Speaker 1: Ye. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane
Speaker 1: Jay Lee. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg This is,
Speaker 1: without question, are a conversation in economics today. Katherine Man
Speaker 1: is with us at Queen Victoria Street with Francine in London.
Speaker 1: She's the head of City Group, the former chief Economists
Speaker 1: for the o e c D and now joining us
Speaker 1: from Dubai. The Secretary General of the o e c D.
Speaker 1: And Helguria with us as well. Dr Guria, this is
Speaker 1: wonderful to have you and Dr Man with us as well.
Speaker 1: I know Guria. I want to start with the state
Speaker 1: of the global economy. We see dissent platition here there
Speaker 1: in everywhere. Give us the measurement that the o e
Speaker 1: c D has right now of a move to economic slowdown,
Speaker 1: to recession or maybe even the Lawrence Summer's secular stagnation.
Speaker 1: I am not predicting that there's gonna be a recession.
Speaker 1: What I am predicting and what we are seeing and
Speaker 1: living is that we're slowing down the growth. We thought
Speaker 1: we were going to be closer to four percent growth
Speaker 1: in and our latest projection is of three and the
Speaker 1: hot percent. What happened in the meantime the trade tensions
Speaker 1: and why is it that we are having the trade
Speaker 1: tensions affect the prospects for world economy so much? Well,
Speaker 1: basically because when you invest to produce and you produced
Speaker 1: to sell, but if you don't know whether you can sell,
Speaker 1: or you don't know what price you can sell, what
Speaker 1: tariff is going to be applied to your sales, then
Speaker 1: what happens is you don't invest. And if you don't invest,
Speaker 1: then you do not have growth. This is what is
Speaker 1: happening now and this is the size of the impact,
Speaker 1: and this is why this is so serious. Um, Mr Guria,
Speaker 1: Good morning from London. Paul Krugman was talking to us
Speaker 1: a little bit earlier on about interest rates and you
Speaker 1: know the recession. He basically, you know, put it bluntly
Speaker 1: in saying the world it's worse off now than in
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven if there were to be a crisis.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with that statement? No, I don't. We've
Speaker 1: learned a lot and the banking system is much more
Speaker 1: strongly capitalized, it's better regulated, it's also a better supervised.
Speaker 1: But it is true that some of the capital that
Speaker 1: we had, some of the ammunition that we had before
Speaker 1: the crisis, has been used precisely to deal with the crisis.
Speaker 1: And therefore, in many cases, for example, the fiscal tool,
Speaker 1: the degrees of freedom are less. The monetary policy tool, well,
Speaker 1: we've used it to the hilt for practically ten years,
Speaker 1: and therefore you have less flexibility on that score. Does it?
Speaker 1: But does it? Is it likely that we see a
Speaker 1: US recession this year? And if the FED doesn't have
Speaker 1: the tools, what does that mean to where we end up?
Speaker 1: I do not see a recession in the United States.
Speaker 1: In fact, the United States is one of the economies
Speaker 1: that are doing better. And at the same time, what
Speaker 1: the FED has done is to be evidence based, which
Speaker 1: they said they were doing. They're doing it, and that is,
Speaker 1: if you see a slowdown in the economy, uh, then
Speaker 1: of course you go slower in terms of the increases
Speaker 1: in the interest rates. So already they said instead of three,
Speaker 1: maybe we'll be doing two. And that's in time. You're
Speaker 1: having this very very healthy, well and very vigorous job creation. Well,
Speaker 1: I know Guria with us in Dubaian in London, Katherine
Speaker 1: Man and Katherine I'm pleased to say, joining us in
Speaker 1: the conversation as well is muhammadl Area is watching and
Speaker 1: sends it an immediate email for Dr Mann Katherine Man
Speaker 1: very simply, here, can any kind of global slow down,
Speaker 1: global disinflation, the sluggishness in Europe and on and on.
Speaker 1: Is that enough to stall or even drag down the
Speaker 1: US economy? How does that reaction function work? Well? The U. S.
Speaker 1: Economy is a much more closed economy than virtually any
Speaker 1: other one UH in the globe, and right now the
Speaker 1: domestic source of growth coming on the tight labor market
Speaker 1: and rising wages is providing momentum for the U. S. Economy.
