Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg P and L Podcast. I'm Pim
Speaker 1: Fox along with my co host Lisa A. Brahmowitz. Each
Speaker 1: day we bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful
Speaker 1: interviews for you and your money, whether you're at the
Speaker 1: grocery store or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg P
Speaker 1: M L Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com.
Speaker 1: Even before the first words of Brett Kavanaugh, the President's
Speaker 1: nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court, Democrats we're pressing
Speaker 1: the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to adjourn the hearing,
Speaker 1: citing the late release of documents related to Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Now Here to tell us more about this is our
Speaker 1: legal analyst and the co host of Bloomberg Politics Policy Power,
Speaker 1: and none other than my colleague June grossoe June, was
Speaker 1: this expected on the part of the Democrats. Yes, they
Speaker 1: were going to try to bring up the fact. It's
Speaker 1: not just that they got by the way. Forty two
Speaker 1: tho documents were released last night by the attorney who's
Speaker 1: reviewing the documents of when Kavanaugh was in the Bush
Speaker 1: White House as its secretary to President George W. Bush.
Speaker 1: So they didn't They knew that they hadn't gotten hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of documents that they've requested from those years,
Speaker 1: and that could contain um different kinds of issues related to,
Speaker 1: for example, the torture problems that they were that they
Speaker 1: encountered in the Bush White House. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: or comments that Brett Kavanaugh had written while he was
Speaker 1: a counselor in the White House. We don't know exactly
Speaker 1: what it be, but would be all the emails and
Speaker 1: all those those things that go back and forth between
Speaker 1: him and his position of power as far as that's concerned,
Speaker 1: and other people as to the positions the George W.
Speaker 1: Bush White House took. So it wasn't so much opinions
Speaker 1: as in legal opinions, but other kinds of things. What
Speaker 1: what side was he on it? And some of those
Speaker 1: issues he bypassed. He got around during his confirmation hearings
Speaker 1: for the d. C. Circuit Court of Appeals. So they
Speaker 1: wanted all those documents, and as you know, this has
Speaker 1: been a rush to push this through. The Republicans said
Speaker 1: they wanted to do it right after Labor Day. They
Speaker 1: want him on the court in time for the session
Speaker 1: in October, so it has been a big rush, and
Speaker 1: so they complained about it, and they tried to get
Speaker 1: the hearings put off, but it was we know it's
Speaker 1: to no avail. Chuck Grassley basically said, I'm gonna listen
Speaker 1: to you, and then he ruled he's the chairman of
Speaker 1: the of the Judiciary Committee. But in addition to the
Speaker 1: release of the documents, they're also classified as committee confidential exactly.
Speaker 1: So so that's a good question, and I don't know
Speaker 1: the real answer to that, because if they want, you
Speaker 1: think that you want they want to ask questions about it,
Speaker 1: they're going to have to somehow make reference to it
Speaker 1: without revealing what was in it. It sounds like an
Speaker 1: impossible situation if they're classified as committee confident reality, because
Speaker 1: that means that the committee only, it's with the committee
Speaker 1: eyes only, so the public doesn't have access to that.
Speaker 1: So query whether they can really ask him any questions
Speaker 1: on that. So there doesn't seem to be at least
Speaker 1: anything procedurally that the Democrats on the Committee can do. No,
Speaker 1: there's nothing they can do really, because it's it's a
Speaker 1: question of the Republicans are in control of the committee,
Speaker 1: and Chuck grass Lee is in control of the committee,
Speaker 1: and what he says and the way they vote will
Speaker 1: always be Republican heavy, unless some Republican decides all of
Speaker 1: a sudden to vote with the Democrats, which is unlikely.
Speaker 1: And we should also mention that the fifty one forty
Speaker 1: nine GOP control of the Senate looks to be confirmed
Speaker 1: because Arizona's governor will appoint a Senator to replace the
Speaker 1: late John McCain right. And it doesn't look like either
Speaker 1: of the female Republican senators that Democrats have targeted as
Speaker 1: perhaps saying, for example, Susan Collins of Maine, that they
Speaker 1: would vote with the Democrats because they are pro choice.
