WEBVTT - 69: Thought 2016 Was Bad? Wait Until You See 2017

0:00:00.240 --> 0:00:03.120
<v Speaker 1>Brought to you by Bank of America. Merrill Lynch seeing

0:00:03.120 --> 0:00:05.600
<v Speaker 1>what others have seen, but uncovering what others may not.

0:00:06.000 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>Global Research that helps you Harness disruption voted top global

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:13.000
<v Speaker 1>research from five years running. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and

0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:16.520
<v Speaker 1>Smith incorporated the trick with the pessimist guy that we

0:00:16.840 --> 0:00:19.360
<v Speaker 1>and I hope we walk the line is to come

0:00:19.400 --> 0:00:21.880
<v Speaker 1>up with scenarios that are just about within the realms

0:00:21.920 --> 0:00:25.840
<v Speaker 1>of the feasible. Yeah. The risk, the danger is that

0:00:26.160 --> 0:00:30.760
<v Speaker 1>we're in an environment now where you know, suddenly everything

0:00:30.840 --> 0:00:34.400
<v Speaker 1>is thinkable. Like you haven't mentioned aliens here. Did you

0:00:34.400 --> 0:00:39.120
<v Speaker 1>have any deliberations about that about aliens? No, not not

0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:42.920
<v Speaker 1>not this year, but you know, you never know. Guide

0:00:42.960 --> 0:00:45.080
<v Speaker 1>we could. We could take that one for a walk.

0:00:54.120 --> 0:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Bloomberg Benchmark, a show about the global economy.

0:00:58.000 --> 0:01:01.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm Daniel Moss, Bloomberg's exact gutive editor for Global Economics

0:01:01.800 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 1>in New York, and I'm Keith Smith and editor with

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:08.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg News here in New York. As well. Brexit Trump

0:01:09.319 --> 0:01:12.080
<v Speaker 1>they came to pass this year as unlikely as they

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:16.000
<v Speaker 1>may have sounded in December last year. But wait, wait,

0:01:16.440 --> 0:01:19.440
<v Speaker 1>there could be more. Our guest and colleague John Frere

0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:24.160
<v Speaker 1>is co author of Bloomberg's Pessimists Guide to Twenties seventeen.

0:01:24.720 --> 0:01:27.840
<v Speaker 1>When he's not writing about doom and Gloom, he's executive

0:01:27.959 --> 0:01:32.240
<v Speaker 1>editor for International Government. John. Welcome, Thanks, thanks for having me.

0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:36.200
<v Speaker 1>Good to be here. So what exactly is the Pessimists

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:38.440
<v Speaker 1>Guide and what's its origin? How did you come up

0:01:38.480 --> 0:01:42.240
<v Speaker 1>with this idea? So this is actually our third Pessimist Guide.

0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:45.119
<v Speaker 1>We start we started it two years ago and essentially,

0:01:45.240 --> 0:01:48.680
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's not it's not a list of predictions

0:01:48.720 --> 0:01:52.120
<v Speaker 1>of events that will happen in the next year. Um,

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:55.760
<v Speaker 1>it's essentially and it's a thought exercise. We're encouraging our

0:01:55.800 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 1>readers to think about all of the unimagined outcomes that

0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:03.440
<v Speaker 1>could happen in the in the following twelve months. And

0:02:03.440 --> 0:02:06.760
<v Speaker 1>the origins really were after Putin went into Ukraine. That

0:02:06.920 --> 0:02:09.120
<v Speaker 1>was such a sort of a sizing to your political

0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:12.440
<v Speaker 1>event that it prompted us two years ago to think about, Okay,

0:02:12.720 --> 0:02:15.840
<v Speaker 1>what are the other events around the world, Where where

0:02:15.840 --> 0:02:19.280
<v Speaker 1>are the other fault lines in global politics where you

0:02:19.320 --> 0:02:22.680
<v Speaker 1>could see you could see ruptures next year. So essentially

0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:26.639
<v Speaker 1>we're encouraging readers to look at the consensus and then

0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:30.000
<v Speaker 1>look outside the consensus and think about the tail risk

0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:33.119
<v Speaker 1>events UM that could upend their business models, that could

0:02:33.200 --> 0:02:36.600
<v Speaker 1>upend their forecasting models. And goodness knows, over the last

0:02:36.600 --> 0:02:40.000
<v Speaker 1>twelve months, we've seen enough of those. We certainly have UM.