Speaker 1: There is still also in place government spending associated with
Speaker 1: the fiscal program that has not faded completely yet UH.
Speaker 1: And so if you look at the U. S economy,
Speaker 1: it has a very strong domestic sources of growth. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean it's immune from the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean it's immune from the trade tensions and
Speaker 1: the consequences of the trade tensions. It just means that
Speaker 1: in the waiting between the two of them, the US
Speaker 1: economy is growing more robustly because the domestic side is
Speaker 1: much more resilient. Uh, it won't you know. I think
Speaker 1: what we we we recognize is is that, you know,
Speaker 1: if there is a exacerbation of the trade tensions, if
Speaker 1: we get to a much broader array of trade tensions,
Speaker 1: not just China, but also potentially with Europe um Section
Speaker 1: two three two issue coming up here later in the month,
Speaker 1: potentially a report issued about that. Um, you know, you
Speaker 1: start to layer on top of each other, these issues
Speaker 1: on the trade side, and it feeds back to domestic investment.
Speaker 1: Domestic investment pauses, uh, domestic investment pauses. Justice on Huldgreya said, Um,
Speaker 1: we were a team you know, back there when I
Speaker 1: was Chief of commiss O E c D. And and
Speaker 1: that's exactly the point. You weigh on uncertainty, you weigh
Speaker 1: on investment, and ultimately that drags down the economy. But
Speaker 1: this is really important, Dr Guria, with Lawrence Spoon in
Speaker 1: your team at O E c D in Paris, what
Speaker 1: is the state of the fat tail right now? What
Speaker 1: is our financial stability? What is our ability to withstand
Speaker 1: a set of shocks or even one shock that could
Speaker 1: be out there. As they said before, today the banks
Speaker 1: are much more strongly capitalized, and they've been capitalized and
Speaker 1: they were from seven to ten times more than they
Speaker 1: were before the crisis, and they're better regulated, they're better supervisor,
Speaker 1: all these stress tests that are constantly being made, and
Speaker 1: at the same time, the world is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: better prepared to deal with the bad news. What we're
Speaker 1: very bad at is dealing with surprises. And what I
Speaker 1: see here is that some bad news in the offing.
Speaker 1: I do not see very many you know, out of
Speaker 1: the blue surprises happening in the world economy that could really,
Speaker 1: you know, cause a negative growth recession as has been suggested.
Speaker 1: I do not see a recession in the horizon. And
Speaker 1: Mr Grea, how much do you worry about this, this
Speaker 1: war of words between France and it Is it going
Speaker 1: to hurt investment? And is it really a kind of
Speaker 1: you know, difficult moment for Europe that's crystallized just with
Speaker 1: this listen. Wars uh, unless they are the war against
Speaker 1: hunger or the war against the ignorance or you know
Speaker 1: that the wars are bad and even wars of words
Speaker 1: are bad. But I have to say, if there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a war. Better be of words rather than of
Speaker 1: the alternatives. So I would say at this stage there
Speaker 1: are issues that have to be addressed between Italy and
Speaker 1: uh France. There's a new government in Italy, it's installing itself,
Speaker 1: is trying to find its place, it's space, it's dealing
Speaker 1: with the European Union and at the same time, now
Speaker 1: this confrontation with France is very unfortunate for the atmosphere
Speaker 1: around Europe. But I'm sure the wisdom of the two
Speaker 1: countries is going to find a way out. This has
Speaker 1: been wonderful and hill Garia, thank you so much from
Speaker 1: Dubie this morning and Catherine Man in London as well,
Speaker 1: the former Chief econs for Dr Guria at the O
Speaker 1: E c D. Here, Buns, is what you and I
Speaker 1: have been watching since Davos point one zero seven point
Speaker 1: oh nine. You know it's below point one zero, I
Speaker 1: get it. But the disinflation is out, there's tangible. Why
Speaker 1: don't you bring in doctor Man, who's who's really fabulous
Speaker 1: on this continental disinflation joining us from London, formerly the
Speaker 1: Chief economist of the O E c D and currently
Speaker 1: the City Group Global Chief Economist. Good morning to Catherine
Speaker 1: we are pricing out global growth, and we are seemingly
Speaker 1: pricing down inflation expectations as well. Have your thoughts on
Speaker 1: that well, I mean, you know, if if growth comes
Speaker 1: in dramatically slower, then then you would expect inflation to
Speaker 1: UH to also come in slower as well. But I
Speaker 1: do think that we we have to remember that the
Speaker 1: domestic economies UH in the form of tight labor markets.