Speaker 1: It doesn't seem like that's going to happen. Susan Collins
Speaker 1: of Maine at least said that she asked Brett Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: about row View weight and he said it was settled law.
Speaker 1: Now that's a phrase that lawyers and especially people trying
Speaker 1: to become judges like to use to say, but it
Speaker 1: means really not much. It means that as of now
Speaker 1: it's settled, and that's a precedent. But they can also
Speaker 1: overturn any precedent. In this last Supreme Court term, we
Speaker 1: saw Judge Gorzich, who had talked about settled law and
Speaker 1: respecting precedent, be in the majority to overturn a forty
Speaker 1: year old precedent about union fees. So that really means nothing.
Speaker 1: So it's just a way to kind of get rid
Speaker 1: of the question. It's it's a he will have many,
Speaker 1: many ways to get rid of the question. He's been
Speaker 1: in intensive they call them really murder boards, and it's
Speaker 1: sort of like every you're sitting there and they just
Speaker 1: throw every question that you can possibly imagine. And CNN
Speaker 1: is reported that they all had protesters and shouted things
Speaker 1: at him and did different things to make him at
Speaker 1: ease for when he's in front of this committee, and
Speaker 1: there were even protesters this morning that had to be
Speaker 1: carried out. So he is prepared and he's going to
Speaker 1: have answers. For example, I can't talk about a case
Speaker 1: that's going to come before me. Well, I respect settled precedent,
Speaker 1: but how can I you know, I can't talk about
Speaker 1: something that's going to happen in the future. And you'll
Speaker 1: hear those the same things you heard from Judge Chief
Speaker 1: Judge now Chief Justice John Roberts. He's going to have
Speaker 1: some baseball analogies, talking about calling only calling balls and
Speaker 1: strikes and being like an umpire. Those are in some
Speaker 1: of the prepared remarks that we had to look at. Now.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration has also cited executive privilege in order
Speaker 1: to prevent about a hundred thousand pages of records from
Speaker 1: his time as the White House Counsel in the George W.
Speaker 1: Bush administration. Yes, and that's unusual because I don't know
Speaker 1: of another time where executive privilege was injected as part
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court hearings. I mean, usually all those documents
Speaker 1: by that time are revealed, and I don't remember another
Speaker 1: hearing where there was this late, late, you know, display
Speaker 1: of documents, documents overnight. Now not even their staff can
Speaker 1: get through documents overnight. And as we've mentioned, they're they're
Speaker 1: still marked by executive privilege, so they're supposed to be
Speaker 1: just for the committee only. But um that that is
Speaker 1: a very unusual kind of declaration, you might say, And
Speaker 1: it's going to keep all those documents, which are the
Speaker 1: kind of documents that Democrats would like to get their
Speaker 1: hands on. Um. Senaer to Einstein said today some she
Speaker 1: said something, well, we would like to prove, you know,
Speaker 1: have the documents we'd like to prove. We know that
Speaker 1: you're at this position, but we don't have any proof
Speaker 1: of it yet. Thank you very much. June Grasso are
Speaker 1: legal analyst, co host of Politics Policy Our and lot
Speaker 1: the shares of Nike. They are down nearly three percent today.
Speaker 1: Here to tell us more about the company and it's
Speaker 1: new ad campaign that will feature a Colin Kaepernick, Let's
Speaker 1: turn to Bert Flickinger. He is the managing director for
Speaker 1: a strategic resource group. You can follow Birt on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Bert Underscore Flickinger. Bert Flickinger, why do you think
Speaker 1: Nike has turned to Colin Kaepernick for a new ad campaign?
Speaker 1: Him Nike's law, some of it's cool and cache and
Speaker 1: it's trying to recover it on the thirtie anniversary to
Speaker 1: just Do It campaign that started Ignaminous Lee after Gary Gilmore,
Speaker 1: the murderer of you Utag gas station attendant and um
Speaker 1: Utah motel clerk told the prison firing squad just to
Speaker 1: pull the trigger and just do it and kill him.
