Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Odd Blogs podcast.
Speaker 3: I'm Jill Wisenthal and I'm Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2: Tracy, one of the things that we've noted from time
Speaker 2: to time on the show is, you know, when it
Speaker 2: comes to trade with China specifically trade in general, but
Speaker 2: I would say trade with China specifically one of the
Speaker 2: rare areas where there seems to be a bipartisan consensus
Speaker 2: that maybe the way we did it in the nineties,
Speaker 2: two thousand, prior most of the twenty tens was not desirable,
Speaker 2: was costly in certain ways, and that the whole thing
Speaker 2: needs everything.
Speaker 3: It is kind of amazing that that's the thing that
Speaker 3: people have landed on as an area of agreement. I
Speaker 3: think in retrospect it would have been kind of unexpected.
Speaker 3: But you're absolutely right. There seems to be these dual concerns.
Speaker 3: I would say one is national security, so the idea
Speaker 3: that maybe China is a strategic competitor in terms of security,
Speaker 3: and so you should be worried about what they're building,
Speaker 3: what they're doing over there, all of that technology competition
Speaker 3: things like that as well. But then the other component
Speaker 3: of it, I think is you hear terms like unfairness,
Speaker 3: maybe even cheating, People talk about China not playing on
Speaker 3: the same playing field that everyone else is, and so
Speaker 3: it seems to be driven by those twin concerns. And
Speaker 3: I think again, like when the Trump administration ended and
Speaker 3: Biden came into the presidency, I don't think anyone really
Speaker 3: expected the extent to which a lot of those tariffs
Speaker 3: would be carried over, and yet here we are almost
Speaker 3: four years later, and there has been this kind of
Speaker 3: incredible continuity.
Speaker 2: A continuity and arguably even expansion in a certain areas.
Speaker 2: And of course, if we were to get another Trump administration,
Speaker 2: then very likely a further expansion of some of these
Speaker 2: trade restrictions. We seem to take two components. So there's
Speaker 2: obviously tariffs on certain key areas, and then you know,
Speaker 2: there's so much attention on technology and so technology export controls,
Speaker 2: and when you mentioned you know there's sort of unfairness
Speaker 2: or cheating or something like that. You know, there's obviously
Speaker 2: just a lot of anxiety about the fact that in
Speaker 2: many advanced technological areas, China is building a lot of
Speaker 2: very competitive things. And whether it's I'm particularly thinking in
Speaker 2: areas like batteries or evs, where it looks like in
Speaker 2: many cases they're ahead and there's a lot of anxiety.
Speaker 2: These are key areas for the future, and the US
Speaker 2: is behind and the europe is behind.
Speaker 4: Absolutely well.
Speaker 2: I'm very excited because we truly do have the perfect
Speaker 2: guest to talk about this big pivot where it's going,
Speaker 2: some of the theory behind it. What does this new
Speaker 2: approach look like, and what is it supposed to accomplish.
Speaker 2: We're going to be speaking to the US Trade Representative,
Speaker 2: Ambassador Catherine Tie. Thank you so much for coming on
Speaker 2: Odd Lives.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much for having me. I'm delighted to
Speaker 5: be here with both of you.
Speaker 2: Fantastic. Let me just start with a really big picture question.
Speaker 2: You know, for decades there was a certain status quo
Speaker 2: with trading with China. There seems to have been a
Speaker 2: sharp pivot. Is this the new normal? Is this going
Speaker 2: to be with us, this new relationship with US China trade.
Speaker 2: Is this going to be what it's like for years
Speaker 2: to come?
Speaker 5: So I cannot wait to get into some of the
Speaker 5: specifics on this question, but I want to start at
Speaker 5: a slightly higher level and just to orient what I
Speaker 5: do and what trade policy is. So as the US
Speaker 5: Trade Representative, my title is a bit of a mouthful,
Speaker 5: but it's actually one of the most self explanatory positions
Speaker 5: in the President's cabinet. My job is literally to represent
Speaker 5: the interests of the United States. That's the entire United States,
Speaker 5: the entire economy, all of its people, from coast to coast,
Speaker 5: from top to bottom on the coasts and the middle
Speaker 5: and to represent Americans and the American economy in international trade.
Speaker 5: What that means is trade is a very interesting thing.
Speaker 5: We are both a part of the Foreign policy team
Speaker 5: because international trade is something that you do with other countries.
Speaker 5: There's that foreign relations aspect to it. But also we
Speaker 5: are part of the economic policy team. Is what you
Speaker 5: do in trade, it impacts your economy. It can help
Speaker 5: to grow your economy, and it can help to shrink
Speaker 5: your economy if you depending on how you do trade policy.
Speaker 5: So what we were oriented by at the beginning of
Speaker 5: this administration, President Biden Vice President Harris gave me at
Speaker 5: USTR and my team two charges. The first one was
Speaker 5: America's back and so you must do everything you can
Speaker 5: to repat relations with our trading partners, to be as
Speaker 5: constructive as possible to demonstrate that the United States is
Speaker 5: engaged with the rest of the world and that the
Speaker 5: United States is a force for good. The other charge
Speaker 5: that we had was you must also be a part
Speaker 5: of our economic policy team. You must also get in
Speaker 5: line to make sure that you are pulling in the
Speaker 5: same direction as we heal ourselves from the hardships of
Speaker 5: the COVID pandemic. The COVID pandemic was not just a
Speaker 5: global health crisis, it also was a global economic crisis.
Speaker 5: You must be a part of the team to get
Speaker 5: us past COVID and then to help us to build
Speaker 5: the United States economy so that we can be strong today, tomorrow,
Speaker 5: and for the years to come. So our orientation has
Speaker 5: required us to do trade differently to ensure that we
Speaker 5: are still engaged with the rest of the world constructively,
Speaker 5: but also also to really stand up for US economic interests.
Speaker 5: And so where I want to start the conversation with
Speaker 5: your first question and getting into the US China trade relationship,
Speaker 5: is you talked to some about the technology competition that
Speaker 5: we have. You talked about the national security and the
Speaker 5: geopolitical tensions. One piece that I think is going to
Speaker 5: be really important for us to focus on is this
Speaker 5: concept of economic security, and that has at least two
Speaker 5: facets that I want to lay out for you. One
Speaker 5: is the economic security of the entire United States, the
Speaker 5: economic security of the nation. And the other concept is
Speaker 5: the economic security of the people within the United States,
Speaker 5: the economic security of our working people. And it's really
Speaker 5: through that lens that I think that it will be
Speaker 5: important to start taking on some of your questions about
Speaker 5: the US China trade relationship.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, let me ask one more broad based question,
Speaker 3: then maybe we can get more into China. But when
Speaker 3: you say representing US interests in terms of economic security,
Speaker 3: has that always been the case for USTR or does
Speaker 3: this represent some sort of policy shift? Because putting my
Speaker 3: international relations back on, I took IR at university. I
Speaker 3: think back to trade in like the nineteen nineties and
Speaker 3: two thousands, so much of it was just about exports
Speaker 3: and growing GDP. This seems to be something a little
Speaker 3: bit different.
Speaker 5: One hundred percent. The approach that we are bringing we
Speaker 5: have called a worker centered trade policy, and the point
Speaker 5: of the worker center trade policy is to constantly remind
Speaker 5: ourselves that at the end of the day, when it
Speaker 5: comes to your economic policy, the beneficiary of your policies
Speaker 5: is the people in your economy. I think that quite
Speaker 5: often when we get into economic policy and it can
Speaker 5: get quite complicated, it can get theoretical. We often gravitate
Speaker 5: to talking about the economy as a set of numbers
Speaker 5: and data and statistics and trends. What gets lost in
Speaker 5: all that conversation is that the whole point of economic
Speaker 5: policy is to ensure vibrancy, economic opportunity, livelihoods, futures, hope,
Speaker 5: and vitality for your nation. It is about how the
Speaker 5: people experience their lives, what kinds of jobs they have,
Speaker 5: what kinds of education and training that they have to
Speaker 5: pursue these jobs, what kind of industries we're growing here.
Speaker 5: So the worker center trade policy is to remind ourselves that, Tracy,
Speaker 5: exactly as you've noted, the way we've pursued trade policy
Speaker 5: for decades in a bipartisan way has been about growing GDP,
Speaker 5: growing the overall pie, facilitating volumes of trade. And what's
Speaker 5: cut and lost in all of that conversation is what
Speaker 5: has been the impact on our economy. Are we actually
Speaker 5: as we grow the pie, are we actually seeing that
Speaker 5: more of our people have access to that pie. And
Speaker 5: what I will say is, when we look back at
Speaker 5: our trade policies over the past twenty and thirty years,
Speaker 5: we see the overall numbers grow here in the United
Speaker 5: States and around the world, but you also see significant
Speaker 5: de industrialization in some critical industries where we have really
Speaker 5: just hollowed out. We've lost a lot of capacity, especially
Speaker 5: in hard and heavy manufacturing, light manufacturing as well.
Speaker 4: And then the other.
Speaker 5: Piece of it is we are also seeing here in
Speaker 5: the United States and around the world a growing wealth gap,
Speaker 5: significantly growing levels of inequality within our economies and between
Speaker 5: our economies, and that is giving us pause and reason
Speaker 5: to reassess how we do trade. We still need to
Speaker 5: be the great trading nation that we are. We know
Speaker 5: that the global economy is interconnected. The question is how
Speaker 5: can we be doing trade better so that we are
Speaker 5: actually not just growing the overall numbers, but we are
Speaker 5: growing opportunity for a middle class. The middle class in
Speaker 5: America is this incredible concept because almost everybody thinks that
Speaker 5: they're in the middle class or is aspiring to be
Speaker 5: in the middle class. It's that really important, vibrant part
Speaker 5: of the economy that ensures that you are growing and
Speaker 5: ensures that you are providing opportunities for all of the
Speaker 5: people in your economy to contribute. So yes, absolutely, the
Speaker 5: way that we are pursuing trade policies, the way that
Speaker 5: we are thinking about and talking about it, is different
Speaker 5: today because we have seen the limits of where that
Speaker 5: pursuit of trade liberalization, the pursuit of overall macro views
Speaker 5: on trade and economic growth have really fallen short in
Speaker 5: the last several decades.
Speaker 2: Since you mentioned the last several decades, and this is
Speaker 2: very helpful obviously sort of the big picture philosophy behind
Speaker 2: the trade pivot. But maybe I'll try again with my
Speaker 2: first question. Could this be a new several decades of
Speaker 2: the things going in shifts? Could you imagine that the
Speaker 2: sort of new restrictions on trade with China is also
Speaker 2: something that will last for several decades.
Speaker 5: So here, let's take a couple steps back and look
Speaker 5: at the context for what's developed over the last many years.
Speaker 5: And I think that there are multiple factors. One is
Speaker 5: that since World War Two, the Bretton Wood system has
Speaker 5: grown up, and there has been this important concept that
Speaker 5: liberalizing trade, taking away barriers between countries, promoting more trade
Speaker 5: the more we trade with each other, the more peace
Speaker 5: and the more prosperity there will be in the world.
Speaker 5: I think that those are worthy goals. The issue is
Speaker 5: that you look at the goals that you are pursuing,
Speaker 5: the ways that you've been pursuing them, and then you
Speaker 5: have to look around you for the data and the
Speaker 5: indicators around what the results of these policies have been.
Speaker 5: And so let's take since I think that this is
Speaker 5: the eightieth year of the eightieth anniversary of the Breton
Speaker 5: Woods Agreement. You look at the last eighty years and
Speaker 5: there has been a lot of prosperity, marked by also
Speaker 5: periods of peace in large parts of the world. But
Speaker 5: you look at the more recent years and what you
Speaker 5: see is that today our economy and the global economy
Speaker 5: feels more fragile, geopolitical tensions feel higher than they have
Speaker 5: been in a very long time. And it's important then
Speaker 5: to look at what's been going on. This concept of
Speaker 5: free trade and the goal that we were pursuing through
Speaker 5: free trade. It's a very very beautiful concept. The issue
Speaker 5: is that it is entirely theoretical. There is in fact
Speaker 5: no free trade in the world, and maybe one of
Speaker 5: the most important pictures I can paint for you is
Speaker 5: to look at what has happened in the global economy,
Speaker 5: global markets in the last twenty five years since China
Speaker 5: has joined the World Trade Organization, the Chinese economy has
Speaker 5: grown significantly. It has been miraculous to see. That said,
Speaker 5: the Chinese economy is fundamentally structured differently from the economies
Speaker 5: of the countries that started the system that eventually became
Speaker 5: the WTO in that post World War two period. The
Speaker 5: General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was a group of
Speaker 5: very like minded countries that emerged from World War Two
Speaker 5: and to pursue a set of principles. When we brought
Speaker 5: China into the WTO, what we were hoping, and this
Speaker 5: is based on looking at a lot of literature at
Speaker 5: from that time, talking to the people who cast those
Speaker 5: votes in the US Congress for China's accession to the
Speaker 5: w two. What we were hoping was that there would
Speaker 5: be a significant wave of economic reforms in China that
Speaker 5: would make the Chinese economy more market based, more open,
Speaker 5: more capitalistic, and that democratic reforms would follow in terms
Speaker 5: of China's political system. So the first thing, the first indicator,
Speaker 5: is then to look at what have the results been.
Speaker 5: If you're looking at the PRC economy and the PRC
Speaker 5: political system today in twenty twenty four, from colleagues and
Speaker 5: friends who have visited China, the China that we see
Speaker 5: is significantly different from the China that was negotiating in
Speaker 5: seccession to the WTO at that time nineteen eighties and
Speaker 5: the nineteen nineties, there was a lot of talk about reform.
Speaker 5: Those reforms have really petered out. What we see today
Speaker 5: is maybe the most repressive version that we've seen of
Speaker 5: China in the past decades in terms of the political environment.
Speaker 5: But then if you look at the economic environment, I
Speaker 5: would say you go back to twenty eleven. In twenty twelve,
Speaker 5: the American Chamber of Commerce AmCham in China for the
Speaker 5: first time. In those years twenty eleven, twenty twelve, twenty thirteen,
Speaker 5: they put out I think it's called a white paper.
Speaker 5: They put out basically a book every year describing the
Speaker 5: economic environment that American companies experience in China. And around
Speaker 5: those years is when AmCham, which had been one of
Speaker 5: the biggest cheerleaders of US China trade bringing China into
Speaker 5: the global economy, started to identify a downturn in the
Speaker 5: economic environment and in the sense of opportunity and fairness
Speaker 5: that big American companies were experiencing in the Chinese economy
Speaker 5: if you followed what was happening in Chinese politics at
Speaker 5: the time. That coincides with the transition of leadership to
Speaker 5: the current president, President Chi Jinping, who is now in
Speaker 5: the midst of his third unprecedented term as president of China.
Speaker 5: So I think that the scales started falling from the
Speaker 5: eyes of the American business community. Certainly that the Chinese
Speaker 5: economy is structured to pursue goals that are different from
Speaker 5: the principles of free trade and open markets and market
Speaker 5: based economics, and that I think is a significant contributor
Speaker 5: to this bipartisan and very very broad consensus that we
Speaker 5: have in the United States now that the trading system
Speaker 5: globally is not working the way that we had wanted
Speaker 5: it to, that we dreamt that it would starting in
Speaker 5: the nineteen forties and on and through the nineteen nineties,
Speaker 5: in the two thousands, and what you hear now also
Speaker 5: from our administration Secretary Yellen at Treasury Layel Brainerd, head
Speaker 5: of the NEC, the National Economic Council, Secretary Blincoln State Department,
Speaker 5: certainly from me, is a concern about what we're calling
Speaker 5: Chinese over capacity and excess production that in these years
Speaker 5: post the height of the pandemic, as everyone is building
Speaker 5: towards their economic recovery and the strength of their economy
Speaker 5: going forward, we see China doubling down on an export
Speaker 5: led growth, export led recovery. And what you're seeing from
Speaker 5: the United States, and it's not just us, and it'll
Speaker 5: be interesting to get into that conversation too, is what
Speaker 5: you're seeing from the United States and other countries is
Speaker 5: a pushback that having experienced China Shock, the China Shock
Speaker 5: from the two thousands and twenty tens where Chinese industrial
Speaker 5: non market policies really allowed them to export a lot
Speaker 5: of the externalities from their policies to the rest of
Speaker 5: the world, that we are standing up and others are
Speaker 5: standing up to say we will not tolerate, we cannot
Speaker 5: tolerate a China shock two point zero. And I think
Speaker 5: that those are elements of the larger context that you
Speaker 5: are seeing today involving our trade policy and beyond.
Speaker 3: Since you mentioned both Bretton Wood's and China's ascension to
Speaker 3: the wto I really want to ask about something that
Speaker 3: you've been talking about quite a lot recently, the ITO,
Speaker 3: the International Trade Organization, which is something that I remember
Speaker 3: from international relations. I think it was proposed by FDR,
Speaker 3: like back in the Bretton Woods era, but never really
Speaker 3: got off the ground. How literally should we take that
Speaker 3: discussion from you? Is the idea here that the ITO
Speaker 3: provides perhaps some guiding principles for trade policy, or are
Speaker 3: you actually interested in creating something that would potentially compete
Speaker 3: with the WTO.
Speaker 5: So what we've been doing is looking back at our
Speaker 5: history for indicators lessons. We're all products of our history.
Speaker 5: It's actually a really important exercise to know that history.
Speaker 5: And there's been a lot of talk about FDR and
Speaker 5: a lot of focus. The reason I think it's obvious
Speaker 5: once you think about it, is a lot of the
Speaker 5: challenges that we are seeing today. And this gets us
Speaker 5: beyond even trade and economics, but certainly trade and economics
Speaker 5: are a central part of this. A lot of the
Speaker 5: challenges that we are seeing developed today are reminiscent of
Speaker 5: the challenges that we as the United States saw in
Speaker 5: the nineteen thirties and the nineteen forties. A trend towards authoritarianism, fascism,
Speaker 5: corporate concentration, significant imbalances in our economy, imbalances and power
Speaker 5: coming through then World War Two, the need to come
Speaker 5: up with the vision for a more coherent and cohesive
Speaker 5: world order, including a world economic order that would be
Speaker 5: better and that would allow us to take lessons from
Speaker 5: very painful experiences and apply them forward. And so that
Speaker 5: has led us to go look at the Breton Woods
Speaker 5: agreements coming out of World War Two that desire to
Speaker 5: build institutions like the World Bank, like the IMF, and
Speaker 5: then to revisit our own history and trade and to
Speaker 5: see that the original vision for the trade institution, the
Speaker 5: trade pillar of Bretton Woods was this International Trade Organization.
Speaker 5: I'm so glad you brought it up. And then looking
Speaker 5: at what the components of that were to building a better, brighter,
Speaker 5: more resilient world from those years in the nineteen forties,
Speaker 5: and what we see is an application of FDR's vision
Speaker 5: domestically through the New Deal era and translating that into
Speaker 5: the international context and seeing that in the original architecture
Speaker 5: of the International Trade Organization. Sure, there was a tariff
Speaker 5: liberalization program, and remember this was among very very like
Speaker 5: minded countries coming out of very traumatic World War II
Speaker 5: experience coming together around common principles. But it wasn't limited
Speaker 5: to just tariff liberalization. That there were important additional elements
Speaker 5: to the ITO Charter that is really important for us
Speaker 5: to look back on and to think about, because it
Speaker 5: turns out there are actually major points of preoccupation for
Speaker 5: us today in our economic policy. So one aspect of
Speaker 5: the ITO disciplines includes meaningful standards on labor and workers.
Speaker 5: And if you think about the ITO Charter coming out
Speaker 5: of the New Deal perspective, and you look around the
Speaker 5: world and at the time also it was a period
Speaker 5: where a lot of countries were achieving their independence from
Speaker 5: previous colonial masters, that focus on labor and worker protections
Speaker 5: becomes very very interesting, especially in light of the challenges
Speaker 5: that and the conversations that we're having today around the
Speaker 5: need for workers to have more leverage and power in
Speaker 5: terms of that balance with the big companies. The other
Speaker 5: piece of it is anti monopoly rules, anti monopoly disciplines,
Speaker 5: and again that is a huge part of the conversation
Speaker 5: today and looking at corporate concentration and looking at companies
Speaker 5: that are acting as monopolies and distorting opportunity and markets,
Speaker 5: but also countries that are behaving as monopolies and understanding
Speaker 5: that back in the nineteen forties, what we were looking
Speaker 5: at around the world was a program to defend against
Speaker 5: the challenges of both fascism on the right and communism
Speaker 5: on the left, and applying that to today's challenges. I
Speaker 5: don't think it's about constructing an alternative model to the
Speaker 5: wto again where the products of our history, but taking
Speaker 5: lessons from the way we had approached a period of thoughtfulness,
Speaker 5: a period of institution building, a period of pushing forward
Speaker 5: in terms of reform, and really thinking about how we
Speaker 5: can take inspiration from those experiences to apply them to
Speaker 5: where we are today.
Speaker 2: Since you talked about worker safety as one element of
Speaker 2: thinking about trade and worker centric trade, is it okay
Speaker 2: for a country to have as part of its growth
Speaker 2: strategy the fact that conditions may be less safe there
Speaker 2: than they are for us workers.
Speaker 5: This is a great question. I think it's not just
Speaker 5: about worker safety, but also workers' rights, the ability to
Speaker 5: organize to collectively bargain to advocate for better working conditions,
Speaker 5: including safety conditions, but also advocate for better wages, better benefits,
Speaker 5: that whole suite of rights that are internationally recognized, really
Speaker 5: really great question. So when we talk about a worker
Speaker 5: center trade policy, what we're doing is looking at again
Speaker 5: the trade policies that we've pursued in the last several
Speaker 5: decades and then seeing the version of globalization that we
Speaker 5: have around us today is one that has really incentivized
Speaker 5: the minimization of costs and input costs, So it rewards
Speaker 5: the exploitation of people and workers. The more you exploit workers,
Speaker 5: the less you have to pay them. It also rewards
Speaker 5: the exploitation of the planet. The less you have to
Speaker 5: worry about environmental regulation carbon protecting the environment, the cheaper
Speaker 5: it is to produce. So we often call that structure
Speaker 5: of incentives the race to the bottom, where you're rewarded
Speaker 5: for undermining standards, you're rewarded for having low standards and
Speaker 5: undercutting each other on standards, and at the end of
Speaker 5: the day, what you discover is a less sustainable world
Speaker 5: in terms of our climate future that's a very very
Speaker 5: good example, but also a less sustainable world in terms
Speaker 5: of the experience of our people in our economy. So
Speaker 5: this allows me to get into a little bit of
Speaker 5: a frame here which is that we've justified that race
Speaker 5: to the bottom on the basis of, well, you know,
Speaker 5: if producers can cut their costs, then they can bring
Speaker 5: prices down, and so consumers who are people will have
Speaker 5: the benefit of low, low prices, low prices when they
Speaker 5: go to the market for essentials and also non essentials. Right,
Speaker 5: the important part about a worker center trade policy, as
Speaker 5: we call it, is to remind everybody that in all
Speaker 5: of that logic, what's gotten lost is virtually every consumer
Speaker 5: that consumes in the marketplace and spends in the marketplace
Speaker 5: is also a producer. Is a wage earner, is someone
Speaker 5: who has a livelihood and has to make the money
Speaker 5: that goes in their pocket so they can spend it
Speaker 5: in the marketplace. So the human being in the economy
Speaker 5: is multifaceted and at the very least is both a
Speaker 5: consumer and a producer. And if your policies are just
Speaker 5: justified on the basis of low cost, low prices for
Speaker 5: the consumer, and you are ignoring the fact that in
Speaker 5: a very interconnected and globalized world, suppressing the rights of
Speaker 5: workers and exploiting them in one country in one economy
Speaker 5: is going to have downward competitive pressures on those workers.
Speaker 5: In another economy and downward pressures on their ability to
Speaker 5: earn better wages. Then overall you've ignored an important part
Speaker 5: of the calculus over whether or not you're actually creating utility,
Speaker 5: if you will, in the economy for your people. And
Speaker 5: that's a large part of what we've seen. So absolutely,
Speaker 5: what we are fundamentally trying to do through a worker
Speaker 5: center trade policy is to take a more holistic, comprehensive
Speaker 5: view of the primary beneficiary in terms of our economic policies,
Speaker 5: which is the human being, to take into the fact
Speaker 5: that they are both a consumer and a producer, and
Speaker 5: to try to flip the script on trade and trades'
Speaker 5: contribution to globalization. The globalization that we're experiencing right now
Speaker 5: is just one version of versions of globalization that we've
Speaker 5: had before. In fact, if you go back far enough
Speaker 5: and you look at, say the founding of the colonies
Speaker 5: that became the United States, you know that it was
Speaker 5: all about supply chains and trade. Yeah, so the version you.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't let us process our own wrong.
Speaker 5: It wouldn't. We were part of a labor came from
Speaker 5: Africa to the United States. Talk about exploitation those labor
Speaker 5: that you did not have to pay free labor. That's
Speaker 5: a tremendous unfair advantage, and you could talk about it
Speaker 5: as a subsidy. Right you pick up the sugar in
Speaker 5: the Caribbean. You have the labor force here in the
Speaker 5: United States producing tobacco, cotton, raw materials that then went
Speaker 5: back to England and the European countries for value addition,
Speaker 5: and then you had those high value products then sold
Speaker 5: back to the folks in these in these input economies. So,
Speaker 5: just to get back to the point, the version of
Speaker 5: globalization that we have today is advanced from what we
Speaker 5: had before. We are in an inflection point right now
Speaker 5: where I think that we really are evolving into the
Speaker 5: next version of globalization. And the point of a worker
Speaker 5: center trade policy is to make sure that our goal
Speaker 5: is not just trade volumes. Our goal is not just
Speaker 5: the concept of free trade. Our goal is much more
Speaker 5: pragmatic to achieve, including through our trade policies, more sustainability, resilience,
Speaker 5: and more inclusiveness in our economic outcomes. That's for both
Speaker 5: us and for our trading partners, so that we can
Speaker 5: evolve into a version of globalization that can start to
Speaker 5: realize what we call the race to the top, a
Speaker 5: version of globalization where incentives are over time to raise standards,
Speaker 5: where you're rewarded for not exploiting, but your reward or
Speaker 5: for thinking three steps ahead to the sustainability of your
Speaker 5: business models, your economic models. And that's fundamentally the opportunity
Speaker 5: that we have today.
Speaker 3: How do you judge the potential for tip for tat
Speaker 3: retaliation when it comes to trade protections? So, if Joe
Speaker 3: and I are running the odd lots Republic and we're
Speaker 3: wildly populist and we want to appease I don't know
Speaker 3: our base of semiconductor workers, we could just erect, you know,
Speaker 3: massive tariffs or ban imports of semiconductors from somewhere else.
Speaker 3: But I imagine one of the things that would stop us
Speaker 3: from doing it is we would worry about retaliation. And
Speaker 3: just to take a recent example, I mean, Canada decided
Speaker 3: to tax evs coming from China, and China has now
Speaker 3: launched an anti dumping investigation into Canadian exports. How do
Speaker 3: you think about that particular risk.
Speaker 5: Okay, I've got a three point for you here, and
Speaker 5: I'm going to try to keep them all in my head.
Speaker 5: One is your use of the word to protect is very,
Speaker 5: very interesting, and so I want to come back to
Speaker 5: that as a separate matter, and I hope that we
Speaker 5: have time to do that.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 5: The second piece is this, when you take trade actions,
Speaker 5: it is actually really important to explain what you're doing
Speaker 5: and why you're doing it, and what your objectives are.
Speaker 5: And it is really important for you to be able
Speaker 5: to be understood by your trading partners. And those are
Speaker 5: trading partners who might be foreign policy allies and strategic partners,
Speaker 5: and also trading partners with whom you have more tense relations.
Speaker 5: And so that's been a critical part of what we've
Speaker 5: been doing the Biden Harris administration, which is to build
Speaker 5: and rebuild our relationships and to ensure that our approach
Speaker 5: and our actions are well understood by our partners. So
Speaker 5: that gets to retaliation. If people don't understand what you're doing, right,
Speaker 5: tit for tat you get a lot of that, and
Speaker 5: we've seen some of that in our past. The third
Speaker 5: piece on tit for tat retaliation is this one, which
Speaker 5: is in your example of Canada taking steps on increasing
Speaker 5: terroiffs on certain Chinese imports in some critical industries including
Speaker 5: evs and China's response. Part of what we have seen
Speaker 5: in the last twelve years is an increasing willingness by
Speaker 5: the PRC to weaponize the dominance that they have achieved
Speaker 5: in the global marketplace. And there's two elements to this.
Speaker 5: There are dominance in terms of being a producer and
Speaker 5: a supplier, so you know, a monopolistic kind of dominance.
Speaker 5: And then also there are dominance in terms of being
Speaker 5: a consumer in the global marketplace. And I think that
Speaker 5: the term that we use in economics, there is a
Speaker 5: monopsony monopsonistic dominance.
Speaker 3: We need the monopsony clackson. Sorry, we always joke about
Speaker 3: having a sound effect whenever anyone says monopsy, and I.
Speaker 5: Didn't know about that. It's so curious what the sound
Speaker 5: effect is going to be.
Speaker 2: We don't actually have one.
Speaker 5: Okay, So we have developed a vocabulary to call this
Speaker 5: phenomenon an exercise of economic coercion. It's a if you
Speaker 5: want to break it down, it's basically bullying at the
Speaker 5: highest level in terms of a country taking its economic
Speaker 5: tools and bullying another one for exercising rights that are
Speaker 5: within its sovereign power to exercise. And the particular danger
Speaker 5: here and this brings us back to the work that
Speaker 5: we're doing on supply chains to diversify them and make
Speaker 5: them more resilient. Is the need for us to have
Speaker 5: more supply chains and more options so that we can
Speaker 5: insulate ourselves, our partners can insulate themselves from this kind
Speaker 5: of economic bullying, economic coercion, and weaponization of marketplace dominance.
Speaker 5: So that's the third point I wanted to make around
Speaker 5: the example you provided with respect to Canada, which is
Speaker 5: we've seen Canada take measures that actually align their economic
Speaker 5: defenses with ours. It's actually really important when you look
Speaker 5: at the North American economy, the US economy, and the
Speaker 5: level of integrations with both Canada and Mexico, and the
Speaker 5: need for US actually to think about not just taking
Speaker 5: individual defensive measures, which these tariffs I would characterize them
Speaker 5: as defensive measures, but to coordinate our defensive measures in
Speaker 5: order to I'm not going to call it protectionism, right,
Speaker 5: but in order to protect our North American economy from
Speaker 5: the distorative effects of this unbridled, non market based Chinese
Speaker 5: excess production impacts on our competitiveness and frankly, our ability
Speaker 5: to continue to produce, to be able to thrive, to
Speaker 5: have our producers in terms of EVS, in terms of
Speaker 5: steel and aluminum, to be able to grow, but to
Speaker 5: survive in the first place. We have seen time and
Speaker 5: time again industries that China has identified as strategic for
Speaker 5: not just domination within their own market, but domination in
Speaker 5: the global markets wipe out industries in very very open
Speaker 5: market based economies like ours. And so that is in
Speaker 5: large part why you see the steel owned aluminum industries
Speaker 5: in the United States. You see us taking new kinds
Speaker 5: of measures to ensure that we can continue to produce
Speaker 5: steel and aluminum, which is critical to our economic security
Speaker 5: and our national security, but also with respect to solar panels,
Speaker 5: and now also so in terms of EVS. The ability
Speaker 5: for us to coordinate those defenses also helps to insulate
Speaker 5: us from those coercive effects of China's economic dominance. Trade
Speaker 5: defensism is that a word, trade defense absolutely. In fact,
Speaker 5: we have a whole system of trade measures that we
Speaker 5: call trade remedies. The Europeans call them trade defense instruments.
Speaker 5: There they're the anti dumping duties, the countervailing duties. They're
Speaker 5: to level the playing field. What we've discovered though, is
Speaker 5: that set of tools they're really industry specific. They are
Speaker 5: country specific. They are people have compared them to scalpels
Speaker 5: or you know, kind of specialized tools for defending against
Speaker 5: unfair trade practices with respect to China's footprint in the
Speaker 5: global economy, and the result of these decades of very
Speaker 5: very powerful industrial targeting policies, and what we mean by
Speaker 5: that is industrial policies targeting market dominance, international market dominance,
Speaker 5: we are needing to develop an entirely new set of
Speaker 5: tools to defend, to defend on our part, to have
Speaker 5: coordinated defenses. And then let me just say one more
Speaker 5: word about what we're doing here. We need to be
Speaker 5: playing a new game on defense. That's where the tariffs
Speaker 5: come in. But we also know that you can't just
Speaker 5: rely on defense. You need to have an offensive game too.
Speaker 5: And from our perspective, then what are your tools for
Speaker 5: mounting an economic, industrial, and competitive offense. Those are the
Speaker 5: investments that we are making, the investments that we are
Speaker 5: making in our people, the investments that we are making
Speaker 5: in our infrastructure, the investments that you see as starting
Speaker 5: to make in critical industries like semiconductors, but also the
Speaker 5: clean energy industries. And you have to take these suite
Speaker 5: of tools together in order to be able to continue
Speaker 5: to compete against a very very strong competitor whose economy
Speaker 5: and whose theory of their place in the world economy
Speaker 5: is quite different from yours. I'll just share with you
Speaker 5: an analogy that a former colleague of mine has made
Speaker 5: publicly also I'll given credit for it. It's Tim Stratford,
Speaker 5: who had in earlier administrations been the assistant US Trade
Speaker 5: Representative for our China Affairs Office, and he's worked in
Speaker 5: and near and around China economic issues for I think
Speaker 5: most of his career, and his analogy is this when
Speaker 5: you're looking at the US China trade relationship, but that
Speaker 5: could include other economies that are built on the same
Speaker 5: foundations as ours, which are open market based economies. What
Speaker 5: you see is two teams that are on a playing field,
Speaker 5: but they're fundamentally playing two different games. And in his analogy,
Speaker 5: it's like one team is out there playing American style
Speaker 5: football and the other team is out there prepared to
Speaker 5: play what the Europeans and the rest of the world
Speaker 5: called football, but what we call soccer. In his analogy,
Speaker 5: if you play it out a little bit more, I
Speaker 5: think it's a very interesting analogy. His analogy is that
Speaker 5: it's actually the PRC's economy is on the field. As
Speaker 5: the American football players, they've got the padding, they have
Speaker 5: more players, they are out there kind of doing this
Speaker 5: kind of brutalistic kind of competition, and it's our market
Speaker 5: based economies that are out there playing the more European
Speaker 5: style football and the playing soccer where it's more agile.
Speaker 5: You have fewer players, and you're fundamentally playing two different games.
Speaker 5: And the issue is that we've gotten to the point
Speaker 5: in our relationship and in accepting the reality of the
Speaker 5: trajectory of our economies and understanding the fundamental policy goals
Speaker 5: of each economy where we're starting to realize we can't
Speaker 5: keep playing soccer on an American NFL football. We have
Speaker 5: to fundamentally change the way that we approach competing, and
Speaker 5: we're gonna need new defensive strategies and we're gonna need
Speaker 5: new offensive strategies.
Speaker 6: Levels.
Speaker 2: So, I guess I just have one last question about
Speaker 2: this sort of the new version of globalization that we're pursuing,
Speaker 2: as you've characterized it, What are the limiting principles, Because
Speaker 2: there's always more steps you could take to sort of
Speaker 2: boost the position of American workers and you know I've
Speaker 2: said before jokingly but also kind of mean, like I
Speaker 2: think if there's one country in the world that could
Speaker 2: like truly do autarchy, it's probably the United States, given
Speaker 2: our incredible resources here. I know that's not what's being pursued,
Speaker 2: but you know, obviously there's a range of different approaches
Speaker 2: to worker safety, there's a range of different approaches to
Speaker 2: the degree to which government supports private industry, and every
Speaker 2: country does it to some extent, some further, some less.
Speaker 2: What are the limiting principles of the new version of globalization?
Speaker 2: How do you know what's too far? What are the
Speaker 2: constraints great?