Speaker 1: This is true for the United States and Spades. It's
Speaker 1: also true in Europe. Many of those economies have tight
Speaker 1: labor markets. They do have resilient consumption, and we are
Speaker 1: seeing wages rise both in the US and in Europe
Speaker 1: and and even in Japan, and so UH, you know
Speaker 1: what you have there, If you have nominal wages rising
Speaker 1: and you have prices not coming through with any top
Speaker 1: line inflation, then you get real wage increases and that's
Speaker 1: actually pretty good for the workers. So from a market's perspective,
Speaker 1: cancer and I'm always trying to work out where the
Speaker 1: element of surprise might come from. Whereas the boat to
Speaker 1: stack to the one side, so to speak, do you
Speaker 1: think some people have gravitated too much that the one
Speaker 1: side of the boat calling for lower growth pricing out
Speaker 1: inflation in an economy here in America where things still
Speaker 1: look pretty good. Yeah, well, I think you know the
Speaker 1: issue is is that we've got, as I say, this
Speaker 1: domestic resilience that comes from very strong labor markets, but
Speaker 1: we have there's undeniable trade trade headwinds UM and the
Speaker 1: real question is can those trade headwinds be be uh dampened,
Speaker 1: be resolved before there's permanent damage to UM investor psyche
Speaker 1: and and following through that to to consumers as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that there's still time, there's still
Speaker 1: time to get resolution UH, to revive trade UH and
Speaker 1: to to to support global growth. But but you know
Speaker 1: the time it's running out for that. What you're saying,
Speaker 1: what Richard Clarida is saying, John Ferrey had mentioned Steve
Speaker 1: Stanley Damer's Pierre Put among others, is there's a two
Speaker 1: part GDP calculation. One is a domestic resiliency and the
Speaker 1: others all this international noise. What's our history of escaping
Speaker 1: the international noise too? Is Clarata would say a solid outcome. Well,
Speaker 1: the US has more is a is a larger economy,
Speaker 1: it's a more closed economy, and so it is UH
Speaker 1: less buffeted by the external environment, but as compared to
Speaker 1: for example, the European economies or or Japan. Um. But
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's not a good idea to be
Speaker 1: complacent and to say that there's no feedback loop from
Speaker 1: a slowing global economy back to the U S. That's
Speaker 1: that's a complacency to say that the US is a
Speaker 1: closed economy and can whether the weather, the trade storms.
Speaker 1: It can't because, um, a lot of US companies are
Speaker 1: outwardly uh, you know, they're out little outwardly engaged. Uh.
Speaker 1: They get a lot of profits and sales from the
Speaker 1: foreign marketplace. And so if the global economy is not
Speaker 1: doing well, those companies in the U S will not
Speaker 1: do well. Those are the companies that are part of
Speaker 1: the S and P and part of the uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the Dow. And so you'll have financial markets reacting to
Speaker 1: a slowdown in the global markets, even if part of
Speaker 1: the US is still very strong. So you get a
Speaker 1: financial market situation where that turbulence on Wall Street reflecting
Speaker 1: global slowdown in the trade war that feeds into the
Speaker 1: domestic economy. You can't say you can't complete we escape
Speaker 1: that even in a closed economy, like the US. So, Catherine,
Speaker 1: to your point, the mechanism for the feedback loop is
Speaker 1: financial markets. How important is the f X channel with
Speaker 1: the dollars showing some renewed strength of the last week
Speaker 1: or so, well, so the you know, when we think
Speaker 1: about the challenges of the dollar strength, the the issue
Speaker 1: there becomes, um, how are emerging markets in particular, but
Speaker 1: markets in general going to be able to handle debt
Speaker 1: service debt, service of dollar denominated debt, because of course
Speaker 1: he gets more expensive to service that dollar denominated debt.
Speaker 1: And if they're servicing the debt, then then they're not
Speaker 1: going to be able to be supporting their own growth.