Speaker 1: And and then that became the genesis of the Nike
Speaker 1: just do It do It ads in in which which
Speaker 1: continued and this will certainly sell more sneakers, but as
Speaker 1: you reference on the Bloomberg terminal, Nikes down almost three
Speaker 1: percent double what ADDI does is down. And while Nike
Speaker 1: has the big box to pay the most famous athletes, UH, teams, universities,
Speaker 1: et cetera. UH, students who we're seeing from around the
Speaker 1: world are wearing New Balance, wearing Puma, wearing the Adida
Speaker 1: three stripe. UH, and Nike's going the wrong way and
Speaker 1: and him. A big part of this is Nike was
Speaker 1: a really socially responsible company in the in the eighties
Speaker 1: and nineties. UH with with it just let Me Play
Speaker 1: campaign that lives Stolan and Joe McCarthy and Dan Widen
Speaker 1: of Wide and Kennedy did UH to help help oppressed
Speaker 1: women and girls and get resources through sports, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And UH. Now NI Nike seems to be following controversy,
Speaker 1: which is okay to certainly take a stand commercially, but
Speaker 1: but Nike needs to go back to its roots and
Speaker 1: really get behind women and girls, which which is over
Speaker 1: half the market that UH Nikes ignored to its peril
Speaker 1: UH and also pressure on its stock prices. You referenced, well,
Speaker 1: what do you mean by Nike strategy? Do they have
Speaker 1: a strategy to combat Audidas or Adidas however you want
Speaker 1: to describe it, or Puma that may be held in
Speaker 1: higher esteem when it comes to things like social media
Speaker 1: and controversy. This the strategy PIM in my view, financially
Speaker 1: is has been stripped my in America of UH being
Speaker 1: the one major shoe manufacturer that that does virtually that
Speaker 1: does all its manufacturing offshore and a lot of controversy
Speaker 1: in terms of factory casualties UH and and other really
Speaker 1: bad problems. And UH Nike originally with with the just
Speaker 1: do it UH with a Michael Jordan's campaign. Ultimately UH
Speaker 1: later Derek Jeter UH really world renowned and respected athletes
Speaker 1: eclipsed what Converse had been doing, UH in the great
Speaker 1: Magic Johnson and Larry Bird commercials produced by Spike Lee
Speaker 1: and now UH, it's it's more to your point, social
Speaker 1: and digital and connective media for Nike to get attention
Speaker 1: getting attention cells shoes, but isn't necessarily covering all of
Speaker 1: the key cornerstones of social responsibility, especially with women and girls.
Speaker 1: Is Nike become a large UH corporate corporation similar to
Speaker 1: what Warren Beatty did, is Mrs Leo Farnsworth and heaven
Speaker 1: can wait. Why can't we do everything right? And Nike
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to be doing everything right. Nike just seems
Speaker 1: to be just doing it, or maybe don't just doing
Speaker 1: it in terms of all the right things. Well, Bert,
Speaker 1: what would you suggest that they do that they're not doing?
Speaker 1: The big thing is UH for for example, was with
Speaker 1: it Drri's UH who coached more Olympic women's ice hockey
Speaker 1: stars and UH contending for a national championship on thirty
Speaker 1: eight thousand a year. Whether whether it's Cornell or IVY
Speaker 1: League or n c a A or women's NBA or
Speaker 1: or or women's soccer pro leagues. UH, Neither neither the NHL,
Speaker 1: nor the END nor the NBA, UH nor any of
Speaker 1: the other U leagues are sponsoring women's and girls sports.
Speaker 1: None of them were giving them the resources. That's where
Speaker 1: you think Nike ought to be putting its money and
Speaker 1: its strategy behind women's sports. Yeah, and they him they
Speaker 1: get the return because women make over half of the
Speaker 1: purchase decisions. And in terms of participation in sports, whether
Speaker 1: it's field hockey, ice hockey, UH football worldwide are called
Speaker 1: soccer in the US. That's the key to Nike's future.