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:43.960
<v Speaker 1>So in your pessimist guide, it's full of scenarios. They

0:02:44.080 --> 0:02:47.760
<v Speaker 1>range from year one of Trump elections in Europe study really,

0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:49.400
<v Speaker 1>how did you so, how did you come up with

0:02:49.440 --> 0:02:54.320
<v Speaker 1>this year's Instead of not predictions, I should say, well, so,

0:02:54.320 --> 0:02:56.000
<v Speaker 1>so first that we were I was very keen that

0:02:56.040 --> 0:02:58.840
<v Speaker 1>we had a good geographical range around the world. So

0:02:58.880 --> 0:03:01.400
<v Speaker 1>we went through week we know, we we got editors

0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:03.919
<v Speaker 1>and reporters on the phone from Asia, from the Middle East,

0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:06.760
<v Speaker 1>from the U S and Europe, and again we encouraged

0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 1>and encourage and to think through um the you know,

0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:15.119
<v Speaker 1>the range of risk possibilities, and then push those risk

0:03:15.639 --> 0:03:18.320
<v Speaker 1>scenarios even further. So, for example, take this out the

0:03:18.320 --> 0:03:22.240
<v Speaker 1>Saudi Arabian model. One of the great stories of sixteen

0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 1>has been the rise of the Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed

0:03:24.800 --> 0:03:27.959
<v Speaker 1>bin Salmon and his his his vision for the future

0:03:27.960 --> 0:03:30.560
<v Speaker 1>of the Saudi Arabian economy. So so that was one

0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:33.160
<v Speaker 1>of the big stories. Often you asked yourself, Okay, if

0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.880
<v Speaker 1>you flip that on its head, what would that story

0:03:35.960 --> 0:03:38.480
<v Speaker 1>look like? And the more we we spoke with the

0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:41.480
<v Speaker 1>reporters and readd, you know, the more interesting we became,

0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:45.400
<v Speaker 1>more interested. We became in this idea of rivalries within

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:48.600
<v Speaker 1>the Saudi Arabian court, which then leads you to the thought, Okay,

0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:50.960
<v Speaker 1>what if there was a palace coup and this this

0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:54.080
<v Speaker 1>young upstart who is sort of in a way jumped

0:03:54.200 --> 0:03:56.400
<v Speaker 1>the line of succession. What if he was pushed out

0:03:56.400 --> 0:03:58.160
<v Speaker 1>of the way. What would that mean for you as

0:03:58.160 --> 0:04:01.000
<v Speaker 1>an investor? If you had already double down on this vision,

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:03.880
<v Speaker 1>on this reformist vision for Saudi Arabia, how should you

0:04:03.920 --> 0:04:06.680
<v Speaker 1>think about that when you think about the UN investments

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:08.280
<v Speaker 1>in the Middle East. So that sort of gives you

0:04:08.360 --> 0:04:10.880
<v Speaker 1>a flavor of the thought processes that we went through.

0:04:11.680 --> 0:04:14.240
<v Speaker 1>And to be very you throughout the guide, you're you're

0:04:14.360 --> 0:04:17.039
<v Speaker 1>very much at pains to make sure the readers understand

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:19.480
<v Speaker 1>that these are by no means predictions. They're just kind

0:04:19.480 --> 0:04:22.480
<v Speaker 1>of speculation, kind of what if scenarios. But nevertheless, I

0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:24.159
<v Speaker 1>mean I have to say we are putting it in

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:27.159
<v Speaker 1>front of them. In readers to these reads, I mean,

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:31.200
<v Speaker 1>was it hard for you to walk that line? Sometimes

0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:33.240
<v Speaker 1>it can be. I mean, it's interesting last year, but

0:04:33.279 --> 0:04:36.839
<v Speaker 1>probably the most heated debate we had about this in

0:04:36.520 --> 0:04:38.960
<v Speaker 1>the three years we've done this now, it was last

0:04:39.040 --> 0:04:42.440
<v Speaker 1>year when we put the scenario in the sixteen guide

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:45.479
<v Speaker 1>of Donald Trump becoming president of the United States, and

0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:47.720
<v Speaker 1>there were voices and our sort of in our council,

0:04:48.000 --> 0:04:50.279
<v Speaker 1>there were some voices and in Washington saying, if you

0:04:50.360 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 1>do this, it could look stupid. This is just a

0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:55.640
<v Speaker 1>belt way, It's just a belt way obsession. It's going

0:04:55.680 --> 0:04:58.800
<v Speaker 1>to be over by February. This guy doesn't have a chance. Um.

0:04:59.160 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 1>I think there were peop well who have thought that

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:03.279
<v Speaker 1>it would be irresponsible to put that, to put that

0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:06.520
<v Speaker 1>on on on the list. Likewise, well, this year when

0:05:06.520 --> 0:05:09.440
<v Speaker 1>we went through the China, the China scenarios, you know,

0:05:09.560 --> 0:05:11.280
<v Speaker 1>I was in Hong Kong at the time, and there

0:05:11.320 --> 0:05:13.960
<v Speaker 1>were there was another wave of protests going on. So

0:05:14.040 --> 0:05:16.479
<v Speaker 1>you ask yourself the question, Okay, how how far can

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:20.240
<v Speaker 1>we push this um in terms of uh, what scenarios

0:05:20.240 --> 0:05:23.679
<v Speaker 1>I might see in China, and how do you risk

0:05:23.800 --> 0:05:26.359
<v Speaker 1>There is the risk that it could seem fantastical if

0:05:26.400 --> 0:05:28.600
<v Speaker 1>you sort of said, okay, maybe could you ever imagine

0:05:28.600 --> 0:05:31.159
<v Speaker 1>a situation in which the p l A, the People's

0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:33.320
<v Speaker 1>Liberation Army would show up in the streets of Hong Kong.

0:05:33.560 --> 0:05:36.200
<v Speaker 1>That sort of scenario probably we deemed maybe just a

0:05:36.240 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 1>little bit too outlandish. The trick with the pessimist guy

0:05:39.400 --> 0:05:41.599
<v Speaker 1>that we and I hope we walk the line is

0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:44.440
<v Speaker 1>to come up with scenarios that are just about within

0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:47.760
<v Speaker 1>the realms of the feasible. Yet the risk, the danger

0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:51.320
<v Speaker 1>is that we're in an environment now where you know,

0:05:51.920 --> 0:05:56.920
<v Speaker 1>suddenly everything is thinkable. Like you haven't mentioned aliens here.

0:05:57.200 --> 0:06:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Did you have any deliberations about that about aliens? No, not,

0:06:02.000 --> 0:06:04.120
<v Speaker 1>not not this year, but you know, you never know.

0:06:05.760 --> 0:06:09.239
<v Speaker 1>Guide we could, we could take that one for a walk. Okay,

0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:12.400
<v Speaker 1>So bringing this back down to down to earth, just

0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:14.960
<v Speaker 1>one quick question before we move on. I'm curious. I

0:06:15.000 --> 0:06:16.560
<v Speaker 1>did not. I have to admit I did not read

0:06:16.560 --> 0:06:19.839
<v Speaker 1>the Pessimist Guides to sixteen. No. No, like last year's

0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:22.040
<v Speaker 1>and the year before. Dan is rolling his eyes at me.

0:06:22.080 --> 0:06:23.520
<v Speaker 1>I think he's going to get a headache. I hurt

0:06:23.560 --> 0:06:28.880
<v Speaker 1>so much. But so Trump obviously did win. What other

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:35.880
<v Speaker 1>ones actually happened. So Brexit that was in the Guy

0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:40.000
<v Speaker 1>so Brexit Trump. Now I'm nervous to read the pessimist Guy.

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 1>Um we did have a scenario with Taiwan becoming a

0:06:44.560 --> 0:06:46.719
<v Speaker 1>major issue that that you would see you would see

0:06:46.760 --> 0:06:50.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of attentions between a new US president um and

0:06:50.400 --> 0:06:53.400
<v Speaker 1>and China in which timeline will become a horn. So

0:06:53.440 --> 0:06:56.480
<v Speaker 1>that so that was in there, um And and the

0:06:56.600 --> 0:06:59.599
<v Speaker 1>sort of the rise of Putin in the Middle East. Well, again,

0:06:59.680 --> 0:07:02.679
<v Speaker 1>con sidering where we've been, John, some of the stuff

0:07:02.720 --> 0:07:07.840
<v Speaker 1>in the Pessimists guide doesn't seem that far fetched. For instance,