Speaker 1: And uh so that is a further headwind for a
Speaker 1: number of the economies around the world, doctor Man. If
Speaker 1: we could move over to the domestic economy and something
Speaker 1: you know, we mentioned this on television really this morning,
Speaker 1: which is scale. Every time a corporate officer brings up
Speaker 1: the phrase scale, I think of Katherine Man, folks, and
Speaker 1: you're you don't mince any words, doctor Man. You say,
Speaker 1: it's not the more the monopoly. Are we heading towards
Speaker 1: monopolistic tendencies? I think it's it's a little premature to
Speaker 1: say that we're headed towards monopolists in tendencies. But but
Speaker 1: I do think that there's been a lot of mergers
Speaker 1: and acquisitions UM in the over the last ten years,
Speaker 1: when when funding was cheap and stock market was high,
Speaker 1: and you know that. And it's not just an Amazon effect.
Speaker 1: It's also think about it in in the intermediate space,
Speaker 1: whether it be chemicals, whether it be um you know, uh,
Speaker 1: agricultural space, but also in some top line spaces for example,
Speaker 1: you know hotels news. You've correctly state this is about scale,
Speaker 1: which always ends up being a lower labor a lower
Speaker 1: labor component. Well, so, yeah, because what happened is, I say,
Speaker 1: the research we used to worry about scale, and we
Speaker 1: used to worry about monopolies because we thought, well, you'd
Speaker 1: become a monopolist and then you raise your prices. But
Speaker 1: these days the research is much more clear that rather
Speaker 1: than raise prices, the the consequence of of of scale,
Speaker 1: consequence of of not maybe not scale, but the consequences
Speaker 1: of of less competition, uh is the burden is on
Speaker 1: workers because they can't change jobs to get to get
Speaker 1: higher wages. So the wage compression is the consequence of
Speaker 1: less competition. Catherine Grant to catch on with you. You You
Speaker 1: want to us from London today, formerly the Chief Economist
Speaker 1: of the O E C D and now the City
Speaker 1: Group Global Chief Economist. Joining us now the Panada. Gary
Speaker 1: Shilling joins us of Ammer's College or he does the
Speaker 1: physics of economics, Dr Shilling, I want to look back
Speaker 1: at your great call of lower interest rates, persistent interest
Speaker 1: rates and the chorus quarter to quarter, he's wrong, he's wrong,
Speaker 1: he's wrong, He's wrong. What are the inflation East? Does
Speaker 1: most get wrong in their call? How did they don't
Speaker 1: give me Paul Krugman one on one, get me Gary
Speaker 1: Shilling one oh one on what the inflation East has
Speaker 1: got wrong? They simply failed to recognize that the world
Speaker 1: has got too much supply relative to demand. When you
Speaker 1: have excess to supply relative to demand, prices go down.
Speaker 1: And the problem was that in the sixties you had
Speaker 1: the opposite with Vietnam and great society on top of
Speaker 1: a fully employed economy. Excess demand prices went up, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people thought that that's the way God
Speaker 1: made the world and didn't realize that things really changed
Speaker 1: or remarkably in the early eighties. I mentioned day Will
Speaker 1: bernanke on Friday, chapter seven or whatever, is the one
Speaker 1: little talk on anset prices within the comparison of now
Speaker 1: versus the sixties. Back then we had a credit expansion
Speaker 1: coming out of World War Two that boosted that demand.
Speaker 1: Now we've got a debt expand in our spy side,
Speaker 1: lower prices. What does that large debt end up doing
Speaker 1: to the responsiveness of our listeners to the times that
Speaker 1: it's deflation? Are you think about it when when debt
Speaker 1: was of course, you know, this is the time folks
Speaker 1: to mention Gary Shilling's classic book, Deflation. John, it's the
Speaker 1: paperback with two blue collars. That Bill we literally paid
Speaker 1: vet Bill's vet bill for a year with the royalties off.
Speaker 1: You're my agent there, top. No. No, The reality is
Speaker 1: that that you have an entirely different, different situation and
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, I think people have simply failed
Speaker 1: to realize. Said that again, a globalized economy is very,
Speaker 1: very different. And and when you have a big debt load,
Speaker 1: it obviously running up a debt means you've got more demand.