Speaker 5: So what I would say is, let's have this conversation
Speaker 5: about limiting principles when we have made more progress in
Speaker 5: terms of reversing the trend of the downward spiral and
Speaker 5: the race to the bottom. We are so significantly on
Speaker 5: one side of the balance. So let me give you
Speaker 5: a little bit more texture here. And this gets us
Speaker 5: into the US Mexico trade relationship and a lot of
Speaker 5: the scars that we bear from the original negotiation and
Speaker 5: passage of NAFTA to then the reason why there is
Speaker 5: a renegotiation of NAFTA and the birth of the US
Speaker 5: Mexico Canada Agreement. The concern early on in the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 5: when NAFTA was being negotiated in the first place, was
Speaker 5: we already had a trade agreement with Canada. There was
Speaker 5: a US Canada bilateral and ween Canada are very very close. Canada,
Speaker 5: I think today is one tenth the size in population
Speaker 5: of our economy. I think that that was a nineteen
Speaker 5: eighty five agreement. The big push then over the course
Speaker 5: of that next ten years was well, you know, think
Speaker 5: about North America. Let's combine this US Canada trade relationship
Speaker 5: and bring Mexico into it. And the concern there was
Speaker 5: Mexico was then and continues to be just at a
Speaker 5: different level of development than the US and Canada. It
Speaker 5: is a lower cost country, lower labor cost country. It
Speaker 5: is a country where rule of law is also at
Speaker 5: a different level of development. And the concern was that
Speaker 5: if you took away all the barriers between all three economies,
Speaker 5: what was going to happen. And there's a very famous
Speaker 5: quote by Ross pro that I'm not going to repeat here,
Speaker 5: but I'm going to talk about it in more kind
Speaker 5: of objective terms. The concern and was that your words,
Speaker 5: not mine, but you know that it's that logic then
Speaker 5: that as you take away the barriers and in that
Speaker 5: push for efficiency and you know, bottom line, the incentives
Speaker 5: would allow everything in terms of production to flow into Mexico.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: And you know, the goal has never been in our
Speaker 5: trade agreement negotiations to ensure that we have wage parody
Speaker 5: with Mexico. That's not the goal, because they're at a
Speaker 5: different stage of development. The goal has been how do
Speaker 5: we help Mexico build its middle class. That's what we
Speaker 5: used to talk about, which is, well, you know, the
Speaker 5: NAFTA will allow growth in the Mexican middle class, a
Speaker 5: growth in the number of consumers in Mexico who will
Speaker 5: then buy more things from the United States. Right, Okay,
Speaker 5: The issue is that when you look at industrial relations
Speaker 5: in Mexico, what you see is Mexico is a democracy.
Speaker 5: Mexico has labor unions, but the tradition has been that
Speaker 5: and they have some truly independent unions, but by and large,
Speaker 5: for most of this period of NAFTA. Actually it's true
Speaker 5: even today, most Mexican worker organizations and unions are what
Speaker 5: we call corporatist. They are extensions of the employers that
Speaker 5: they don't actually represent the interests of the workers. That
Speaker 5: they will often negotiate collective bargaining agreements before a single
Speaker 5: worker is hired at a facility, and the workers come
Speaker 5: in not knowing what's in the agreement, and obviously they
Speaker 5: haven't voted on it, they haven't voted on the union,
Speaker 5: and those agreements are not working to empower those workers,
Speaker 5: or they're not looking after the worker safety, or they're
Speaker 5: working conditions and their wages and their rights. Right. So,
Speaker 5: over the twenty years twenty five years of the NAFTA,
Speaker 5: you saw so much production leave the United States go
Speaker 5: to Mexico on the backs of an entirely exploitative model
Speaker 5: with respect to Mexican workers. And the way that American
Speaker 5: workers experience this in all the industries that went south
Speaker 5: was the loss of jobs, the hollowing out of communities,
Speaker 5: and for the jobs that we retained in some of
Speaker 5: our industries, a constant pressure from management to say, well,
Speaker 5: you know, the collective bargaining agreement is up for renegotiation.
Speaker 5: Here are our terms. These are the best terms we're
Speaker 5: able to offer you. And frankly, if these don't work
Speaker 5: for you, we're just going to close up shop, and
Speaker 5: we're going to move this south to a place where
Speaker 5: your compatriots on the Mexican side of the border have
Speaker 5: no rights to negotiate agreements that actually reflect their interests. Right,
Speaker 5: So that fundamental mismatch has been across that we have
Speaker 5: born as part of NAFTA. You get to the renegotiation
Speaker 5: of the NAFTA and some people will say, well, you
Speaker 5: know it was time, was over twenty years, and you
Speaker 5: know we needed a modelies an update, and that's true.
Speaker 5: But the real opportunity in the renegotiation of the NAFTA
Speaker 5: was to address some of these original sins of the NAFTA,
Speaker 5: to address the fact that we didn't adequately provide for
Speaker 5: mechanisms to counterbalance the race to the bottom. And so
Speaker 5: what you have in the USMCA, which is this very
Speaker 5: very interesting product of the Trump administration and Congressional Democrats,
Speaker 5: was among our existing trade agreements, the USMCA is the
Speaker 5: one that has the highest standards for labor and worker protections.
Speaker 5: It has, in particular a labor and worker specific enforcement
Speaker 5: mechanism that was the key to the renewal of the
Speaker 5: NAFTA in the form of the USMCA, that won at
Speaker 5: eighty nine percent support in the House and Senate, and
Speaker 5: even one at the endorsement of key labor union side,
Speaker 5: like the AFLCIO and like the steel workers. And this mechanism, then,
Speaker 5: which is so key and novel in the USMCA to
Speaker 5: worker centrism is a facility specific labor enforcement mechanism that
Speaker 5: allows for anybody to petition the US government. The Canadians
Speaker 5: have their version with Mexico or the Canadian government to
Speaker 5: take up with Mexico concerns that there are specific facilities
Speaker 5: in Mexico that are not affording the right to freedom
Speaker 5: of association or collective bargaining to its workers as required
Speaker 5: not just by the treaty, but as required by Mexican law.
Speaker 5: We have invoked this mechanism, which is very very novel,
Speaker 5: almost thirty times now. We have settled and resolved about
Speaker 5: twenty four or twenty five of the cases. In every
Speaker 5: single one of the cases that we have resolved to date,
Speaker 5: we have allowed for workers at specific facilities to have
Speaker 5: a free and fair election of an independent union of
Speaker 5: their choosing to be able to negotiate new collective bargaining
Speaker 5: agreements that reflect their interest to increase their wages to
Speaker 5: get back pay. We have directly benefited over about thirty
Speaker 5: thousand Mexican workers five to ten I think is the
Speaker 5: number of million dollars in improved benefits and wages. And
Speaker 5: people will say this feels like a drop in the
Speaker 5: bucket in terms of addressing that race to the bottom.
Speaker 5: But what I need for you to know is this
Speaker 5: is the beginning of the flip to a race to
Speaker 5: the top. If you think about what we have made
Speaker 5: possible through this mechanism in the USMCA, for the first
Speaker 5: time in our history, maybe for the first time in history,
Speaker 5: there is a mechanism that is uniquely available in a
Speaker 5: trade agreement that is empowering workers in Mexico and therefore
Speaker 5: also empowering workers in America. We have demonstrated that trade
Speaker 5: is not inherently inimicable to the interests of working people,
Speaker 5: but that trade can be a part of the solution.