Speaker 1: Audi DA and others see it on Nike apparently is
Speaker 1: obtusely missing it when Nike really got it years ago
Speaker 1: to be a worldwide leader. Now it's a laggern Well
Speaker 1: in that context, Bert Flickinger, how did Adidas or Audi
Speaker 1: does succeed in fashion with the stand smith sneaker which
Speaker 1: is a retro Look, how did they succeed at this?
Speaker 1: And Nike miss it? This stand Stan Smith and UH
Speaker 1: you us open and uh the retro Addi DA's regard,
Speaker 1: regardless of the sport, is really connecting, particularly with students
Speaker 1: junior high school, high school, UH, community college, college, young
Speaker 1: adults who look at look at the history. It's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons night Nike after in my view, UH
Speaker 1: anti competitive and UH pricing and potentially predatory practices in
Speaker 1: my professional view, knocked Converse out. Converse was a leader
Speaker 1: and doing what you're saying with with retro shoes, and
Speaker 1: Converse was really the innovator. Nike bought them out of bankruptcy,
Speaker 1: but didn't continue the great legacy that was built by
Speaker 1: the Converse company. And so Audi Dai Radidas has seized
Speaker 1: that mental and capitalized on it and and Adi. Is
Speaker 1: it too late, though, Bird, Is it too late for
Speaker 1: Nike to use converse as a wedge to drive those
Speaker 1: kinds of sales? Give you about twenty seconds in news
Speaker 1: conversus a wedge. What we're seeing in Japan, throughout Asia
Speaker 1: and in Europe is converse is still extremely popular, especially
Speaker 1: with young women, and that's the key catalyst for for
Speaker 1: Nike's growth beyond the Nike brand. All right, well we've
Speaker 1: got to leave it there, but thanks very much to
Speaker 1: Bert Flickings. You're talking about Nike the pain when it
Speaker 1: comes to emerging markets. Here to help us understand the
Speaker 1: pain and perhaps mitigate some of our concerns. As Damian
Speaker 1: sass Our, chief Emerging market strategist for Bloomberg Intelligence, Damian,
Speaker 1: you are the most popular person at Bloomberg because you
Speaker 1: are the expert for emerging markets, and boy, they have
Speaker 1: been grabbing the headlines, whether it is Turkey, Argentina and
Speaker 1: South Africa. Maybe we should start with South Africa since
Speaker 1: I think you kind of I have done Argentina to death.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that. I'm sure what is going on
Speaker 1: in South Africa and then we'll even go to Asia.
Speaker 1: But what's happening in South Africa. So South Africa reported
Speaker 1: GDP that came in well below expectations today they were
Speaker 1: down point seven quarter of a quarter. That's the second
Speaker 1: consecutive quarter of declining GDP growth, which effectively puts the
Speaker 1: economy in recession. Um, look, I mean this is this
Speaker 1: is this is long in the coming. I mean, agricultural
Speaker 1: production in South Africa has been teetering on the brink
Speaker 1: of disaster for some time. It's slow considerably. Um. We
Speaker 1: did see a bounce back in the mining in mining
Speaker 1: output this this quarter, which is a good thing, but
Speaker 1: consumption just remains at historical lows and so you know,
Speaker 1: it's just not hitting households where it matters most. And
Speaker 1: so you're seeing, um, you're seeing slowering growth, you're seeing
Speaker 1: inflation chick up, and you're just seeing the fundamentals weekend,
Speaker 1: So is this because of domestic issues or is this
Speaker 1: anything larger that's happening? Where is there just a trigger?
Speaker 1: Right the dollar gets stronger and then that triggers heightened
Speaker 1: focus on the domestic problems. Well, I mean it's had
Speaker 1: porks journals for some time in South Africa at this
Speaker 1: stage is all about confidence in credibility, right, Ramaphois has
Speaker 1: taken over now for Zoom that he's been in power
Speaker 1: for you know, more than a year, but his ability
Speaker 1: to enact these structural reforms that are designed to reduce
Speaker 1: leverage and improve growth just aren't. We're just we're just
Speaker 1: not seeing that. And it's not it's not gaining the
Speaker 1: credence with offshore creditors and so what you're seeing our
Speaker 1: portfolio outflows and it's much the same as Turkey and
Speaker 1: Argentina and much of emerging markets. You're just seeing you know,
Speaker 1: I don't want to call it hot money, but foreign
Speaker 1: investors who had invested in some of the local equity
Speaker 1: and bond markets heading for the hills. And so we've
Speaker 1: seen three point two I believe three. Are they heading
Speaker 1: for the hills because they're losing money or are they
Speaker 1: heading for the hills because they just fed up? Well, no,
Speaker 1: I think I think it depends on where they where
Speaker 1: they got in. I know that a lot of people
Speaker 1: have look emerging market practitioners who have been you know,
Speaker 1: involved in the space for are the better part of
Speaker 1: the last few decades know that now is the time
Speaker 1: when you want to be looking at emerging markets because
Speaker 1: e M always overshoots to the upside on the downside,
Speaker 1: and so it had overshot to the upside um. And
Speaker 1: so people who are getting in in those kind of
Speaker 1: you know, the nine things, so to speak, probably are
Speaker 1: feeling quite a bit of the pain and they're not
Speaker 1: unlikely to return anytime soon. But someone's got to take
Speaker 1: those trades off their hands. And there are veteran emerging
Speaker 1: market investors who were just thrilled to take someone else's money. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's the distress in the macro community. It's
Speaker 1: it's the the the incremental tolerance for risk from a
Speaker 1: long only emerging market investor is going to be very
Speaker 1: small at this stage. But if you're an event driven,
Speaker 1: bottom up fundamental UH investor with a long term horizon,
Speaker 1: now might be a time to take a look. The same.
Speaker 1: The same goes for global macro guys. There's plenty of
Speaker 1: relative value opportunities when e M volatility takes up like
Speaker 1: this and you overshoot to the one side or the other,
Speaker 1: and so you want to just focus on South Africa,
Speaker 1: You want to go somewhere else. You want to go Indonesia,
Speaker 1: you want to go or Key, Argentina, is. So let's
Speaker 1: talk about Turkey, right, because on a relative basis, and
Speaker 1: we have touched on this last week, you know, you've
Speaker 1: got um, you've got you know, uh, five year CDs
Speaker 1: in Turkey trading at six hundred basis points. That's five
Speaker 1: year default protection against you know, effectively you know, Turkey
Speaker 1: defaulting on its dollar obligations, whereas in a place like
Speaker 1: Argentina you see that same risk trading at eight hundred
Speaker 1: basis points, meaning it's more expensive to heade your to
Speaker 1: to protect against default. Now, I would argue that despite
Speaker 1: all of the shortcomings of both nations, from a fundamental perspective,
Speaker 1: Argentina is doing a lot of the right things. It's
Speaker 1: appealing to the i m F, it's trying to enact
Speaker 1: structural reform, whereas in Turkey they're just rejecting a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, a lot of the and the good
Speaker 1: advice of people who have been there before, the I
Speaker 1: m F included, and and they're kind of shutting away
Speaker 1: their offshore creditors and and and leaving them with a
Speaker 1: bit of a bad taste in their mouth. And so
Speaker 1: I don't think you're gonna see investors return to Turkey.
Speaker 1: You know for quite some time, whereas in Argentina, I
Speaker 1: think there's there's there's more of a reason to to
Speaker 1: to look there. And and like I just said, Argentine
Speaker 1: is trading way cheaper than Turkey is right now. So
Speaker 1: from a relative perspective, you might see the global macro
Speaker 1: communities start to look at these opportunities and and so yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, on a duration neutral basis, if you're a
Speaker 1: risk tolerant type of investor, that might be one way
Speaker 1: to approach the market. So based on your experience, there
Speaker 1: are event driven or distressed investors that are probably looking
Speaker 1: to book air tickets from wherever their headquarters are, seriously
Speaker 1: to Buenos Aires to get on the ground and start
Speaker 1: talking to people and going and meeting people that need
Speaker 1: cap Well, that's been going on, I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you just look at some of the bigger private
Speaker 1: equity shops. I mean just today we you know, um
Speaker 1: we saw um oak Tree, you know, and they basically
Speaker 1: decided to take two point four billion of non performing
Speaker 1: loans off the hands of China Huarrong Asset Management, which
Speaker 1: by the way, is one of the largest issuers of
Speaker 1: emerging market dollar debt. I mean, they're one of the
Speaker 1: biggest constituents in the broad Bloomberg Berkley's you know e
Speaker 1: m aggri get index. And so you know the fact
Speaker 1: that you know, you've got a guy like j Wan
Speaker 1: Trap who you know is on the record as having said,
Speaker 1: you know, there is a bunch of you know, the
Speaker 1: stress market is going to be coming back pretty soon.
Speaker 1: You know, for him to start putting money to work
Speaker 1: in China in local currency non performing loans, I think
Speaker 1: that's relevant in today's day and age. So there is
Speaker 1: an appetite for risk. It just depends on the type
Speaker 1: of investor. And and that's what we're saying. We need
Speaker 1: to see sort of a stronghand weekend exchange go on here.
Speaker 1: Well done, Thanks very much. Always a pleasure, Damian sassaur Our,
Speaker 1: chief Emerging market strategist for Bloomberg Intelligence. Always a value
Speaker 1: your participation in your thoughts, much appreciated. Trade talks between
Speaker 1: the United States and Canada are scheduled to reopen tomorrow,
Speaker 1: this coming after the President threatened Ottawa with expulsion from
Speaker 1: the North American Free Trade Agreement. And to tell us
Speaker 1: more about what's going on with these negotiations is our
Speaker 1: own Sean donnan Our, senior reporter for Trade and Globalization
Speaker 1: for Bloomberg Sean, thank you very much for being with
Speaker 1: us today. What exactly is different this week than last
Speaker 1: week when it comes to trade and negotiations with Canada, Well,
Speaker 1: you're right, it's Vu all over again in terms of
Speaker 1: racing towards to save NAFTA, if you will. The big
Speaker 1: story last week was was the Trump administration striking a
Speaker 1: deal with with Mexico that it rolled out on Monday,
Speaker 1: and then trying hurriedly to get Canada to join that.
Speaker 1: I think the big story this week is how Canada
Speaker 1: can can fit into Donald Trump's expectations but also react
Speaker 1: to what has been some pretty heated rhetoric over the
Speaker 1: last couple of days. Trump clearly is trying to raise
Speaker 1: the pressure on Canada UH to get to the able
Speaker 1: but also to kind of exceed to this deal on
Speaker 1: on his terms, and it's hard to see how Canada
Speaker 1: can do that for its own domestic political reasons. He's
Speaker 1: also involved Richard Trumka, the president of the a f
Speaker 1: l C I O Union. That's right, absolutely so. I mean,
Speaker 1: the one of the problems that Donald Trump faces is
Speaker 1: that no one wants a NAFTA without Canada, and that
Speaker 1: of course gives some leverage to UH to Canada. And
Speaker 1: one of those people over the weekend became Richard TRUMPKA,
Speaker 1: who had given the sort of lukewarm welcome UH last
Speaker 1: week to to to the NAFTA deal, and then over
Speaker 1: the weekend said he couldn't see a role for a
Speaker 1: NAFTA deal without Canada, which was in direct opposition to
Speaker 1: the President who just the day before had tweeted that
Speaker 1: he UH didn't see any legal reason why Canada had
Speaker 1: to be involved. Again, this is this question of leverage.
