WEBVTT - China Could Call Donald Trump's 60% Tariff Bluff

0:00:02.560 --> 0:00:06.240
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Asia Centric, the podcast that explores the

0:00:06.280 --> 0:00:09.800
<v Speaker 1>big ideas and trends moving money across the region. I'm

0:00:09.880 --> 0:00:12.120
<v Speaker 1>Kajadmitriyeva in Hong Kong and.

0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:15.600
<v Speaker 2>I'm John Lee. It seems the number one thing on investors'

0:00:15.600 --> 0:00:18.880
<v Speaker 2>minds this year was the US election. Who would win?

0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:22.880
<v Speaker 2>Would US policy become even more protectionist? And what would

0:00:22.880 --> 0:00:26.440
<v Speaker 2>be the implications for economic growth and central bank policy?

0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:31.080
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and now following the victory of President elect Donald Trump,

0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:35.519
<v Speaker 1>it seems like everyone is still thinking about the implications.

0:00:35.960 --> 0:00:39.839
<v Speaker 1>Trump has vowed steep tariffs of sixty percent on Chinese imports,

0:00:40.600 --> 0:00:44.400
<v Speaker 1>universal levees, and all of these would have obviously sweeping

0:00:44.440 --> 0:00:48.760
<v Speaker 1>consequences in the world. Some analysts have already revised down

0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:52.720
<v Speaker 1>their economic growth expectations in China, and they've lowered the

0:00:52.720 --> 0:00:54.800
<v Speaker 1>outlook for fad cuts.

0:00:55.280 --> 0:00:58.880
<v Speaker 2>And Trump has already started picking his cabinet, which does

0:00:59.000 --> 0:01:01.880
<v Speaker 2>provide some in site into his approach to the world.

0:01:02.640 --> 0:01:05.680
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot to discuss and to help us navigate

0:01:05.720 --> 0:01:10.720
<v Speaker 1>all these moving pieces is Bloomberg Economics chief economist Tom Orlick.

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:14.560
<v Speaker 1>He's also the author of China, The Bubble That Never

0:01:14.640 --> 0:01:18.360
<v Speaker 1>Pops and previously, he lived in Beijing for about a decade.

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:21.479
<v Speaker 1>He joins us from DC. Hi, Tom, thanks for being here.

0:01:22.360 --> 0:01:24.360
<v Speaker 3>Great to be a Katya and I see we're doing

0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:28.480
<v Speaker 3>our special podcast voices. I'll try our best to maintain

0:01:28.520 --> 0:01:29.080
<v Speaker 3>the standard.

0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:31.480
<v Speaker 1>Thank you. I really appreciate that.

0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:33.120
<v Speaker 2>Listen.

0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:36.240
<v Speaker 1>It's a big topic on everyone's minds. Trump won in

0:01:36.280 --> 0:01:40.039
<v Speaker 1>a pretty big way. The biggest concern, I think is

0:01:40.400 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 1>safe to say, is tariffs. So how are you thinking

0:01:44.040 --> 0:01:46.400
<v Speaker 1>of that in terms of timing, in terms of size,

0:01:46.480 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 1>and whether they even end up coming into place.

0:01:50.400 --> 0:01:52.720
<v Speaker 3>I mean, that's a really huge question. I'm sure we

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:56.880
<v Speaker 3>can spend quite some time talking about it. Trump on

0:01:56.960 --> 0:02:01.720
<v Speaker 3>the campaign trail talked about sixty percent triffs on China. Now,

0:02:01.960 --> 0:02:05.800
<v Speaker 3>in his first term, he did twenty five percent tariffs

0:02:05.840 --> 0:02:09.520
<v Speaker 3>on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods. And if

0:02:09.520 --> 0:02:11.880
<v Speaker 3>you looked at the macro data in the US, if

0:02:11.919 --> 0:02:13.720
<v Speaker 3>you looked at the growth data, if you look at

0:02:13.760 --> 0:02:17.840
<v Speaker 3>the inflation data, it's actually pretty hard to see the consequences.

0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:21.959
<v Speaker 3>So there's an argument out there and a sentiment that

0:02:22.000 --> 0:02:25.120
<v Speaker 3>you hear from the Trump campaign, which is, well, what

0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:29.440
<v Speaker 3>are all of these economists complaining about? I did twenty

0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:33.960
<v Speaker 3>five percent tariffs last time, it was all good. Sixty

0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:37.800
<v Speaker 3>percent will be fine as well. Our view, though, is

0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:41.359
<v Speaker 3>that sixty percent is quite a bit more tariffs than

0:02:41.360 --> 0:02:45.080
<v Speaker 3>twenty five percent. If you think about profit margins for

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:49.480
<v Speaker 3>China's small manufacturers, they're really in the single digits. So

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:52.960
<v Speaker 3>they could just about live with twenty five percent tariffs

0:02:53.120 --> 0:02:55.440
<v Speaker 3>as long as they got some government subsidies and some

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:58.519
<v Speaker 3>yuan appreciation to get them through it. But they certainly

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:01.880
<v Speaker 3>couldn't live with sixty percent tariffs. Even if we think

0:03:01.919 --> 0:03:06.880
<v Speaker 3>about the big electronics giants, companies like Apple, which has

0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 3>a supply chain spanning the United States and China and

0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:13.080
<v Speaker 3>other parts of Asia, well they'd have a lot of

0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:17.240
<v Speaker 3>difficulty with sixty percent tariffs as well. So was that

0:03:17.240 --> 0:03:21.760
<v Speaker 3>sixty percent number kind of campaign trail red meat or

0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:24.040
<v Speaker 3>was it a genuine commitment that we're going to see

0:03:24.120 --> 0:03:27.240
<v Speaker 3>implemented in office. I think we're going to find out,

0:03:27.639 --> 0:03:30.960
<v Speaker 3>but I think sixty percent would be quite damaging for

0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:35.040
<v Speaker 3>China and the United States. My guess is it's more

0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:38.840
<v Speaker 3>of an initial bargaining gambit rather than a firm commitment.

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:41.960
<v Speaker 1>Is there an assumption that you have going into twenty

0:03:42.040 --> 0:03:45.800
<v Speaker 1>twenty five of what size tariffs we might be able

0:03:45.840 --> 0:03:48.160
<v Speaker 1>to see here, And you said, it's really hard to

0:03:48.240 --> 0:03:50.840
<v Speaker 1>say whether it'll even come in, if it's bluster, if

0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:53.880
<v Speaker 1>it's reality. But is there sort of a going assumption

0:03:54.040 --> 0:03:57.000
<v Speaker 1>or a hunch that you have as an economist of

0:03:57.080 --> 0:03:58.480
<v Speaker 1>what we might see next year.

0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:03.920
<v Speaker 3>So it is complicated, Kattia. We've got to see who

0:04:04.080 --> 0:04:09.200
<v Speaker 3>Trump gets into the top jobs. Who is the trade representative,

0:04:09.800 --> 0:04:14.080
<v Speaker 3>who's the Commerce secretary, who's the Treasury secretary? They all

0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:18.760
<v Speaker 3>lined up behind tariffs, or do we see some tariff

0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:22.800
<v Speaker 3>advocates like Robert Leinthheiser, who was the main architect of

0:04:23.120 --> 0:04:27.159
<v Speaker 3>Trump's first term tariffs, once again facing off against some

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:31.359
<v Speaker 3>voices from Wall Street who are more pragmatic, more pro market.

0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:35.960
<v Speaker 3>Tariff lists need to be designed. We know from Trump's

0:04:36.000 --> 0:04:40.400
<v Speaker 3>first term that the Council of Economic Advisors was pouring

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:44.800
<v Speaker 3>over the data for different imports in different sectors and

0:04:44.920 --> 0:04:47.760
<v Speaker 3>seeing where they could impose tariffs in a way which

0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:51.800
<v Speaker 3>imposed maximum pain on China and minimum pain on the

0:04:51.920 --> 0:04:55.920
<v Speaker 3>US consumer and US retailers. There needs to be a

0:04:55.960 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 3>decision about what procedure to use to implement tariffs. Can

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:04.279
<v Speaker 3>the president do it more or less under his own discretion.

0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:08.120
<v Speaker 3>Does there need to be a consultative process. And all

0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:10.440
<v Speaker 3>of this suggests that this is not going to be

0:05:10.440 --> 0:05:13.520
<v Speaker 3>a kind of a one shot game. Right. We don't

0:05:13.560 --> 0:05:16.720
<v Speaker 3>expect Trump to get into office on day one and

0:05:16.800 --> 0:05:21.360
<v Speaker 3>say I'm posing tariffs at this level on these countries

0:05:21.480 --> 0:05:23.880
<v Speaker 3>and on these goods. I think it's going to be

0:05:23.920 --> 0:05:28.440
<v Speaker 3>an iterative process. Where there's a threat from the United States,

0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:33.440
<v Speaker 3>there's a negotiation both with the Chinese and with big

0:05:33.560 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 3>US companies like Apple that have a big dog in

0:05:36.920 --> 0:05:39.239
<v Speaker 3>the fight. Now you asked if I've got an intuition

0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:41.359
<v Speaker 3>or a hunt as to where this is going to

0:05:41.400 --> 0:05:44.600
<v Speaker 3>come out, I'd be surprised if we went to sixty

0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:49.960
<v Speaker 3>universally across all US imports from China. I wouldn't be

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:54.599
<v Speaker 3>that surprised if we went to sixty percent on basically

0:05:54.640 --> 0:05:57.920
<v Speaker 3>the same set of goods that phase twenty five percent

0:05:58.040 --> 0:06:01.880
<v Speaker 3>tariffs in Trump's first term, and we had carve outs

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:04.919
<v Speaker 3>as we did in Trump's first term for some of

0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:07.839
<v Speaker 3>those goods which are manufactured in China by the big

0:06:08.000 --> 0:06:09.880
<v Speaker 3>US electronics giants.

0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:15.200
<v Speaker 2>Asia Centric is produced by Bloomberg Intelligence, where more than

0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:19.320
<v Speaker 2>five hundred experienced analysts and strategists work around the clock

0:06:19.400 --> 0:06:23.440
<v Speaker 2>to bring you timely, world class research. Our coverage spans

0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:28.280
<v Speaker 2>two hundred market indices, currencies, commodities, and industries, as well

0:06:28.279 --> 0:06:31.560
<v Speaker 2>as over two thousand equities and credits. If you like

0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:36.880
<v Speaker 2>what you hear, don't forget to subscribe and chair Tom,

0:06:37.120 --> 0:06:38.800
<v Speaker 2>can we just pull back? Can you give us a

0:06:38.880 --> 0:06:43.040
<v Speaker 2>rundown of what Bloomberg Economics forecast for the US is

0:06:43.080 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 2>for next year and possibly for China with the potential

0:06:46.640 --> 0:06:47.600
<v Speaker 2>threat of tariffs.

0:06:48.240 --> 0:06:51.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think I've seen more forecasts in the past

0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:53.159
<v Speaker 1>week than I have.

0:06:53.839 --> 0:06:57.599
<v Speaker 2>Yep. There's a lot of scenario analysis as well on

0:06:57.640 --> 0:06:58.720
<v Speaker 2>the tariffs as well. Yeah.

0:06:58.800 --> 0:07:01.200
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, the scenario analysis is the way to go. That's

0:07:01.200 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 1>what all the cool kids are doing.

0:07:02.920 --> 0:07:05.159
<v Speaker 3>I do like to brag out here, but the Bloomberg

0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:08.960
<v Speaker 3>Economics we were doing scenario analysis before it was cool.

0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:14.320
<v Speaker 3>Now to your question on China, we're anticipating growth next

0:07:14.400 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 3>year of around four point six percent, so that's not

0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:23.320
<v Speaker 3>too far from the government's five percent target. Why do

0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:25.440
<v Speaker 3>we think there's going to be fairly robust growth for

0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:28.640
<v Speaker 3>China next year? Well, basically it's because the government is

0:07:28.680 --> 0:07:32.480
<v Speaker 3>now pumping a lot of stimulus into the economy. Could

0:07:32.600 --> 0:07:37.160
<v Speaker 3>tariffs take a chunk out of that? Well, yes, but

0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:41.240
<v Speaker 3>it depends how high the tariffs are, what goods they're

0:07:41.280 --> 0:07:44.640
<v Speaker 3>imposed on, and when they come during the year. So

0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:47.600
<v Speaker 3>if we look at an extreme scenario where Trump gets

0:07:47.640 --> 0:07:52.560
<v Speaker 3>into office, Robert Leithheiser gets reappointed as USTR on day one,

0:07:53.360 --> 0:07:56.520
<v Speaker 3>day two, we get sixty percent tariffs on everything. So

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:59.520
<v Speaker 3>that's a really extreme scenario. Well, that would be a

0:07:59.560 --> 0:08:03.480
<v Speaker 3>pretty significant shock to China, and we would be moving

0:08:03.520 --> 0:08:06.000
<v Speaker 3>and I think everyone else will be moving to downgrade

0:08:06.040 --> 0:08:09.000
<v Speaker 3>their forecasts. But that's not what we think is going

0:08:09.040 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 3>to happen. We think Trump's going to get into office,

0:08:11.640 --> 0:08:14.000
<v Speaker 3>it's going to take time to get his team into place.

0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:16.520
<v Speaker 3>Once his team is in place, it's going to take

0:08:16.800 --> 0:08:22.040
<v Speaker 3>time to design that initial tariff package. Once that's been designed,

0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:25.520
<v Speaker 3>there's going to be a negotiation with the Chinese. Can

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:29.560
<v Speaker 3>the US extract some concessions or not. So we would

0:08:29.600 --> 0:08:32.680
<v Speaker 3>expect tariffs to kick in not at the start of

0:08:32.720 --> 0:08:36.120
<v Speaker 3>the year, but probably closer to the middle of the year,

0:08:36.160 --> 0:08:38.320
<v Speaker 3>on the second half, and we'd expect them to be

0:08:38.320 --> 0:08:42.720
<v Speaker 3>imposed not on all goods, but on some portion of

0:08:42.800 --> 0:08:46.000
<v Speaker 3>Chinese manufacturing and to be imposed in a way which

0:08:46.160 --> 0:08:51.160
<v Speaker 3>didn't hurt the big US companies that are manufacturing in China.

0:08:51.320 --> 0:08:53.720
<v Speaker 3>So what's that going to do to China's growth? Well,

0:08:54.120 --> 0:08:56.960
<v Speaker 3>it could shade down China's growth in the second half

0:08:57.000 --> 0:08:59.200
<v Speaker 3>of the year, but I don't think it's going to

0:08:59.200 --> 0:09:02.560
<v Speaker 3>be a kind of cataclysmic shock to the Chinese economy

0:09:02.760 --> 0:09:05.600
<v Speaker 3>in twenty twenty five. Now if we flip that round

0:09:05.600 --> 0:09:09.600
<v Speaker 3>and think about the United States, well, our expectation for

0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:15.480
<v Speaker 3>US growth next year is so we think the US

0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:17.960
<v Speaker 3>economy is going to grow a shade less than two

0:09:17.960 --> 0:09:23.920
<v Speaker 3>percent next year. Would tariffs have a significant negative impact

0:09:23.960 --> 0:09:27.440
<v Speaker 3>on that, Well, once again, if they come midway through

0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:30.840
<v Speaker 3>the year, if they're designed in a way which minimizes

0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:34.560
<v Speaker 3>the impact on the US corporate champions, probably not.

0:09:36.000 --> 0:09:40.320
<v Speaker 1>What about central banks, because you know, having tariffs of

0:09:40.480 --> 0:09:44.120
<v Speaker 1>sixty percent or even half that would probably have some

0:09:44.200 --> 0:09:48.559
<v Speaker 1>effects on inflation in the US, and by extension, how

0:09:48.640 --> 0:09:52.040
<v Speaker 1>much the FED can actually cut in twenty twenty five,

0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:55.720
<v Speaker 1>twenty six, and the timing of that, what are your

0:09:55.720 --> 0:09:59.280
<v Speaker 1>expectations for that side of things to sort of monetary policy.

0:10:00.160 --> 0:10:03.840
<v Speaker 3>So there's been a rush after the election to dangrade

0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:07.959
<v Speaker 3>expectations for rid cuts in the US next year, and

0:10:08.000 --> 0:10:13.440
<v Speaker 3>that's partly because of concern that Trump's policies tax cuts

0:10:13.480 --> 0:10:17.200
<v Speaker 3>tariff increases are going to be inflationary, and that's just

0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:20.520
<v Speaker 3>going to mean the FED has less room to reduce rates.

0:10:21.000 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 3>So I think that's certainly a possibility. At the same time,

0:10:24.920 --> 0:10:27.400
<v Speaker 3>I think it's important to keep in mind that there

0:10:27.480 --> 0:10:32.040
<v Speaker 3>is a dizzying array of dynamics which the Trump administration

0:10:32.240 --> 0:10:35.199
<v Speaker 3>is going to be setting loose for the FED, and

0:10:35.400 --> 0:10:38.960
<v Speaker 3>many of them point in different directions. So the first

0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:42.080
<v Speaker 3>thing that's happened is the Trump trade has driven US

0:10:42.240 --> 0:10:45.640
<v Speaker 3>rates up and the US dollars stronger, and that means

0:10:45.640 --> 0:10:49.080
<v Speaker 3>financial conditions in the US and now tighter than before

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:52.000
<v Speaker 3>Trump won the election, and that means more pressure for

0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:55.520
<v Speaker 3>the FED to cut more. The second thing, well, it's

0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:58.960
<v Speaker 3>those policies, right. Trump is promising tax cuts, which would

0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:03.240
<v Speaker 3>reduce growth in the United States. He's promising tariff increases,

0:11:03.640 --> 0:11:07.280
<v Speaker 3>which would make imports more expensive, and both of those

0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:10.440
<v Speaker 3>things are inflationary, and so they should need pressure for

0:11:10.480 --> 0:11:14.840
<v Speaker 3>the FED to cut less. But there's huge uncertainty about

0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:17.200
<v Speaker 3>what those policies are going to be actually look like

0:11:17.520 --> 0:11:20.080
<v Speaker 3>and when they're going to be implemented. And the FED

0:11:20.440 --> 0:11:25.480
<v Speaker 3>is not really in the business of responding to policy hypotheticals, right,

0:11:26.120 --> 0:11:28.160
<v Speaker 3>so they want to see what these policies look like

0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:31.040
<v Speaker 3>and when they're kicking in before they start taking account

0:11:31.040 --> 0:11:35.360
<v Speaker 3>of them in their rates decisions. And then, lastly, stretching

0:11:35.400 --> 0:11:38.680
<v Speaker 3>back to Clinton, there's been a tradition for US presidents

0:11:38.720 --> 0:11:45.280
<v Speaker 3>to respect FED independence, right, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden. They

0:11:45.320 --> 0:11:49.600
<v Speaker 3>all respected FED independence and left rate decisions for the FED.

0:11:49.960 --> 0:11:52.920
<v Speaker 3>Now you'll immediately notice one US president who I left

0:11:52.960 --> 0:11:56.200
<v Speaker 3>out of that list. That was Donald Trump. Donald Trump,

0:11:56.360 --> 0:11:59.880
<v Speaker 3>in his first term had absolutely no filter in talking

0:12:00.040 --> 0:12:03.600
<v Speaker 3>about the FED. In fact, he once tweeted the question

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:07.600
<v Speaker 3>who's the greater enemy of the United States? Jerome Powell

0:12:07.880 --> 0:12:10.840
<v Speaker 3>was sheet in ping of China because he was angry

0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:14.640
<v Speaker 3>that Powell wasn't cutting interest rates fast enough for his liking.

0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:18.480
<v Speaker 3>In his second term, will he discover a kind of

0:12:18.520 --> 0:12:21.480
<v Speaker 3>inhibition or a filter and sharing of your monetary policy?

0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:24.840
<v Speaker 3>I doubt it. And what that means is there's going

0:12:24.920 --> 0:12:28.079
<v Speaker 3>to be pressure for the FED to demonstrate that it's

0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:31.560
<v Speaker 3>retaining its independence. And at the margin, that's going to

0:12:31.600 --> 0:12:34.520
<v Speaker 3>mean pressure for the FED to keep rates a little

0:12:34.520 --> 0:12:38.880
<v Speaker 3>bit higher. So you've got tighter monetary conditions already, pressure

0:12:38.880 --> 0:12:42.560
<v Speaker 3>to cut more. You've got the promise, but not yet

0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:46.760
<v Speaker 3>the reality of lower taxes and higher tariffs which are inflationary,

0:12:47.200 --> 0:12:52.480
<v Speaker 3>pressure to cut less, and threats to FED independence pressure

0:12:52.520 --> 0:12:56.520
<v Speaker 3>to cut less. Where's that going to net out? I

0:12:56.520 --> 0:12:58.760
<v Speaker 3>think all we can say now is it nets out

0:12:58.760 --> 0:13:01.559
<v Speaker 3>in quite a lot of uncertainty on the FED forecast.

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and we've had Powell saying already that he wouldn't

0:13:05.080 --> 0:13:07.880
<v Speaker 1>step down if Trump asked him, So it's already on

0:13:07.920 --> 0:13:08.680
<v Speaker 1>people's minds.

0:13:08.960 --> 0:13:10.360
<v Speaker 3>Yeah. It was pretty punchy, wasn't it.

0:13:11.679 --> 0:13:12.400
<v Speaker 1>Surprisingly?

0:13:13.679 --> 0:13:15.400
<v Speaker 2>Tom? I know you spent quite a lot of time

0:13:15.480 --> 0:13:18.319
<v Speaker 2>in China. I'd love to talk more about your views

0:13:18.440 --> 0:13:22.920
<v Speaker 2>on China now. The department that you're heading up, Bloomberg Economics,

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:28.200
<v Speaker 2>in collaboration with Bloomberg Intelligence, wrote a detailed report analyzing

0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:32.360
<v Speaker 2>the effectiveness of the Made in China twenty twenty five

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:36.079
<v Speaker 2>plan or goals, and it largely came up with the

0:13:36.880 --> 0:13:42.319
<v Speaker 2>conclusion that the US has largely failed in containing China's

0:13:42.600 --> 0:13:46.040
<v Speaker 2>rise in terms of technologies. What does this tell us

0:13:46.080 --> 0:13:48.680
<v Speaker 2>about the effectiveness of these protectist policies.

0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:53.720
<v Speaker 3>It's a great question. John. So when Trump was campaigning

0:13:53.760 --> 0:13:56.960
<v Speaker 3>in twenty sixteen, a big part of the campaign was

0:13:56.960 --> 0:14:01.440
<v Speaker 3>the promise to be China right, restore American greatness, restore

0:14:01.480 --> 0:14:05.880
<v Speaker 3>American primacy, consign China to a kind of permanent second place.

0:14:06.400 --> 0:14:09.880
<v Speaker 3>And since Trump's election win in twenty sixteen, if you

0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:13.520
<v Speaker 3>look at the headline data, things have been moving pretty

0:14:13.520 --> 0:14:18.680
<v Speaker 3>firmly in America's direction. China is no longer closing the

0:14:18.720 --> 0:14:22.240
<v Speaker 3>GDP gap with the United States, It's falling further behind

0:14:22.880 --> 0:14:26.120
<v Speaker 3>China's markets. If we leave aside the excitement around the

0:14:26.160 --> 0:14:31.200
<v Speaker 3>latest stimulus have been slumping, America's market have been soaring.

0:14:31.600 --> 0:14:33.880
<v Speaker 3>So if you look at some of those headline numbers,

0:14:34.160 --> 0:14:38.240
<v Speaker 3>you can make a pretty compelling case that America's winning again.

0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:45.240
<v Speaker 3>Now the question is is that because of America's protectionist

0:14:45.240 --> 0:14:49.920
<v Speaker 3>policies and export controls aimed at blocking China from acquiring

0:14:49.960 --> 0:14:54.120
<v Speaker 3>advanced semiconductors and other technologies. I would make the case,

0:14:54.800 --> 0:14:57.600
<v Speaker 3>and I think those folks of Bloomberg Intelligence who did

0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:01.640
<v Speaker 3>that great analysis on China's set to bisector tech ambitions,

0:15:01.680 --> 0:15:05.480
<v Speaker 3>would make the case that actually China's problems are much

0:15:05.520 --> 0:15:10.160
<v Speaker 3>more homegrown. China has been wrestling with a huge problem

0:15:10.240 --> 0:15:14.320
<v Speaker 3>of overbuilding in the real estate sector. As they wrestle

0:15:14.400 --> 0:15:17.960
<v Speaker 3>with that, there's been a huge drop in real estate construction,

0:15:18.600 --> 0:15:22.040
<v Speaker 3>and that's just a really significant blow to growth. But

0:15:22.080 --> 0:15:25.320
<v Speaker 3>if we look at what's taking place more quietly in

0:15:25.360 --> 0:15:28.800
<v Speaker 3>the tech sector, in the manufacturing sector, if we look

0:15:28.840 --> 0:15:32.840
<v Speaker 3>at the progress which China's making on things like electric vehicles,

0:15:33.480 --> 0:15:39.880
<v Speaker 3>the batteries that power those vehicles, sustainable energy, actually there's

0:15:39.880 --> 0:15:44.080
<v Speaker 3>some pretty remarkable progress being made. And what that suggests

0:15:44.120 --> 0:15:48.680
<v Speaker 3>to me is that the great US China economic race, well,

0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:51.440
<v Speaker 3>America has certainly got the edge right now, but that

0:15:51.600 --> 0:15:52.680
<v Speaker 3>race is far from over.

0:15:53.440 --> 0:15:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and despite that tech boom, as you mentioned, China's

0:15:57.000 --> 0:16:02.320
<v Speaker 1>economy is not doing too well these days, and the

0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:06.280
<v Speaker 1>property sector has still yet to find bottom. Consumers aren't

0:16:06.320 --> 0:16:09.080
<v Speaker 1>spending like they used to, and you add tariffs to

0:16:09.120 --> 0:16:11.960
<v Speaker 1>the mix and it's not a great picture. But one

0:16:12.000 --> 0:16:16.520
<v Speaker 1>thing we've heard from Goldman Sachs and investors like Wage

0:16:16.560 --> 0:16:19.040
<v Speaker 1>and Sean from pag who was on our show recently,

0:16:19.840 --> 0:16:23.560
<v Speaker 1>is that tariffs, in a weird way, might actually be

0:16:23.680 --> 0:16:27.040
<v Speaker 1>good for China's economy long term. In other words, it's

0:16:27.080 --> 0:16:31.160
<v Speaker 1>going to potentially force policymakers to start in China to

0:16:31.200 --> 0:16:34.920
<v Speaker 1>really start focusing on the consumer and more consumer led growth.

0:16:35.200 --> 0:16:37.040
<v Speaker 1>And I wonder what you make of that.

0:16:38.120 --> 0:16:41.080
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen, Katsia. I

0:16:41.120 --> 0:16:44.520
<v Speaker 3>think that China's leaders have a pretty firm view that

0:16:44.680 --> 0:16:48.520
<v Speaker 3>consumption is not the path to prosperity. Production is the

0:16:48.560 --> 0:16:53.520
<v Speaker 3>path to prosperity. So back when Phojinang was in charge,

0:16:54.000 --> 0:16:58.120
<v Speaker 3>if you really read a lot of China's economic policy documents,

0:16:58.680 --> 0:17:01.640
<v Speaker 3>and I'm don't have much of social life, so I

0:17:01.840 --> 0:17:03.840
<v Speaker 3>count myself as someone who's read quite a lot of

0:17:04.000 --> 0:17:05.720
<v Speaker 3>China's economic policy documents.

0:17:05.800 --> 0:17:08.520
<v Speaker 1>That's perct That's why you're here, That's why.

0:17:08.359 --> 0:17:10.520
<v Speaker 3>I'm sitting in my study at nine o'clock talking to

0:17:10.520 --> 0:17:15.600
<v Speaker 3>you on the Asia Central podcast. So so, if you

0:17:15.600 --> 0:17:18.760
<v Speaker 3>go back to the Hujentali era, it wasn't front and center,

0:17:19.240 --> 0:17:21.600
<v Speaker 3>but at least there was like lip service to this

0:17:22.480 --> 0:17:26.520
<v Speaker 3>Washington Wall Street idea that China needed to rebalance its

0:17:26.520 --> 0:17:30.119
<v Speaker 3>economy towards more consumption. Right now, if you read the

0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:33.440
<v Speaker 3>economic policy documents today, if you listen to what Hijinping's

0:17:33.720 --> 0:17:37.399
<v Speaker 3>saying today, really that idea isn't part of the mix

0:17:37.440 --> 0:17:41.320
<v Speaker 3>at all. Right, It's all about building a more productive

0:17:41.320 --> 0:17:48.720
<v Speaker 3>supply side of the economy, acquiring strategic technologies, developing advanced manufacturing.

0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:53.639
<v Speaker 3>China's leadership have decided that that's what worked for Japan,

0:17:54.280 --> 0:17:57.320
<v Speaker 3>that's what worked for Korea, that's what worked for Germany,

0:17:57.840 --> 0:17:59.440
<v Speaker 3>and that's what's going to work for them as well.

0:18:00.840 --> 0:18:02.480
<v Speaker 2>Tom, What are you looking for next? What are the

0:18:02.520 --> 0:18:05.760
<v Speaker 2>catalysts going forward in terms of this US China relationship.

0:18:07.160 --> 0:18:10.000
<v Speaker 3>So I'm going to be looking at three things, John. Firstly,

0:18:10.080 --> 0:18:11.760
<v Speaker 3>I'm going to be looking at who gets the big

0:18:11.840 --> 0:18:16.600
<v Speaker 3>jobs in Washington, DC. Specifically, I'll be looking to see

0:18:16.600 --> 0:18:21.080
<v Speaker 3>whether Robert Leitthheiser, the architect of tariffs in Trump's first term,

0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:25.199
<v Speaker 3>is getting a prominent role in his second administration. The

0:18:25.240 --> 0:18:29.280
<v Speaker 3>second thing, a little bit further down the road, is well,

0:18:29.560 --> 0:18:32.080
<v Speaker 3>the US is going to make a threat to try

0:18:32.119 --> 0:18:34.639
<v Speaker 3>and get some concessions from China. I'm going to be

0:18:34.680 --> 0:18:39.000
<v Speaker 3>looking at how China responds. I think it's actually entirely

0:18:39.040 --> 0:18:44.520
<v Speaker 3>possible that Beijing calls Washington, DC's bluff on this, and

0:18:44.560 --> 0:18:47.200
<v Speaker 3>that Trump says we're going to hit you with sixty

0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:51.159
<v Speaker 3>percent tariffs, and instead of coming forward with some concessions,

0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:54.800
<v Speaker 3>we'll buy some more soybeans, we'll buy some more liquefied

0:18:54.880 --> 0:18:59.040
<v Speaker 3>natural gas. We'll give some more trademarks to your immediate

0:18:59.080 --> 0:19:03.199
<v Speaker 3>family members. China says, you know what, We've played this

0:19:03.240 --> 0:19:06.719
<v Speaker 3>game before in your first term. We're not playing it again.

0:19:07.560 --> 0:19:09.919
<v Speaker 3>Tariff us if you like, but we're not having this

0:19:10.000 --> 0:19:13.320
<v Speaker 3>negotiation a second time. And then the third thing that

0:19:13.359 --> 0:19:16.119
<v Speaker 3>I'm going to be looking for to guide me through

0:19:16.240 --> 0:19:20.600
<v Speaker 3>all this complexity is the Agia Centric podcast, which I

0:19:20.680 --> 0:19:24.720
<v Speaker 3>understand has all the information everyone needs to understand the

0:19:24.760 --> 0:19:29.520
<v Speaker 3>complexities of Asia's politics, economy, and financial markets.

0:19:29.560 --> 0:19:32.400
<v Speaker 1>Really truly the best guest to have on the show.

0:19:32.520 --> 0:19:35.520
<v Speaker 1>We can't wait to have you on next tom Thank

0:19:35.520 --> 0:19:38.840
<v Speaker 1>you so much for joining us on the Asia Centric podcast.

0:19:39.440 --> 0:19:41.520
<v Speaker 3>It's been great to be here. Thanks Katy, thanks job.

0:19:42.680 --> 0:19:46.159
<v Speaker 1>You've been listening to Asia Centric from Bloomberg Intelligence. This

0:19:46.280 --> 0:19:48.000
<v Speaker 1>podcast is produced by Claire Chen