Speaker 5: And so what I wanted to do with your question
Speaker 5: is really to flip it and to say we are
Speaker 5: just getting started. We are very very far from the
Speaker 5: conversation around what are the limits and have we gotten
Speaker 5: to access The balance is so far weighted in favor
Speaker 5: of the race to the bottom, that we are still
Speaker 5: in the process of innovating how we can do trade
Speaker 5: to benefit more segments of our economy and society. And
Speaker 5: it's actually a very very exciting time for us to
Speaker 5: be doing trade and is requiring a lot of the
Speaker 5: spirit of innovation and advancement and to keep our eye
Speaker 5: on the ball that the race to the top is possible.
Speaker 3: Speaking of just getting started, we began this conversation talking
Speaker 3: about bipartisan consensus when it comes to China trade and
Speaker 3: to some extent, the continuity between the Trump administration and
Speaker 3: the Biden administration on this particular policy aspect. I have
Speaker 3: to ask, do you anticipate at all that maybe Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris's trade policy would differ in any way to Biden's?
Speaker 3: And then, secondly, you've been in this role since I
Speaker 3: think twenty twenty one, do you have any interest in
Speaker 3: perhaps continuing it under a Harris administration?
Speaker 5: So you've asked that question very artfully, and this is
Speaker 5: how I'm going to answer your question. In your framing
Speaker 5: of the question, you're still focused where we started on
Speaker 5: the continuity of say, the terror factions with respect to China,
Speaker 5: and what I've tried to do is to paint for
Speaker 5: you the picture of the reality of the US China
Speaker 5: trade relationship, China's role in the global economy, China's own
Speaker 5: pivots away from reform economically and politically, to put all
Speaker 5: of that in context. But what I really really want
Speaker 5: you and your listeners to take away is that a
Speaker 5: very important aspect of the Biden Harris Administration's approach to
Speaker 5: trade and economic policy is that you have to combine
Speaker 5: defensive tools with offensive tools. You have to combine trade
Speaker 5: measures with all of the other policies that make up
Speaker 5: your economic toolkit. Those are policies of the US Treasury.
Speaker 5: Those are policies of advancing competition and opportunity, and all
Speaker 5: of this is trained on the America of today and
Speaker 5: how we get from today to the America of tomorrow
Speaker 5: and to prepare ourselves to be the strongest economy for
Speaker 5: American workers and American consumers.
Speaker 3: You have very artfully deflected that question, I got to say,
Speaker 3: but that was a fantastic conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, investador Ty, thank you so much for coming on outline.
Speaker 4: Thank you so much, Tracy.
Speaker 2: I really enjoyed that conversation. I feel like there were
Speaker 2: a number of just sort of like I guess, big
Speaker 2: ideas to pull out of that that sort of inform
Speaker 2: the new globalization. In fact, that I'd probably start with
Speaker 2: it that that it's like this idea that globalization can
Speaker 2: take many forms. We sort of got used to one
Speaker 2: perhaps maybe starting in the early eighties, or maybe you
Speaker 2: could market to when China entered the WTO or never else.
Speaker 2: But this idea like there doesn't only have to be
Speaker 2: one regime. And as Ambassador Tie noted, there is truly
Speaker 2: no such thing as free trade anywhere, which I thought
Speaker 2: was an interesting line. So at any given moment, what
Speaker 2: free trade or what we call trade or what we
Speaker 2: call globalization can change.
Speaker 3: I think that's my takeaway as well. I also thought
Speaker 3: the throwback to the sort of nineteen four, nineteen fifties
Speaker 3: Breton Woods era of trade was really interesting because, as
Speaker 3: you mentioned, we are very used to thinking about globalization
Speaker 3: in sort of nineteen nineties early two thousand terms. Yeah, trade, liberalization,
Speaker 3: bring down the barriers and all of that, but there
Speaker 3: happened instances throughout history where trade meant something slightly different,
Speaker 3: and the sort of nineteen fifties analogy of I guess
Speaker 3: using that word again, trade defensism or perhaps more like
Speaker 3: activist maybe trade management is an interesting one totally.
Speaker 2: And she made that point about how it's important, like, Okay,
Speaker 2: if we're going to erect these trade barriers, particularly on
Speaker 2: things like you know, the high tech areas, then it
Speaker 2: only makes sense to do it in conjunction with sort
Speaker 2: of offensive strategies and the domestic investments, which we're of
Speaker 2: course seeing with things like the Chips Act or on
Speaker 2: the energy front in the Inflation Reduction Act, and so
Speaker 2: that it has to be sort of this coherence. I
Speaker 2: do think it's interesting. You know, she talked about the
Speaker 2: China shock, right, and China shock one point. Oh, but
Speaker 2: you know that was in we know about sort of
Speaker 2: various textile areas or other low end manufacturing that just
Speaker 2: got completely decimated the moment that companies were able to
Speaker 2: move overseas and build the exact same thing with cheaper
Speaker 2: labor costs, lower environmental standards, lower labor rights, and so forth.
Speaker 2: It's interesting, though, and so we've seen the playbook before
Speaker 2: and we don't want to repeat it, and I get that.
Speaker 2: It's interesting though to think about it in the context
Speaker 2: of some more of these high end areas it really
Speaker 2: is about like, no, we are catching up.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 3: And also I have to say she was very skilled
Speaker 3: at deflecting that last question. So I guess we'll have
Speaker 3: to see what happened. We're going, Yeah, the we'll find out.
Speaker 3: But in the meantime, shall we leave it there?
Speaker 2: Let's leave it there.
Speaker 3: This has been another episode of the ad Thoughts podcast.
Speaker 3: I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.
Speaker 2: And I'm Jill Wisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart.
Speaker 2: Follow our guest Ambassador Catherine Tie. She's at Ambassador Tie.
Speaker 2: Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at Carman Ermann dash, O
Speaker 2: Bennett at dashbod and Cal Brooks at cal Brooks. Thank
Speaker 2: you to our producer Moses Adam. For more Oddlogs content,
Speaker 2: go to Bloomberg dot com slash odd lots, where have transcripts,
Speaker 2: a blog and a newsletter and you can chat about
Speaker 2: all of these topics, including a trade and China and
Speaker 2: domestic investment twenty four to seven in our discord with
Speaker 2: fellow listeners Discord dot gg slash odlines.
Speaker 3: And if you enjoy All thoughts, if you like it
Speaker 3: when we talk about trade with China and other policy issues.
Speaker 3: Then please leave us a positive review on your favorite
Speaker 3: podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber,
Speaker 3: you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.
Speaker 3: All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel
Speaker 3: on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.