Speaker 1: Who's got the leverage in these negotiations. Trump clearly thinks
Speaker 1: he can he can plow ahead, but Congress, the US
Speaker 1: business community, the anto US labor movement all would like
Speaker 1: to see Canada in this deal, and that obviously changes
Speaker 1: the equation. Is the President and negotiators for the administration
Speaker 1: using previous trade agreements in order to try to get
Speaker 1: this leverage. And I'm referencing, for example, the publication of
Speaker 1: the recently renegotiated free trade deal with South Korea. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I think one of the themes that I am
Speaker 1: so over the weekend UH yesterday on Monday on Labor Day, UH,
Speaker 1: the U S Trade representatives off. It's finally published essentially
Speaker 1: the the text of renegotiated deal with South Korea. This
Speaker 1: was one of Donald Trump's targets to kind of rip
Speaker 1: up and and rework these these what he calls these
Speaker 1: terrible trade agreements. And the answer is, what we've learned
Speaker 1: from this is that it's a pretty mild rewrite of
Speaker 1: of that trade agreement. There's no one in the business
Speaker 1: community who is up in arms about this. It doesn't
Speaker 1: liberalize trade between the US and South Korea, but it
Speaker 1: certainly doesn't uh throw out this trade agreement that was
Speaker 1: first negotiated by the Bush administration, the administration to George W.
Speaker 1: Bush Um. What we've learned from that and also from
Speaker 1: the deal with Mexico is that actually, on trade, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump often talks tough talks and in extreme examples, and
Speaker 1: his negotiators do as well, but the end result tends
Speaker 1: to be a more benign rewrite and and the Canadians
Speaker 1: will have that in mind. And it's one of the
Speaker 1: reasons that the Canadians are probably at some point going
Speaker 1: to be ready to sign on to the deal negotiated
Speaker 1: with Mexico. Do the Canadians also have a copy of
Speaker 1: the U s Constitution as part of their negotiating tools.
Speaker 1: Because the senator for the Democratic senator from Oregon, Senator
Speaker 1: Ron Widen, he's the top Democrat on the Senate Finance
Speaker 1: Committee that oversees trade policy, He's basically said that the
Speaker 1: president doesn't even have the power to follow through on
Speaker 1: any of his threats having to do with Canada and NAFTA. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think President Trump would dispute that. But the
Speaker 1: point is that Congress under the US Constitution has the
Speaker 1: power to regulate international commerce. For decades, it has kind
Speaker 1: of deputized the executive or presidents to negotiate trade deals
Speaker 1: and then they come back UH under the terms of
Speaker 1: the rules that that are set by Congress, they come
Speaker 1: back and present trade agreements to Congress to ratify UM.
Speaker 1: And with NAFTA, there's a big legal legal debate going
Speaker 1: on in Washington over just how much power President Trump
Speaker 1: has to exit that deal. The treaty itself gives a
Speaker 1: president the power to give six months notice that a
Speaker 1: country is leaving UH the agreement, but Congress argues that
Speaker 1: they really should have the vote on that as well. Again,
Speaker 1: this is all about leverage and who's got leverage in
Speaker 1: this negotiation with Canada. But there's no doubt that the
Speaker 1: President Trump is being reined in by a lot of
Speaker 1: people in UH and we're talking about both Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans in Congress. Do you believe that the Canadian negotiating
Speaker 1: position is taking into consideration the midterm elections that are
Speaker 1: set for November. Absolutely, And I think they're also taking
Speaker 1: into consideration their own elections, justin Trudeau's on elections next year. Uh,
Speaker 1: he cannot look weak at home in these negotiations. And likewise,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of U. S States and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people who report the work up on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill each week who have in mind the intense level
Speaker 1: of trade that they do or that their companies do
Speaker 1: with with Canada. Canada is the US is number one
Speaker 1: export market. It's a bigger export market for the US
Speaker 1: than China. It is all it. It accounts for fifteen
Speaker 1: percent a little over that of all the trade that
Speaker 1: the US does, which is akin to China. We forget
Speaker 1: sometimes just how big an economic relationship it is that
Speaker 1: the US has with its nor the neighbor. Well, that's
Speaker 1: why we've got you to help us understand this and
Speaker 1: keep us honest about it all. Sean Donnan is our
Speaker 1: senior reporter for Trade and Globalization for Bloomberg and joins
Speaker 1: us from Washington, d C. Where negotiations are set to
Speaker 1: resume between the United States and Canada. That is scheduled
Speaker 1: for tomorrow. Thanks very much. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whatever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. I'm pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at pim Fox.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast.
Speaker 1: You can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio.