 5>current position from the Biden administration on China.

0:35:11.400 --> 0:35:12.960
<v Speaker 3>One of the other things that I think of when

0:35:12.960 --> 0:35:17.080
<v Speaker 3>I think about current policy is the export controls for

0:35:17.280 --> 0:35:21.239
<v Speaker 3>the most advanced semiconductor technology that the Biden administration has

0:35:21.320 --> 0:35:25.440
<v Speaker 3>placed on Beijing, and from the China side, the view

0:35:25.719 --> 0:35:29.680
<v Speaker 3>that these export controls are essentially aimed at holding China's

0:35:29.719 --> 0:35:34.319
<v Speaker 3>economic development back. Is there anything that you feel could

0:35:34.440 --> 0:35:37.840
<v Speaker 3>change under a Harris Walls administration or not?

0:35:38.440 --> 0:35:41.759
<v Speaker 5>Well, it's very interesting, you know, the question may not

0:35:41.880 --> 0:35:44.200
<v Speaker 5>necessarily be Tim Wallas. It may be some of the

0:35:44.239 --> 0:35:47.799
<v Speaker 5>other national security folks around her. One in particular is

0:35:47.800 --> 0:35:52.000
<v Speaker 5>a guy named Philip Gordon, who is essentially Kamala Harris's

0:35:52.080 --> 0:35:55.560
<v Speaker 5>top national security advisor. He was the signatory of a

0:35:55.640 --> 0:35:59.759
<v Speaker 5>letter during the Trump administration, one of these letters that

0:35:59.800 --> 0:36:03.760
<v Speaker 5>get circulated and signed by former ambassadors and national security

0:36:03.800 --> 0:36:08.120
<v Speaker 5>people saying hey, listen, yes, we need to compete with China,

0:36:08.480 --> 0:36:11.520
<v Speaker 5>we need to protect our interests, make sure that they

0:36:11.560 --> 0:36:16.239
<v Speaker 5>don't steal our intellectual property, but essentially saying this tit

0:36:16.360 --> 0:36:20.239
<v Speaker 5>for tat the rising rhetoric, the belief of China as

0:36:20.280 --> 0:36:24.040
<v Speaker 5>an enemy is really a race to the bottom. Things

0:36:24.040 --> 0:36:26.719
<v Speaker 5>have moved on even since that letter, and you have,

0:36:27.160 --> 0:36:30.480
<v Speaker 5>as you say, seen the Biden administration really hit China

0:36:30.600 --> 0:36:35.160
<v Speaker 5>with more and more severe export controls and essentially adopted

0:36:35.200 --> 0:36:37.480
<v Speaker 5>a policy where they say, Okay, we're not even going

0:36:37.560 --> 0:36:40.600
<v Speaker 5>to let you get your hands on some of the

0:36:40.600 --> 0:36:45.359
<v Speaker 5>most significant technology, particularly around microshifts. They see that as

0:36:45.480 --> 0:36:49.239
<v Speaker 5>so grave a national security threat that they're going to

0:36:49.320 --> 0:36:52.160
<v Speaker 5>do everything they can to make sure that China can't

0:36:52.160 --> 0:36:56.919
<v Speaker 5>get that technology. And that just sets up this fundamentally

0:36:56.960 --> 0:37:00.720
<v Speaker 5>oppositional relationship that China is not going to be willing

0:37:00.760 --> 0:37:04.279
<v Speaker 5>to see past if there are people within the administration

0:37:04.360 --> 0:37:07.440
<v Speaker 5>who say they want cooperation on things like fentanyl.

0:37:07.920 --> 0:37:11.839
<v Speaker 3>For example, in my conversation we heard a segment of

0:37:11.880 --> 0:37:15.319
<v Speaker 3>with Michael Sobolik from the American Foreign Policy Council. I

0:37:15.400 --> 0:37:19.200
<v Speaker 3>ask him how he might imagine Beijing reacting to a

0:37:19.239 --> 0:37:23.600
<v Speaker 3>situation where you have someone inside an administration who has

0:37:23.680 --> 0:37:27.560
<v Speaker 3>such familiarity with China culturally. Do you have a sense

0:37:27.640 --> 0:37:31.360
<v Speaker 3>of what it may mean for Beijing to have walls

0:37:31.400 --> 0:37:32.440
<v Speaker 3>in an administration.

0:37:33.040 --> 0:37:36.960
<v Speaker 5>Well, at the moment, they're very much keeping in the background.

0:37:37.000 --> 0:37:40.560
<v Speaker 5>This is not something where China, the Communist Party, the

0:37:40.600 --> 0:37:44.239
<v Speaker 5>current leadership want to interject themselves. I mean, particularly with

0:37:44.440 --> 0:37:48.440
<v Speaker 5>all of the talk around foreign interference in the elections

0:37:48.480 --> 0:37:51.080
<v Speaker 5>in twenty sixteen, then twenty twenty then now, this is

0:37:51.160 --> 0:37:55.760
<v Speaker 5>not something where China wants to publicly take a side,

0:37:55.880 --> 0:37:59.279
<v Speaker 5>so they have not really said anything publicly. I think

0:37:59.280 --> 0:38:01.200
<v Speaker 5>there are a couple in interesting things because on the

0:38:01.239 --> 0:38:03.480
<v Speaker 5>one hand, yes, they can say, Okay, this is a

0:38:03.520 --> 0:38:07.799
<v Speaker 5>person who ostensibly could be a better ally or a

0:38:07.800 --> 0:38:11.880
<v Speaker 5>potential conduit. Maybe he understands China a little bit better. However,

0:38:12.000 --> 0:38:15.000
<v Speaker 5>all of the public comments we have from Tim Walls

0:38:15.040 --> 0:38:18.239
<v Speaker 5>in the last many years about China have been very

0:38:18.320 --> 0:38:23.440
<v Speaker 5>much human rights focused and critical of China's human rights records.

0:38:23.480 --> 0:38:27.360
<v Speaker 5>So that's going to make China very uneasy if the

0:38:27.440 --> 0:38:31.400
<v Speaker 5>vice president is willing to be an outspoken critic of

0:38:31.520 --> 0:38:34.440
<v Speaker 5>the Chinese human rights record, and that's going to suggest

0:38:34.480 --> 0:38:36.400
<v Speaker 5>to them that he's going to be very much in

0:38:36.480 --> 0:38:40.399
<v Speaker 5>line with what the Biden administration policy has been thus far.

0:38:40.880 --> 0:38:44.000
<v Speaker 3>And this relationship over the last twenty or thirty years

0:38:44.040 --> 0:38:46.600
<v Speaker 3>between the US and China certainly has become a lot

0:38:46.680 --> 0:38:50.279
<v Speaker 3>more complicated. Thanks for helping us understand it a bit more.

0:38:50.800 --> 0:38:54.359
<v Speaker 3>Nick Wadams there. Bloomberg US National Security Team leader Nick

0:38:54.440 --> 0:38:57.359
<v Speaker 3>joining from Washington, d C. I'm Doug Krisner. You can

0:38:57.440 --> 0:39:01.120
<v Speaker 3>join Brian Curtis and myself weekdays Hereloomberg day Break Asia,

0:39:01.400 --> 0:39:04.640
<v Speaker 3>beginning at eight am in Hong Kong eight pm on

0:39:04.719 --> 0:39:05.280
<v Speaker 3>Wall Street.

0:39:05.520 --> 0:39:07.799
<v Speaker 1>Tom, Thank you, Doug, and that does it for this

0:39:07.960 --> 0:39:10.680
<v Speaker 1>edition of Bloomberg day Break Weekend. Join us again Monday

0:39:10.680 --> 0:39:12.800
<v Speaker 1>morning at five am Wall Street time for the latest

0:39:12.840 --> 0:39:15.319
<v Speaker 1>on markets overseas and the news you need to start

0:39:15.360 --> 0:39:18.760
<v Speaker 1>your day. I'm Tom Busby. Stay with us. Top stories

0:39:18.760 --> 0:39:21.360
<v Speaker 1>and global business headlines are coming up right now.