0:07:07.920 --> 0:07:11.200
<v Speaker 1>protests after the inauguration of Trump. Yeah, I think we

0:07:11.280 --> 0:07:16.360
<v Speaker 1>can see that he signed some executive orders reversing Obama's legacy. Yeah,

0:07:16.400 --> 0:07:20.400
<v Speaker 1>I think we can see that presidents have increasingly, as

0:07:20.440 --> 0:07:26.000
<v Speaker 1>Congress has become more recalcilitrant, resorted to executive orders with

0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 1>some of these. Isn't it what's expected to happen? So

0:07:29.760 --> 0:07:32.320
<v Speaker 1>that that particular it in the Trump Landia item. The

0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:34.520
<v Speaker 1>point we're trying to make there is that you see

0:07:34.520 --> 0:07:37.600
<v Speaker 1>a president who is almost actively doubling down and as

0:07:37.600 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>agenda and as making no efforts whatsoever to to bring

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:45.080
<v Speaker 1>to bring the country together. Um, And there certainly there

0:07:45.080 --> 0:07:47.080
<v Speaker 1>are some fears if you look at some of the

0:07:47.080 --> 0:07:50.040
<v Speaker 1>people who's appointed to his sort of inner council, there

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:52.640
<v Speaker 1>are fears that he will that he will govern like that.

0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:54.960
<v Speaker 1>And I think, but you do raise an interesting point

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:58.120
<v Speaker 1>with the election of Trump that in and of itself

0:07:58.640 --> 0:08:02.680
<v Speaker 1>was such an outlandership event, um, that it's suddenly a

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:06.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of other things, that the range of risk outcomes

0:08:06.560 --> 0:08:08.480
<v Speaker 1>is much broader now than it ever has been in

0:08:08.520 --> 0:08:10.920
<v Speaker 1>the path. Well, you of course forgot to mention Howard

0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:14.440
<v Speaker 1>Stern being nominated to the vacancy on the Supreme Court

0:08:14.560 --> 0:08:17.360
<v Speaker 1>caused by Celia's death. So we're going to take a

0:08:17.440 --> 0:08:20.640
<v Speaker 1>break and come back and talk about I guess what

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:34.600
<v Speaker 1>might be called White Swans brought to you by Bank

0:08:34.600 --> 0:08:37.640
<v Speaker 1>of America Merrill Lynch, seeing what others have seen, but

0:08:37.720 --> 0:08:40.640
<v Speaker 1>uncovering what others may not. Global Research that helps you

0:08:40.679 --> 0:08:44.800
<v Speaker 1>harness disruption voted top global research from five years running,

0:08:45.120 --> 0:08:56.760
<v Speaker 1>Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Venner and Smith Incorporated. So John would

0:08:56.800 --> 0:08:59.640
<v Speaker 1>like to turn things around in this second segment and

0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:04.160
<v Speaker 1>run a couple of white Swans past here before you do, though,

0:09:04.320 --> 0:09:07.720
<v Speaker 1>what exactly do you mean by white Swans. Well after

0:09:07.760 --> 0:09:12.120
<v Speaker 1>the year we've had, perhaps something that would appear utterly

0:09:12.280 --> 0:09:17.439
<v Speaker 1>unremarkable in normal times in effect becomes a huge outlier,

0:09:17.559 --> 0:09:20.040
<v Speaker 1>at least in terms of the psychology at the moment,

0:09:20.520 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 1>and as a result, it's perceived to be overwhelmingly positive.

0:09:25.640 --> 0:09:29.080
<v Speaker 1>So let's run through some white Swans and John please

0:09:29.200 --> 0:09:34.360
<v Speaker 1>handicaptam for us. Okay, here we go. Merkele wins Lapin

0:09:34.480 --> 0:09:39.320
<v Speaker 1>Losers discuss. That's very possible. And it's interesting if you

0:09:39.320 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 1>look at Lapin, the hurdle that she has to cross

0:09:43.559 --> 0:09:45.920
<v Speaker 1>um that that she has to jump over is actually

0:09:46.400 --> 0:09:49.400
<v Speaker 1>much higher than the one that Donald Trump had to

0:09:49.559 --> 0:09:51.360
<v Speaker 1>had to exceed. You you have to remember, if you're

0:09:51.760 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 1>if you're if you're running on the Republican ticket, you're

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:58.120
<v Speaker 1>probably no matter who you are, you're probably already guaranteed

0:09:58.120 --> 0:10:01.079
<v Speaker 1>about four, let's say, of the vote that's your The

0:10:01.120 --> 0:10:04.480
<v Speaker 1>Republican ticket brings with you, you know, a huge swaith

0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:07.560
<v Speaker 1>of the electorate for La Marine the pen Because she's

0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:11.000
<v Speaker 1>not running for one of the traditional traditional parties and

0:10:11.040 --> 0:10:15.360
<v Speaker 1>French politics, she's probably only guaranteed about the vote. So again,

0:10:15.400 --> 0:10:18.400
<v Speaker 1>the hurdle of the hurdle that she has to jump

0:10:18.480 --> 0:10:21.400
<v Speaker 1>over as much higher. And again looking at Germany, it's

0:10:21.440 --> 0:10:23.480
<v Speaker 1>sort of the interesting thing with Germany is it depends

0:10:23.480 --> 0:10:26.200
<v Speaker 1>what you mean by Marco winning. She probably will be

0:10:26.280 --> 0:10:29.400
<v Speaker 1>the head of the largest party. Sorry you should rephrase,

0:10:29.480 --> 0:10:34.000
<v Speaker 1>I mean leader government. She will probably end up leading

0:10:34.000 --> 0:10:37.120
<v Speaker 1>a government. But the question is will the election bloody

0:10:37.160 --> 0:10:40.120
<v Speaker 1>her and batter her so much that she would essentially

0:10:40.160 --> 0:10:42.679
<v Speaker 1>lose her political authority and that she would then probably

0:10:42.720 --> 0:10:45.400
<v Speaker 1>step down two years later. I think in Germany the

0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:49.240
<v Speaker 1>question is the size, how big will will her party be?

0:10:49.320 --> 0:10:52.239
<v Speaker 1>Will she actually will she will it be a commanding

0:10:52.559 --> 0:10:55.439
<v Speaker 1>victory for her party, or will it be just will

0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:57.079
<v Speaker 1>she just will she just scraped through? And that's the

0:10:57.160 --> 0:10:59.760
<v Speaker 1>key thing to watch. But probably to answer your question,

0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:02.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, that's probably the consensus. That's probably the base

0:11:02.800 --> 0:11:07.560
<v Speaker 1>based scenario. And there we are again base case consensus

0:11:07.559 --> 0:11:09.960
<v Speaker 1>and that and that's where after the year that we've had,

0:11:10.000 --> 0:11:12.680
<v Speaker 1>I think people are almost traumatized now when you hear

0:11:12.720 --> 0:11:16.480
<v Speaker 1>the word consensus. People are discarred by the shock of

0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:19.800
<v Speaker 1>bregsit In, the shock of trump. Um. If I had

0:11:19.800 --> 0:11:26.160
<v Speaker 1>a handicap at Marco winning, leapin losing probably yeah, So

0:11:26.280 --> 0:11:29.800
<v Speaker 1>that means you flip that on its head. Chance of

0:11:29.880 --> 0:11:33.360
<v Speaker 1>the opposite high, Okay, moving a little bit north, Brexit

0:11:34.240 --> 0:11:38.160
<v Speaker 1>ends up looking a lot like the current situation Brexit decaf.

0:11:38.240 --> 0:11:41.640
<v Speaker 1>If you will discuss what's what when we say the

0:11:41.679 --> 0:11:44.480
<v Speaker 1>current situation, do we mean just we don't We don't

0:11:44.520 --> 0:11:47.040
<v Speaker 1>get a triggering of article fifty and we just muddled

0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:48.480
<v Speaker 1>through or what I think Dan and they were talking

0:11:48.480 --> 0:11:50.319
<v Speaker 1>about yesterdays. We do get the trigger of article fifty,

0:11:50.440 --> 0:11:52.120
<v Speaker 1>but in reality it ends up looking a little bit

0:11:52.120 --> 0:11:54.560
<v Speaker 1>like Norway, not kind of this like hard brass that

0:11:54.559 --> 0:11:56.760
<v Speaker 1>we've talked about, kind of they get isolated, and it

0:11:56.840 --> 0:12:00.600
<v Speaker 1>seems like mas position changes week by wood very hard

0:12:00.640 --> 0:12:04.600
<v Speaker 1>to keep up. And she is she she probably doesn't

0:12:04.600 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 1>necessarily know herself what her best you know, what, what

0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:10.240
<v Speaker 1>her negotiating position is going to be, because she is

0:12:10.280 --> 0:12:12.840
<v Speaker 1>not only she's not only in this position where she's

0:12:12.880 --> 0:12:15.800
<v Speaker 1>trying to interpret the referendum result of of of of

0:12:15.920 --> 0:12:17.960
<v Speaker 1>last June, but she's also trying to balance all these

0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:21.280
<v Speaker 1>different forces with her own within her own party. But

0:12:21.360 --> 0:12:23.440
<v Speaker 1>if I had a handicap that if you look at

0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:26.200
<v Speaker 1>the worries that are coming, the concerns that are being

0:12:26.240 --> 0:12:29.439
<v Speaker 1>expressed by business by the banks. I know she says

0:12:29.440 --> 0:12:31.199
<v Speaker 1>she's not going to govern for the banks, but she

0:12:31.240 --> 0:12:34.760
<v Speaker 1>can't ignore it either. The idea of it does seem

0:12:34.880 --> 0:12:37.640
<v Speaker 1>likely that we'll get some sort of soft breaksit like

0:12:37.679 --> 0:12:41.320
<v Speaker 1>at least a transitional deal that will that will soften

0:12:41.360 --> 0:12:44.520
<v Speaker 1>the blow of of of Britain leaving the EU. The

0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:46.480
<v Speaker 1>big question though for her to square will be the

0:12:46.559 --> 0:12:49.360
<v Speaker 1>question of freedom of movement. That was if you had

0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 1>to interpret any message from the referendum is that British

0:12:52.080 --> 0:12:55.000
<v Speaker 1>people were sick of what they see as unlimited immigration.

0:12:55.360 --> 0:12:57.320
<v Speaker 1>So she's going to have to That's where the deal

0:12:57.360 --> 0:12:59.000
<v Speaker 1>for her to be done. And that's the really tricky

0:12:59.040 --> 0:13:01.880
<v Speaker 1>part for her. How and she how can she do

0:13:02.840 --> 0:13:06.760
<v Speaker 1>get a beneficial deal from the EU while while also

0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:11.599
<v Speaker 1>doing a deal with her right wing on on immigration. Um,

0:13:11.640 --> 0:13:14.480
<v Speaker 1>it's really that will be the ultimate question of European

0:13:14.520 --> 0:13:17.400
<v Speaker 1>politics next year, beyond the le pen Mercle. Question is

0:13:17.440 --> 0:13:20.880
<v Speaker 1>can merco can? Can can may square that circle? And

0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:23.280
<v Speaker 1>if you had a handicap at will she will she

0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:26.240
<v Speaker 1>managed to engineer a soft except again I would say

0:13:26.360 --> 0:13:29.040
<v Speaker 1>thirty chance of that, but again that's like a three

0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:31.079
<v Speaker 1>or four year as a three or four year time

0:13:31.120 --> 0:13:35.200
<v Speaker 1>horizon on that scenario. Okay, here's something that's only been

0:13:35.240 --> 0:13:38.400
<v Speaker 1>around for about four decades, so you know, it's a

0:13:38.440 --> 0:13:43.880
<v Speaker 1>babe in the woods. One China policy remains and trade

0:13:44.240 --> 0:13:48.880
<v Speaker 1>continues to flourish between the US and China unabated discuss

0:13:50.559 --> 0:13:52.319
<v Speaker 1>So I think we're going to have I think that

0:13:52.360 --> 0:13:56.240
<v Speaker 1>would probably happen, but I think there will be It

0:13:56.280 --> 0:13:59.439
<v Speaker 1>would be getting from here to there there. It will

0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:02.360
<v Speaker 1>be a very umpy process. I think the really interesting thing,

0:14:02.400 --> 0:14:04.760
<v Speaker 1>probably one of the most interesting things things that Trump

0:14:04.760 --> 0:14:07.959
<v Speaker 1>has done or said or tweeted since he's become presidential

0:14:08.040 --> 0:14:12.800
<v Speaker 1>act is testing China's commitment to the to the One China,

0:14:12.880 --> 0:14:15.800
<v Speaker 1>to the One China policy. It's unheard of for any

0:14:15.840 --> 0:14:19.560
<v Speaker 1>American president to do this after the last fourty years.

0:14:19.680 --> 0:14:22.040
<v Speaker 1>I think I was in I was in Beijing about

0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:24.200
<v Speaker 1>two or three weeks ago, and the consensus there was

0:14:24.240 --> 0:14:26.960
<v Speaker 1>that they want to see a dealmaker. They want to

0:14:27.000 --> 0:14:30.400
<v Speaker 1>see Trump um as someone that they can do business with.

0:14:30.760 --> 0:14:34.520
<v Speaker 1>And the big question is is that is Trump just

0:14:34.680 --> 0:14:38.520
<v Speaker 1>testing the Chinese um? Is this just a negotiating strategy

0:14:38.520 --> 0:14:41.640
<v Speaker 1>and he that this idea of linking the sovereignty Sue

0:14:41.640 --> 0:14:45.359
<v Speaker 1>of Taiwan to trade. Could that actually can the unthinkable

0:14:45.440 --> 0:14:50.040
<v Speaker 1>sometimes work? Or will China literally, you know, stick to

0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:52.760
<v Speaker 1>its guns and and force the issue and say that No,

0:14:53.240 --> 0:14:57.200
<v Speaker 1>Taiwan is much more important than any economic question, um,

0:14:57.240 --> 0:14:58.680
<v Speaker 1>and it is a core interest for US, and we

0:14:58.720 --> 0:15:02.600
<v Speaker 1>will do to to sort of mix my my Bloomberk metaphors,

0:15:02.640 --> 0:15:06.960
<v Speaker 1>we will do whatever it takes to to to make

0:15:07.000 --> 0:15:09.960
<v Speaker 1>sure the US understands that we when we when we

0:15:10.000 --> 0:15:12.400
<v Speaker 1>say the one China policy, we really mean it. That's

0:15:12.440 --> 0:15:14.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of the key question hanging over that. But you

0:15:14.920 --> 0:15:19.320
<v Speaker 1>would think that ultimately the people around Trump will realize

0:15:19.360 --> 0:15:21.360
<v Speaker 1>that the trade war is not in the interests of

0:15:21.400 --> 0:15:24.680
<v Speaker 1>the US, and that you would have thought that this

0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:28.760
<v Speaker 1>is rhetoric, it's negotiating strategy, and ultimately what you just

0:15:28.800 --> 0:15:31.840
<v Speaker 1>said down that the one one China policy remains and

0:15:31.840 --> 0:15:35.040
<v Speaker 1>trade continues and abated. That is the rational way. That

0:15:35.160 --> 0:15:39.360
<v Speaker 1>is the I think a rational outcome. Okay, so one

0:15:39.360 --> 0:15:44.040
<v Speaker 1>more Jenny Ellen, like her predecessors, gets a second term.

0:15:44.080 --> 0:15:46.320
<v Speaker 1>I get that sort of comes back to the same point.

0:15:46.320 --> 0:15:48.840
<v Speaker 1>I guess, does Trump really want to upset the apple cart?

0:15:49.280 --> 0:15:51.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean, again, there's lots of things he wants to

0:15:51.120 --> 0:15:55.240
<v Speaker 1>do and is it really worth him expending political capital

0:15:55.280 --> 0:15:58.600
<v Speaker 1>on that. I think the other if you were Donald Trump,

0:15:58.640 --> 0:16:01.000
<v Speaker 1>you might say, or the people around them, I'd say, why,

0:16:01.040 --> 0:16:03.360
<v Speaker 1>why is that uncertainty a bad thing? You know? One

0:16:03.400 --> 0:16:05.480
<v Speaker 1>of the things that I think people we've lived in

0:16:05.480 --> 0:16:08.240
<v Speaker 1>a world for the last fifty to twenty years where

0:16:08.360 --> 0:16:13.280
<v Speaker 1>investors and executives kind of new the business environments that

0:16:13.480 --> 0:16:15.360
<v Speaker 1>they were going to be faced with over the next

0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:17.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, ten, let's say, over the next two or

0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:20.840
<v Speaker 1>three years. And this whole idea looking at central banking,

0:16:21.120 --> 0:16:24.200
<v Speaker 1>the idea that central banks can never upset the apple cart,

0:16:24.240 --> 0:16:27.080
<v Speaker 1>and that that monetary policy needs to be predictable, that's

0:16:27.080 --> 0:16:31.120
<v Speaker 1>been sort of a whole that's been a common received understanding.

0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:33.640
<v Speaker 1>But the world we're living in right now, and again

0:16:33.680 --> 0:16:35.960
<v Speaker 1>this gets back to the original idea of the pestimal

0:16:36.000 --> 0:16:38.480
<v Speaker 1>s guide. People are going to have to learn to

0:16:38.520 --> 0:16:41.760
<v Speaker 1>deal with the world that's much riskier and more uncertain

0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:44.120
<v Speaker 1>than it's been at any point probably in the last

0:16:44.160 --> 0:16:46.800
<v Speaker 1>twenty five years. And that's that that comes. Whether you're

0:16:46.840 --> 0:16:49.440
<v Speaker 1>where you're looking at what central bankers might do or

0:16:49.480 --> 0:16:53.000
<v Speaker 1>what politicians looking at geopolitics might do, it's just a

0:16:53.080 --> 0:16:54.840
<v Speaker 1>much more in certain world now, and we're all going

0:16:54.880 --> 0:16:58.600
<v Speaker 1>to have to just get used to that, to scenarios

0:16:59.000 --> 0:17:03.160
<v Speaker 1>to sign off with, which is more likely the Malaysian

0:17:03.520 --> 0:17:09.040
<v Speaker 1>airliner is found, or inflation breaks out in the Eurozone

0:17:09.040 --> 0:17:15.359
<v Speaker 1>in Japan. Now you're getting to the multimillion dollar questions. Um,

0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:17.960
<v Speaker 1>you know. I mean it's if you look at the

0:17:18.240 --> 0:17:20.840
<v Speaker 1>European and Japanese inflation, they have been dogs that haven't

0:17:20.840 --> 0:17:23.679
<v Speaker 1>barked for for a long long time. So, you know,

0:17:23.720 --> 0:17:26.200
<v Speaker 1>I think that if you look at the great mysteries

0:17:26.240 --> 0:17:28.679
<v Speaker 1>of the world, I think finding the Malaysian jet, I

0:17:28.680 --> 0:17:31.880
<v Speaker 1>think that's probably something that everyone, everyone wants, everyone wants

0:17:31.880 --> 0:17:34.879
<v Speaker 1>to hap. Oh my gosh. So John, we'll have to

0:17:34.920 --> 0:17:37.600
<v Speaker 1>come back to this in December next year and see

0:17:37.600 --> 0:17:40.760
<v Speaker 1>how we went. Thanks for joining us. Looking forward to that.

0:17:40.960 --> 0:17:44.840
<v Speaker 1>Thanks Son. That's it for Benchmark this week. In the meantime,

0:17:44.880 --> 0:17:49.280
<v Speaker 1>you can find us on iTunes, pocket Cast, Stitcher, SoundCloud,

0:17:49.840 --> 0:17:53.840
<v Speaker 1>and the newly redesigned Bloomberg app, where you can find

0:17:53.840 --> 0:17:57.480
<v Speaker 1>Benchmark as well as a host of other wonderful Bloomberg podcasts.

0:17:57.480 --> 0:17:59.960
<v Speaker 1>While you're doing that, please take the time to ripe

0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:03.399
<v Speaker 1>to review us and You can also follow us on

0:18:03.440 --> 0:18:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Twitter for all of our other musings on the global economy.

0:18:07.119 --> 0:18:10.480
<v Speaker 1>You can find me at by Kate Smith. You could

0:18:10.520 --> 0:18:13.880
<v Speaker 1>find my co host Dan at his new Twitter handle

0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:18.240
<v Speaker 1>Moss Underscore Eco, and you can find our guests at

0:18:18.400 --> 0:18:23.240
<v Speaker 1>John Frere. Benchmark is produced by Sarah Pattison. Alec McCabe

0:18:23.400 --> 0:18:34.960
<v Speaker 1>is head of Podcasts. Thanks for joining us. Brought to

0:18:35.000 --> 0:18:37.960
<v Speaker 1>you by Bank of America. Merrill Lynch. Seeing what others

0:18:37.960 --> 0:18:41.159
<v Speaker 1>have seen, but uncovering what others may not. Global Research

0:18:41.200 --> 0:18:44.760
<v Speaker 1>that helps you harness disruption voted top global research from

0:18:44.800 --> 0:18:48.520
<v Speaker 1>five years running. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Incorporated