Speaker 1: I mean even even you know, we've had disinflation, even
Speaker 1: with the huge run up in debt globally and now
Speaker 1: you're getting the point you say, how far can this go?
Speaker 1: Now there's you know, nobody put in a number and
Speaker 1: said this as far as that can go. And then
Speaker 1: it's got to collapse where you certainly feel that you're
Speaker 1: closer to the top and you are of the bottom.
Speaker 1: And when you start to when you start to see
Speaker 1: the debt contraction, obviously, that's very deflationary. A number of
Speaker 1: years ago, Gary, we talked about the concept of the
Speaker 1: Japanification of the German bond market. I've heard that phrase
Speaker 1: increasingly over the last week. Once again, is that what
Speaker 1: we face here, the Japanification of core government bond markets
Speaker 1: in places like Germany. Well, you certainly would think so.
Speaker 1: I mean, Germany obviously is a has a very strong
Speaker 1: export economy. They have a very u show say, restrained
Speaker 1: view of the world. You look at the average German investor,
Speaker 1: they got more bonds and stocks. You know, stocks are
Speaker 1: for speculators as far as they're concerned. So you have
Speaker 1: a you have a very different attitude there. But but
Speaker 1: with their with all these self reinforcing deflationary forces in
Speaker 1: in germ me, I mean very you know, they're running
Speaker 1: a government surplus. Uh, the huge exports. Uh, they're now
Speaker 1: getting squeeze obviously with a slowing global economy. But you
Speaker 1: have the same kind of and this is this is
Speaker 1: true globally. I mean when you look at the you
Speaker 1: look at the demographics. Uh yeah, I think productivity is
Speaker 1: going to come back. I think that that you do.
Speaker 1: What's what's the countless for that? Garty? Well, new technologies.
Speaker 1: The thing is that they have to get big enough
Speaker 1: to really move the needle. You look at the Indultal Revolution.
Speaker 1: It started in your country, England and New England in
Speaker 1: the late seventeen hundreds, but it wasn't big enough until
Speaker 1: after the Civil War the second half of nineteenth century
Speaker 1: in this country to move a needle. The same with
Speaker 1: true of railroads. And I think now you have you know, biotech, robotics.
Speaker 1: Uh okay, but Gary, let's go let's go physics here.
Speaker 1: The idea of mainline economists is the distribution of that productivity,
Speaker 1: the distribution of that better economy is evenly divided across
Speaker 1: some form of Gaussian or Bell of Space Bologny. It's
Speaker 1: a bimodal America. John Edwards is right, it's two Americas.
Speaker 1: What portion of all these good gains are driving to
Speaker 1: the halves in this guilded age. Well are obviously they're
Speaker 1: obviously going to the topic. But but when you have
Speaker 1: strong economic growth, you always get income polarization. That's that's
Speaker 1: simply here. I don't disagree, but we're looking for some
Speaker 1: of the people. Look at this. Where are some of
Speaker 1: the richest people in the world. They're in China, they're
Speaker 1: in India. I mean except for Jeff Bezos. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean that's what when you when you get growth,
Speaker 1: you get huge disparity. And obviously, uh, you know in
Speaker 1: the country like this where we're not happy with that.
Speaker 1: You gotta wait for things to give me a legit calm,
Speaker 1: a thirty year bond, how low can that you'll go to? Oh,
Speaker 1: come on one? One hundred basis points and I think
Speaker 1: ten years going to go to one point? Why? Why?
Speaker 1: Because I think I think we're gonna I think we're
Speaker 1: entering a recession. We're gonna have a recession, and that's
Speaker 1: going to be the final leg down in what recession?
Speaker 1: You are so gloomy on a Monday and take a
Speaker 1: note only book showing on Wednesday, okay, Gary showing thank you?
Speaker 1: And John I put out his book on Twitter, just
Speaker 1: you know, to keep that it's it's a very nice blue.
Speaker 1: We still have a selected copies we can paint for this.
Speaker 1: We product the copyright of all of our guests. You
Speaker 1: want High Tongue Research. It's out of Shanghai in London
Speaker 1: and it is absolutely lights up brilliant. Why don't you
Speaker 1: bring in our next guests because everybody's flying around on
Speaker 1: airplanes posturing and I don't buy for a minute. Un
Speaker 1: On Miranda car joining us now High Tongue International China
Speaker 1: macro strategist Miranda, what can we achieve this week as
Speaker 1: Ambassador light Hiser and Secretary Manuchin head over to Beijing, Well,
Speaker 1: the best that can be hoped for is that the
Speaker 1: talks continue um. I don't think anyone's expecting a final
Speaker 1: deal and hence why the from she Um summit was postponed.
Speaker 1: But if we can get the best it can be
Speaker 1: hoped for is the negotiations can continue m The new
Speaker 1: tariffs aren't imposed on the first of March, and basically
Speaker 1: they then continue over the next few months to get
Speaker 1: some kind of deal in place, which can you know,
Speaker 1: Trump and She can sign off on. But no big
Speaker 1: announcements this week. We think it's still going to be talking, Miranda.
Speaker 1: We keep talking about the clock is ticking. The clock
Speaker 1: is ticking down to the March first deadline. Do you
Speaker 1: consider that deadline a hard deadline, a line in the sand?
Speaker 1: What is it? Well, if they can just in some ways,
Speaker 1: it is a hard deadline. But the thing is they
Speaker 1: can just push, they can keep the talks going. They
Speaker 1: can say we'll have another stay of execution. Well we'll
Speaker 1: talk for another three months. There's been significant progress on
Speaker 1: the Chinese side, um in terms of trying to trying
Speaker 1: to address some of the US concerns. But you know,
Speaker 1: you still don't have verification, you still don't have the
Speaker 1: systems of guarantees. You need a long term framework, and
Speaker 1: that's gonna that's not gonna happen by the first of March. UM.
Speaker 1: So as long as they don't agree not to raise
Speaker 1: taffs further, that's probably the best outcome we can hope for. Well,
Speaker 1: it's the best outcome we can hope for. What's the
Speaker 1: best outcome China can hope for. It to be clear here, Miranda,
Speaker 1: China really wants to get a deal done. Let's start
Speaker 1: with first principles. Why does China need a deal, Well,
Speaker 1: it's the one that's being hurt. I mean that you're
Speaker 1: you're seeing the slowdown now coming through the Q four
Speaker 1: exports were still strong, but now we're getting um signs
Speaker 1: of the weakness in the trade actually coming through into
Speaker 1: the figures, and you're you're you're getting the even the
Speaker 1: state media guiding down to six percent growth for Q
Speaker 1: one as a whole, so one of the worst performances
Speaker 1: since since in the last ten years, um so so.
Speaker 1: So they need the trade to pick up again, um
Speaker 1: and and and to get investment back in the country
Speaker 1: because it's it's it's going to be the Chinese economy
Speaker 1: which will suffer. And at the moment, most of the
Speaker 1: companies are saying, no, we can. We can cope with
Speaker 1: the tariffs at the current levels temperature, it's not too bad.
Speaker 1: We can sweep up a lot a lot of the
Speaker 1: Q fours results. Comments have been saying we can cope
Speaker 1: with this level. But if it gets to twenty five,
Speaker 1: that's when that's when the pain would start. If you
Speaker 1: put a g DP extrapolation on a move from ten
Speaker 1: to twenty five, do they go from six point four
Speaker 1: six point six down to x percent. Can you gauge that? Well? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean but basically, if you had this on the
Speaker 1: full UM two hundred and fifty and then you went
Speaker 1: up to another you're talking about a GDP hit of
Speaker 1: between one one percentage points to about one point one
Speaker 1: point three at one point four. So it would take
Speaker 1: China's GDP below below the target level for a two
Speaker 1: thousand and two thousand and nineteen. And I think you
Speaker 1: know this is why the China side is being very
Speaker 1: accommodative in terms of trying to get trying to get
Speaker 1: the deal sorted. But you know a lot of this
Speaker 1: is long term structural change and you can't suddenly magic
Speaker 1: that out and magic the trust of that out, you know,
Speaker 1: just in just in a few weeks of negotiations and
Speaker 1: anything that is a grade the American side of the negotiations,
Speaker 1: Miranda wants some kind of enforcement mechanism. How accepting will
Speaker 1: the Chinese be of what could be pushed forward as
Speaker 1: an initiative from the U S side. Well, the thing
Speaker 1: is is is you get a international framework potentially being introduced,
Speaker 1: then that could be um that could be maybe agreed on.
Speaker 1: But the trouble is if you if you're wanting to
Speaker 1: get sort of US inspectors coming into the Chinese market,
Speaker 1: Then it may seem as aference by you know, why
Speaker 1: should the US interfere in the in the Chinese domestic markets?
Speaker 1: Quite so so, anything which smacks of of you know,
Speaker 1: having US rule in China, I think would be would
Speaker 1: be very strongly resisted. I mean, China still trying to
Speaker 1: international framework. Then it may, it may, it may work better. Well,
Speaker 1: how does presidents she fit right now? Does he if
Speaker 1: he if he goes to mar Lago, does he travel
Speaker 1: to mar Lago the same president she is the first
Speaker 1: time around? Or is the domestic calculus in China changed? Well?
Speaker 1: I think yes, I mean the the idea of China
Speaker 1: and the US going from you know, cooperation defining the
Speaker 1: relationship much more competition UM. And yes, she's much more
Speaker 1: about nervous about a lot of the UM. You know,
Speaker 1: China needs to progress on on on the technology side,
Speaker 1: but it's now getting into with the Fuawei and the UM,
Speaker 1: the sort of I P and the national Okay, well
Speaker 1: that let me let me interrupt this is critical. Do
Speaker 1: you actually believe, Miranda car that the Huawei debate will
Speaker 1: fold into the trade discussions. Is that just understood. Well,
Speaker 1: it's difficult to separate the two because you part of
Speaker 1: the pressure which the US is is highlighting is China
Speaker 1: as a national security risk UM and that that's been
Speaker 1: pushed forward in several reports in the US China Committee
Speaker 1: and also in in in the Defense Review where it's
Speaker 1: saying that manufacturing in China presents a national security threat
Speaker 1: to the to the US. And so if you're in
Speaker 1: a situation where you're you're trying to limit um exports
Speaker 1: of Chinese goods, then of course on a national security ground,
Speaker 1: then then that's going to form a part of the
Speaker 1: dialogue as well. Inescapable, Miranda, how many how many? How
Speaker 1: long have you been going to China? How long have
Speaker 1: you been traveled into China since two thousand and seven
Speaker 1: for two thous so you've enjoyed twelve years in China
Speaker 1: as well. I got a problem, Miranda. I watched the
Speaker 1: most wonderful movie in the world this weekend, My Favorite
Speaker 1: Year with Peter O'Toole. It's a spectacular movie about nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty four in New York City, and there's a scene
Speaker 1: in the movie where the young kid goes all out
Speaker 1: dim sum to to to uh to woo the girl
Speaker 1: if you would, I mean, I mean, because Miranda is
Speaker 1: an expert on dim sum? How many things do I
Speaker 1: need to order when I ordered dim Sum? Do you
Speaker 1: gotta go like he does in the movie? Like twenty things?
Speaker 1: That many for for sheet to order from? Yeah, like
Speaker 1: take out? If I do Chinese takeout dim sum in China,
Speaker 1: they order like twenty things. Yes, what does that means?
Speaker 1: You get nice sty um? I'm just getting hungry. I
Speaker 1: just I gotta do this like tonight at a moment,
Speaker 1: you know, when you're really talented, at at the end
Speaker 1: of the interview, when you asked this really incisive question
Speaker 1: with this massive build up, and then the guest takes
Speaker 1: you seriously great and they pause, but they think, what
Speaker 1: on earth do I say? Surely there's something that I
Speaker 1: need A high tongue essay out of Shanghai and out
Speaker 1: of Hong Kong, Cantonese and dim some food that would
Speaker 1: be a huge value right now? Yeah, that would be well,
Speaker 1: we'll try and do that PDF for Thank you so much,
Speaker 1: greatly greatly. I will give you a dim someplace. Do
Speaker 1: you have a town? I have one down to have
Speaker 1: if you want it. I was in one once and
Speaker 1: there was an animal on the wall. Animal was it
Speaker 1: was fury? What animal was it? It was furry? What
Speaker 1: does that mean? It was furry and it was just
Speaker 1: you go downtown for dim some Yeah, I'll give you,
Speaker 1: I'll give you a place. Yeah, it's a good one.
Speaker 1: M Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene
Speaker 1: before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio