Speaker 1: Hello. Just a quick note about this episode of Stephanomics.
Speaker 1: The segment about Israel was recorded before the news this
Speaker 1: week that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a
Speaker 1: new government. Thanks for listening and enjoy the show. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Stephanomics, the podcast that brings the global economy to you.
Speaker 1: My name is Tom Oulick. I'm the chief economist for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg and I'm filling in for this one week for
Speaker 1: your regular and eponymous host, Stephanie Flanders. Back when I
Speaker 1: lived in China, the big concern amongst Chinese economists was
Speaker 1: something they call a horby jen jug, or a currency war.
Speaker 1: The fear in Beijing was that the United States was
Speaker 1: going to weaponize its financial system and the big Wall
Speaker 1: Street banks would come to China promising grace and reform,
Speaker 1: but they would deliver chaos and crisis, the kind of
Speaker 1: meltdown which China's Asian neighbors experienced in and well, it
Speaker 1: turns out those fears were misplaced. There is a conflict
Speaker 1: between the U. S and China, but it's not about currencies.
Speaker 1: It's about trade, and that's going to be the focus
Speaker 1: of today's episode. I'll be speaking with Wendy Cutler, who
Speaker 1: spent her career as one of the most senior trade
Speaker 1: negotiators in the United States, to get her insiders take
Speaker 1: on how trade negotiations between China and the US could evolve.
Speaker 1: And I'll be catching up with Jenny Leonard, one of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg's star trade reporters, to hear what it's like reporting
Speaker 1: from the front line of the trade war. Before we
Speaker 1: get there, though, we're going to go to a part
Speaker 1: of the world which is more familiar through the lens
Speaker 1: of security or human rights than economics. Let's go to Israel,
Speaker 1: and here from Ivan Levingstone about some interesting develops in
Speaker 1: the labor market. A few weeks ago, I visited a
Speaker 1: coworking space in Jerusalem called biz Max. I toward the
Speaker 1: standard mix of open work areas and smaller glass in rooms,
Speaker 1: complete with minimalists, a core and an espresso machine. On
Speaker 1: first take, it could have been any we work style office,
Speaker 1: but there was a key difference. Bis Max is run
Speaker 1: for ultra Orthodox Jewish Men or in Hebrew are dem
Speaker 1: with a kosher kitchen and religious book lying in the shelves.
Speaker 1: It seeks to provide a place for them to get
Speaker 1: businesses off the ground. I went there in late April
Speaker 1: to meet with Yetrak Meyer A Jelovski, a thirty one
Speaker 1: year old father of five who runs his own event
Speaker 1: planning business called a smata. Every day I am going home.
Speaker 1: He's a podcast told me as him unruly like each
Speaker 1: as he goes by met me wearing the traditional garb
Speaker 1: of hardy Jews, black suit, white shirt, long curls falling
Speaker 1: from the corners of his hair. He also brought a
Speaker 1: kosher iPad with some restrictive settings that he manages his
Speaker 1: company on. He's just as busy as any small business
Speaker 1: owner making a go of it, but he also has
Speaker 1: to make time for prayer and religious obligations. I have
Speaker 1: every day about every day one and a half events,
Speaker 1: a big small ones between one twice a week. I
Speaker 1: have a wedding, a big wedding game three under portions.
Speaker 1: Portions was in the big hole, was catering. For good reason,
Speaker 1: Israel has earned the nickname startup Nation. The country has
Speaker 1: a burgeoning tech sector driving the economy, but below the
Speaker 1: surface there's trouble. Growth is stabilizing and productivity is sluggish.
Speaker 1: Because unemployment is near record lows the country needs to
Speaker 1: find more workers ideally ones who are highly skilled. There
Speaker 1: are two groups economists have zeroed in on because they
Speaker 1: participate at a lower rate in the workforce, Ultra Orthodox
Speaker 1: men like Eacha and Arab Israeli women. The Hardim present
Speaker 1: a particular challenge with their rapid population growth and lower productivity,
Speaker 1: helping them climb in the workforce as a priority that
Speaker 1: may only intensifying urgency, and in Israel, surrounded by enemies,
Speaker 1: economic challenges become geopolitical ones Without a first rate economy,
Speaker 1: it's hard to maintain a first rate military. Each of
Speaker 1: success building a business came to spite some challenges. He
Speaker 1: got married at age nineteen and soon decided to work
Speaker 1: to help provide for his family, but he was locked
Speaker 1: out of some fields because of his religious education. On
Speaker 1: a visit to his home in Jerusalem, he told me
Speaker 1: what it was like getting started In the beginning. It
Speaker 1: was very hard because of the it's a low income.
Speaker 1: You have to learn everything by yourself. I didn't learn
Speaker 1: ever about the work or any work. Just studied the
Speaker 1: town there, and then I went to start the business
Speaker 1: by seeing every even he went to do events and
Speaker 1: I was I was standing him by the entrance of
Speaker 1: the kitchen took to check out our works. Israel's Harri
Speaker 1: Deem are growing part of the population and also a
Speaker 1: rising political force. As such, they're an increasingly important block
Speaker 1: for Prime Minister Benjamin Netan yahoo in support of his
Speaker 1: right wing governing coalitions. As their political influence rises. Where
Speaker 1: their demographics strength, that bodes well for the subsidies that
Speaker 1: benefit them, like child allowances and scholarships. In a way,
Speaker 1: the government is at odds with itself. Political leaders help
Speaker 1: protect funding that may discourage work, while others are trying
Speaker 1: to bring Haredim into the labor force, seeing it as
Speaker 1: a long term economic issue. At the start of this decade,
Speaker 1: government targets were set with the aim of increasing the
Speaker 1: employment rate of Haredi men and Arab Israeli women. Arab
Speaker 1: women are already close to hitting their goal, but for
Speaker 1: Haredi men the story is different. While they have increasingly
Speaker 1: joined the workforce in recent years, progress is stagnating well
Speaker 1: below the hope for level. One key reason is a
Speaker 1: cultural emphasis on religious study. I met with Av Weiss,
Speaker 1: an economist and president of the TAB Center for Social
Speaker 1: Policy Studies in Israel, to dig into the reasons for
Speaker 1: the divergence. See the difference between the the the Haredi
Speaker 1: men and the Arab women um is it's got to stem,
Speaker 1: bottom line, from desire. That the desire of the Arab
Speaker 1: pubin um really is to improve their lot, to be
Speaker 1: able to do better than than than the past, to
Speaker 1: increase your education, to increase your employment. For the Harediman,
Speaker 1: that's just not necessarily the case. While the Haredim are
Speaker 1: interested in moving upwards spiritually, Arab Israeli women are focused
Speaker 1: on a different kind of upward mobility. Facing challenges including
Speaker 1: discrimination and higher rates of poverty, They're making strides and
Speaker 1: education and at least in high school, increasingly studying fields
Speaker 1: like engineering that leads to more lucrative employment. Such progress
Speaker 1: has come even amid withering criticism of Israel and the
Speaker 1: West for how it treats its Arab citizens, as well
Speaker 1: as for the poor economic state of Palestinians in Gaza
Speaker 1: and the West Bank. But there are some more positive
Speaker 1: stories out there. Kuluta Uti is a twenty nine year
Speaker 1: old Arab israel woman from Jaffa with two daughters. While
Speaker 1: her parents didn't go to university and she married at
Speaker 1: the age of twenty one, she is now finishing a
Speaker 1: degree in political science. In between managing family and studies,
Speaker 1: she's the co sea of an organization called Present Tense,
Speaker 1: which tries to reduce social gaps in marginalized communities in
Speaker 1: Israel through entrepreneurship. I met her for a morning chat
Speaker 1: at a municipal building in Jaffa where her organization host programming,
Speaker 1: and she told me about why Arab Israeli women have
Speaker 1: been challenged joining the labor force. Have all these expectations,
Speaker 1: and you need to to meet all the expectations, and
Speaker 1: then you have to choose what exectation you can to meet,
Speaker 1: because it's so hard because you need to have a home,
Speaker 1: you need to have a get married, and you have children.
Speaker 1: You need to do all of these things and evens.
Speaker 1: And also if you can do a degree and and work,
Speaker 1: it's great, but it's hard. It's tougher for for Arab
Speaker 1: women with a tight labor market and shortages of engineers.
Speaker 1: Israel's future growth. Henderson part on this group. If they succeed,
Speaker 1: it will be a real bright spot, but they're not
Speaker 1: there yet. A lot of women really do break the
Speaker 1: glass city, but a lot of them also stay at home,
Speaker 1: and you can see the stats and it's getting better,
Speaker 1: but still it's not in the in the correct fields
Speaker 1: that can high tech officials admit that the government's programs
Speaker 1: in this area still have a ways to go. Here's
Speaker 1: Julia Eton, head of the Employment and Diversity Administration for
Speaker 1: Israel's Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services. It's
Speaker 1: very clear if you're not bridging the gap these two
Speaker 1: populations and believe it to the the productivity of a general population,
Speaker 1: rates of growth of israel economy are not going to
Speaker 1: be sufficient to have a normal level of growth and living.
Speaker 1: That's why it's crucial for us to succeed. But they're
Speaker 1: not alone here. You have communities, you have their ambition,
Speaker 1: you have their beliefs, you have their way of analyzing
Speaker 1: the reality. What early mean Israel is a tiny country
Speaker 1: that doesn't trade with its neighbors and is in a
Speaker 1: state of war with some of them. It's economic edge,
Speaker 1: particularly in the world of tech, is a crucial strategic asset.
Speaker 1: It provides incentives for countries, including the United States and
Speaker 1: those across Africa and Asia, to forge stronger ties with
Speaker 1: the Jewish state, and for Prime Minister Netan Yahoo winning
Speaker 1: on the economy increases the chances that he can keep
Speaker 1: winning period. For Bloomberg News, I'm Ivan Levingstone. I'm delighted
Speaker 1: to be joined for this section by Wendy Cutler. Wendy
Speaker 1: is the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute
Speaker 1: at a former deputy at the US Trade Representative. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of words. Basically, what it means is there
Speaker 1: are a few people in the world who know more
Speaker 1: about trade negotiations than Wendy does. Wendy, thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1: Thanks Tom So. Implicit in the Trump administration's approach to
Speaker 1: trade negotiations is the idea that the careful, consensus based
Speaker 1: multilateral approach followed by past administrations basically got it wrong
Speaker 1: and gave China a free ride. Do you agree with
Speaker 1: that assessment? Well, I think over time, various administrations tried
Speaker 1: different approaches towards China. I think supporting China's entry into
Speaker 1: the w t O was an important move, and as
Speaker 1: a result of China joining the w t O, we
Speaker 1: saw them significantly lower their terrorists for US and other imports,
Speaker 1: as well as revived thousands of regulations and laws, and
Speaker 1: we saw an overall opening. But what didn't occur was
Speaker 1: that the reform and market opening that was so vibrant
Speaker 1: in two thousand one when China joined the w t O,
Speaker 1: it just didn't continue, particularly in recent years. And furthermore,
Speaker 1: the w t O was unable to negotiate new rules
Speaker 1: and new terror flowering, which also led to a situation
Speaker 1: where the current WTO rules are really old rules and
Speaker 1: they don't address the challenging practices that China has brought
Speaker 1: to the international training system. So do you think that
Speaker 1: calls for this more direct bilateral approach which the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is now taking, or if you were calling the shots,
Speaker 1: would your first call have been to Brussels and Tokyo
Speaker 1: and Seoul and to the w t O and an
Speaker 1: attempt to kind of martial a multilateral coalition to tackle
Speaker 1: this challenge. Well. Following China's w t O accession, the
Speaker 1: administration tried different administrations trying different approaches to deal with China,
Speaker 1: including dialogues, particularly the ones led by the Treasury Department,
Speaker 1: the Special These Strategic and Economic Dialogue, as well as
Speaker 1: trade dialogues as well, and while some progress was made,
Speaker 1: the progress was incremental and the dialogues let left many
Speaker 1: frustrated the Obamba administration put a real premium on challenging
Speaker 1: Chinese practices that were inconsistent with the w t O
Speaker 1: two dispute settlement in the w t O and scored
Speaker 1: some important victories, but still a lot of the problem
Speaker 1: problematic practices that China followed continued, so a new approach
Speaker 1: was needed, and I think in some respects, President Trump
Speaker 1: has gone it right by imposing tariffs, whether I support
Speaker 1: them or not, they have brought to China to the
Speaker 1: newociating table. However, I think what has been really flawed
Speaker 1: in the President's approach to dealing with China is the
Speaker 1: fact that we're going it alone. We're relying on unilateral
Speaker 1: measures on bilateral negotiations without trying to bring other countries
Speaker 1: on board with our approach, who also share similar concerns
Speaker 1: that the United States has with China. So I think
Speaker 1: we could be doing a much better job working with
Speaker 1: our allies and friends both in Asia and around the world,
Speaker 1: and together telling China that it needs to change its
Speaker 1: practices and pursue more, more market opening um measures. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration has decided not only to take on China,
Speaker 1: but also to take on our friends and allies, and
Speaker 1: as a result, trying to establish a multilateral coalition to
Speaker 1: approach China has been very hard to construct. And it's
Speaker 1: not just the muscular bilateralism or the muscular unilateralism of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration which sets it apart from past administrations.
Speaker 1: It's also the personal role which Donald Trump is taking
Speaker 1: that that positioning of I'm the only one who makes
Speaker 1: the decisions, that public approach with the tweets to declare
Speaker 1: policy changes and the lack of predictability. Now you're someone
Speaker 1: who's really been at the center of some of the
Speaker 1: most high profile, most delicate trade negotiations which the US
Speaker 1: has has conducted in in recent years. And what's your
Speaker 1: take on that very personal approach which the president is taking.
Speaker 1: Does that strengthen the hand of his negotiators or do
Speaker 1: the costs of unpredictability outweigh the benefits. What's kind of
Speaker 1: a mixed picture. I think in every negotiation a dose
Speaker 1: of unpredictability is useful. If your counterparts think they know
Speaker 1: your every move, they'll just game it all out, So
Speaker 1: some unpredictability could be useful. Um, but I think the
Speaker 1: President has gone way too far on that score. And
Speaker 1: as a result, our trading partners are left scratching their heads,
Speaker 1: not really knowing what they're being asked to do. Also,
Speaker 1: I think being really public UM, particularly in the final
Speaker 1: stages of trade negotiations, is not a great approach. What
Speaker 1: I often would find at the end of trade negotiations
Speaker 1: that having private conversations would be much more useful once
Speaker 1: you're public. And we're seeing this now in the volley
Speaker 1: of words between Beijing and Washington. Both sides are are
Speaker 1: setting up high expectations for their domestic publics and what
Speaker 1: they might be able to achieve, and also they're reducing
Speaker 1: their flexibilities to find common ground. Now, maybe this is intentional,
Speaker 1: Maybe both sides have decided that they don't want a
Speaker 1: deal because they're certainly acting like that. But again, UM,
Speaker 1: I think being too public and too hard hitting UM
Speaker 1: in the public with with strong words is not a
Speaker 1: great way to bring talks to to closure. That hardening
Speaker 1: of rhetoric could bring some real costs to the negotiations. UM, Wendy,
Speaker 1: I want to I want to focus the conversation on
Speaker 1: one of the specific moments in the last few weeks,
Speaker 1: which was that moment where Leo her was on his
Speaker 1: way to Washington, d C. And it seemed like a
Speaker 1: deal was going to be signed, and then suddenly we
Speaker 1: heard from the US side, No, China's tried to pull
Speaker 1: back from there from their previous commitments. They're trying to
Speaker 1: pull their chips off the table, and that's not acceptable
Speaker 1: to us. So we're not going to sign a deal.
Speaker 1: Um now. As someone who's been inside these kind of
Speaker 1: trade negotiating sans, what's your take on that. Is it
Speaker 1: common to see substantial changes in negotiating position behind the
Speaker 1: scenes from one or both sides in the final days
Speaker 1: before a deal is signed. Well, unfortunately it is. And
Speaker 1: this is not the first time a country has come
Speaker 1: to the negotiating table in the final stage and taken
Speaker 1: things off the table, or has moved goalposts and asked
Speaker 1: the other and the other country to do more. What
Speaker 1: happens at the end of a trade negotiation is both
Speaker 1: sides and their capital as I think, look at the
Speaker 1: entire deal and try and figure out is this a
Speaker 1: deal that will garner public support? Is this deal viable, incredible?
Speaker 1: And will I be able to withstand the criticism? And
Speaker 1: I think that leads both sides at the end of
Speaker 1: a negotiation to do things like taking things off the
Speaker 1: table or asking the other country to do more. However,
Speaker 1: given the high stakes of this negotiation, and I think
Speaker 1: these last minute moves were extremely consequential and really led
Speaker 1: the US to question whether China was acting in good faith.
Speaker 1: In the US view, China had agreed to many of
Speaker 1: the provisions already that it it, you know, took off
Speaker 1: the table in the final stages. Um. And again, I
Speaker 1: think I think these issues can I don't think they're insurmountable.
Speaker 1: I think with creativity they can be worked through. However, Um,
Speaker 1: if both sides continued to be very public in their
Speaker 1: rhetoric and very hard line. Um, with each passing day,
Speaker 1: this deal is going to be more difficult to conclude. Wendy,
Speaker 1: let's let's let's throw it forwards. Um, how do you
Speaker 1: see this playing? The markets think maybe there's a deal
Speaker 1: at Osaka with President Trump and President She sitting down
Speaker 1: at that G twenty meetsing. There's also, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: and hardening rhetoric on both sides, the threat of more tariffs,
Speaker 1: the threat of sanctions on Chinese firms. It feels like
Speaker 1: if we don't get a deal in Osaka, this could
Speaker 1: be messy, extended, and expensive for both sides. Um, could
Speaker 1: you handicap those probabilities for US? Yes? So, in my view,
Speaker 1: I think both sides right now think that they can
Speaker 1: outlive the other with respect to having no trade deal.
Speaker 1: The US feels their economy is strong and that China's
Speaker 1: economy is weak, and therefore that the US has the
Speaker 1: negotiating leverage. I think China feels that it has the
Speaker 1: political and economic tools that it needs to ensure that
Speaker 1: its citizens can survive this trade war, and in their view,
Speaker 1: history proves that. But the other development that's going to
Speaker 1: happen soon is that on June one, China is going
Speaker 1: to impose the next round of it's tariff hikes on
Speaker 1: sixty billion dollars worth of US imports, and the full
Speaker 1: impact of the US tariff escalation on two billion dollar
Speaker 1: worth of Chinese imports will be felt by June one.
Speaker 1: And if you recall the last time the two leaders
Speaker 1: met on December one, in the lead up to that meeting,
Speaker 1: those tariffs started to have a very destructive effect on
Speaker 1: the both both sides economies. So at last December one,
Speaker 1: both leaders when they met, agreed to launch talks for
Speaker 1: ninety days, so if you ask me now, I would
Speaker 1: My sense is that come the meeting between Presidents Trump
Speaker 1: and She on the margins of the G twenty meeting
Speaker 1: in Osaka, um perhaps they will agree that both sides
Speaker 1: need to resume the negotiations and pick up from where
Speaker 1: they where they left the talks um in early May.
Speaker 1: But I don't see the deal coming together by the
Speaker 1: time of the G twenty meeting. I think President Trump
Speaker 1: was very clear when he said in Japan just yesterday
Speaker 1: that he's in no rush to conclude these talks. But
Speaker 1: perhaps a month from now he will feel like he's
Speaker 1: in a different position when these tariff the new tariff
Speaker 1: actions start having a real bite for US consumers, workers,
Speaker 1: farmers and businesses. Okay, no deal in Osaka, but potentially
Speaker 1: an agreement to agree. Wendy Cutler from the Asia Society,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for your time and your insights.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tom. The trade team at Bloomberg News is
Speaker 1: one of the scoop eest teams in the newsroom, and
Speaker 1: on that team, few are scoopia than Jenny Leonard. Jenny's
Speaker 1: joining me in the studio now to talk about her
Speaker 1: experience of reporting the trade war UM and her take
Speaker 1: on how things are going to evolve. Jenny, Thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us, Thanks for having me so. Jenny, you've been
Speaker 1: reporting this trade war from the start. Can you give
Speaker 1: us a sense of how the mood on the U
Speaker 1: S side, the people around the president who are trying
Speaker 1: to shape policy, How is the mood in that group
Speaker 1: shifted from that first declaration from from the president that
Speaker 1: trade wars are good and easy to win to the
Speaker 1: situation we find ourselves in today. So actually, I think
Speaker 1: it hasn't evolved that much. The people who are closest
Speaker 1: to the president, I think, would still stand by that
Speaker 1: declaration that trade wars are good and easy to win.
Speaker 1: At least they still believe that the US has the
Speaker 1: resolve to actually come out as the winner of this. UM.
Speaker 1: I would say that the advisors around the President and
Speaker 1: the Vice President and the President himself are hearing more
Speaker 1: and more from Republicans on the hill, from farmers from
Speaker 1: constituencies that this is starting to bite and they might
Speaker 1: not want to see this go on much longer. So
Speaker 1: we might see a shift. We might start seeing a
Speaker 1: shift sometime in the near future. But at this point,
Speaker 1: I think his advisors. The mood is still very much
Speaker 1: um like it was a couple a couple of months ago,
Speaker 1: and can you help us put a bit of a
Speaker 1: structure around are thinking on who those advisors are, um
Speaker 1: who are the hawks, Who are the doves? Who are
Speaker 1: the people who see China as a kind of existential threat?
Speaker 1: Who are the people who just want to get a
Speaker 1: deal done? So I think we've reported extensively on the
Speaker 1: sort of the two camps, the hawks and the doves,
Speaker 1: and um my sources are very adamant in pointing out
Speaker 1: that Peter Navarro, who's the trade advisor that's very far
Speaker 1: on the hawker side, is not in the same place
Speaker 1: as Ustr Lighthouser, who's also seen as a hawk. But
Speaker 1: Peter Navarre really sees China as an existential threat. He
Speaker 1: wrote books about China. Robert Lighthegh or the U s
Speaker 1: TR is more of a trade hog. He's, for you know, decades,
Speaker 1: has fought countries unfair subsidies and training practices, and China
Speaker 1: obviously is on the forefront of that. But he's not
Speaker 1: obsessed with China as maybe Peter Navarro is. And then
Speaker 1: we have the the doves may be led by Treasury
Speaker 1: Secretary Minuchin, who obviously gets a lot of calls from
Speaker 1: Wall Street who, um, would really like to see a
Speaker 1: deal done? Student. And then we have the National security
Speaker 1: advisors like John Bolton, who actually their voices has been
Speaker 1: elevated a lot in this administration and they have a
Speaker 1: say in trade decisions now, which wasn't the case in
Speaker 1: previous administrations. And when something like the sanctions on Huawei happened, Jenny, Um,
Speaker 1: is that coming, in your sense, from an integrated policy
Speaker 1: the trade negotiators aware that those Huawei sanctions are going
Speaker 1: to drop, or is that coming out of left field
Speaker 1: from a different of the administration? Yeah, good question. I
Speaker 1: think it's Um, It's a little bit of both. In
Speaker 1: that the Huawei sanction sanctions have been discussed for a
Speaker 1: long time, so it shouldn't come as a surprise to
Speaker 1: anyone on the trade team that someone like John Bolton
Speaker 1: has been pushing for that. But then when it actually happened, uh,
Speaker 1: last week or two weeks ago, you know, our reporting
Speaker 1: showed that everyone was overwhelmed with actually rolling out and
Speaker 1: implementing that those sanctions because it did come out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: Too many people who weren't involved in these discussions that
Speaker 1: John Bolton had with the President about this and which
Speaker 1: group do you put the president in? Is he an
Speaker 1: instinctive member of one group or is he moving between
Speaker 1: them depending on circumstances. Yeah, it really depends on the
Speaker 1: day for the president. Um. You know, a good example
Speaker 1: was last week when he was in Japan, um Or
Speaker 1: when he left for Japan, he was talking about Huawei
Speaker 1: and how there's really a big national security risk and
Speaker 1: how that's really a problem, and in the next sentence
Speaker 1: he totally undermined what he had just said and what
Speaker 1: his national security advisors want him to say by saying, well,
Speaker 1: we might wrap this into some kind of trade deal
Speaker 1: sometime soon. And so you know, he's really swinging. And
Speaker 1: we've known this about the President for a while now,
Speaker 1: that he he likes these policy debates and having them
Speaker 1: play out in front of him. Um, and he sides
Speaker 1: with whoever you know, he wants to side in that moment,
Speaker 1: and he changes his mind often, which keeps all of
Speaker 1: his advisors on their toes. For sure, that unpredictability from
Speaker 1: the president, as we heard from Wendy Cutler, um potentially
Speaker 1: an advantage at some points in the negotiation, but also
Speaker 1: evidently coming at some costs, including to his own side. Um, Jenny,
Speaker 1: let's throw this forwards. Tell us about your expectation or
Speaker 1: how we should think about that She Trump meeting at
Speaker 1: the G twenty the mark it's right that we could
Speaker 1: get a deal there, or do you see that as
Speaker 1: excessively optimistic. I think the markets are always a little
Speaker 1: more optimistic than reality. Uh. I think a deal might
Speaker 1: not be possible in the next month, because that would
Speaker 1: really take you know, Lightheiser and Leo Hood to sit
Speaker 1: down again, to go over you know, basically go to
Speaker 1: the status quo before China renect on on its commitments,
Speaker 1: and I don't really see that happening. At the same time,
Speaker 1: I would say anything can happen when President Trump gets
Speaker 1: in the room with President She. We've seen this multiple times.
Speaker 1: Trump reversed his ban on on z T, the telecom
Speaker 1: equipment's maker, last year at the request of Shooting Ping.
Speaker 1: So I wouldn't rule anything out. But a deal seems
Speaker 1: a little bit too ambitious, Okay. Personalities of the two
Speaker 1: leaders crucial as we prepare for that G twenty meeting.
Speaker 1: Jenny Lennon, thank you so much. Thank you well. We
Speaker 1: toyed with renaming it Tom and Omics, but producers Scott
Speaker 1: Lamman advised me that that was a bad idea for
Speaker 1: a single episode and potentially a career ending mistake for
Speaker 1: me personally. So thanks for listening to Stephanomics. Stephanie Flanders
Speaker 1: will return next week with more on the ground insights
Speaker 1: into the global economy. In the meantime, you can find
Speaker 1: us on the Bloomberg Terminal website, APT or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. We would love if you took the
Speaker 1: time to rate and review our show so it can
Speaker 1: reach more listeners. For more news and analysis from Bloomberg Economics,
Speaker 1: follow at Economics on Twitter, and you can also find
Speaker 1: me at Tom Marlick. The story in this episode was
Speaker 1: reported and written by Ivan Levingstone. It was produced by
Speaker 1: Magnus Henrickson and edited by Scott Lanman, who is also
Speaker 1: the executive producer of Stephanomics Special thanks to Wendy Cutler,
Speaker 1: Jenny Leonard, and Michael Arnold. Francesco Levi is the head
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg Podcasts. H