Speaker 1: Now from our nation's capital. This is Bloomberg's sound On.
Speaker 1: These negotiations do not bear any fruit. The Senate will
Speaker 1: vote on gun safety legislation when we return. So we
Speaker 1: got to do some laws you're having before this election,
Speaker 1: like your life depends upon it. Floomberg Sound on Politics,
Speaker 1: Policy and Perspective from DC's top names. This is a
Speaker 1: classic example of taking advantage for political purposes. There was
Speaker 1: no productive discussion today. We now have more guns in
Speaker 1: the United States than we have citizens. Bloomberg Sound On
Speaker 1: with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. A new lane opens
Speaker 1: for a possible compromise on guns. Welcome to the fastest
Speaker 1: hour in politics with news from the Capitol and a
Speaker 1: grain of salts as Democrats and Republicans discuss solutions in
Speaker 1: the wake of the Texas shooting. Coming up, we will
Speaker 1: hear exclusively from Senator Ben Cardon, Democrat from Maryland, and
Speaker 1: Matt Bennett from Third Way, an advisor for Sandy Hook Promise,
Speaker 1: who worked with then Vice President Joe Biden in the
Speaker 1: wake of Newtown. Later Secretary of State Anthony B. Lincoln
Speaker 1: takes aim at China today, vowing to steer around Beijing
Speaker 1: to shape the global order. We'll have his remarks direct
Speaker 1: shot at President she today with analysis from d J.
Speaker 1: Peterson of Longview Global Advisors, The Sound on Panelism Place
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Jeanie Schanzano and Rick Davis for the Hour.
Speaker 1: It's still hard to tell forty eight hours later, if
Speaker 1: the Texas school shooting will move lawmakers in Washington to
Speaker 1: do something. But there is talk. There's talk balanced by
Speaker 1: a lot of skepticism. Today Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: speaking to a very short window of opportunity. Senator Murphy,
Speaker 1: who has been such a strong and valiant leader within
Speaker 1: our caucus on gun safety legislation, and who has seen
Speaker 1: the suffering first hands of the families at Sandy Hook,
Speaker 1: who's he's become very close to, has asked for space
Speaker 1: to see what progress can be done with Senate Republicans.
Speaker 1: But it does not sound like Shumer plans to give
Speaker 1: Senator Murphy very long. I want to be clear, this
Speaker 1: is not an invite to negotiate indefinitely, make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it. If these negotiations do not bear fruit in
Speaker 1: a short period of time, the Senate will vote on
Speaker 1: gun legislation. Gun safety legislation. Let me repeat, if these
Speaker 1: negotiations do not bear any fruit, the Senate will vote
Speaker 1: on gun safety legislation when we return, so a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks, possibly a few weeks. Democrats may have just
Speaker 1: found a partner in Senator John Cornyn. This is important,
Speaker 1: the Republican senator from Texas today on the floor. I'm
Speaker 1: not interested in making a political statement. I'm not interested
Speaker 1: in the same old, tired talking points. I'm actually interested
Speaker 1: in what we can do to make the terrible events
Speaker 1: that occurred in your value less likely in the future.
Speaker 1: And now we don't know everything we need to know.
Speaker 1: But once we do, I expect there will be an
Speaker 1: informed debate about reforms we can make, and I look
Speaker 1: forward to participating in those discussions. Corn And warning against
Speaker 1: taking gun rights from law abiding citizens. He seems open
Speaker 1: to red flag laws, maybe some other ideas to keep
Speaker 1: guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Senator Murphy meantime,
Speaker 1: was outside along with several other Senators, gathered along with
Speaker 1: gun safety advocates while facing the Supreme Court to press
Speaker 1: for action. He says a compromise must be found by
Speaker 1: the time the Senate returns from a week long recess
Speaker 1: starting Friday. I spoke a short time ago exclusively with
Speaker 1: Senator Ben Carton, Democrat from Maryland, asked him if there
Speaker 1: was indeed a new sense of optimism. Rius. We just
Speaker 1: shocked by what happened in Texas. It just ripped your heart. Uh,
Speaker 1: seven and ten year olds losing their life. Enough enough,
Speaker 1: We've got to act. We've got to come together. So
Speaker 1: I think Senator Schumer is doing exactly the right thing
Speaker 1: and saying to our colleagues, let us come together, let's
Speaker 1: put together a bipartisan bill, and let's get it done. Um.
Speaker 1: I am certain that it will not satisfy what I
Speaker 1: would like to be done. Let's show that the American
Speaker 1: public that we are not going to take the option
Speaker 1: of doing nothing, which is unacceptable. There are there's a
Speaker 1: conversation underway right now about background checks and about red
Speaker 1: flag laws as opposed to actually trying to crack down
Speaker 1: on firearms. Is that the right approach. What I'd like
Speaker 1: to see done is certainly closed. The loopholes in the
Speaker 1: background check red flags are consistent with that. We need
Speaker 1: to deal with the military style UH and high capacity
Speaker 1: magazines that are out there that are the weapons choice
Speaker 1: for those who want to commit mass murders. So I
Speaker 1: would hope that we would also be able to make
Speaker 1: progress on dealing with weapons that I really have no
Speaker 1: private use. These are really just weapons of war. They're
Speaker 1: getting that done in the Senate, though, is the problem right?
Speaker 1: Finding sixty votes for, for instance, an assault weapons ban
Speaker 1: at the moment seems impossible. I am not optimistic we
Speaker 1: can get the threshold for for assault weapons, but I
Speaker 1: will point out the last time that we are deployed
Speaker 1: that we save live uh proxibly, one out of every
Speaker 1: four persons have been killed in these mass shootings has
Speaker 1: been through an assault weapon type, So it will save lives,
Speaker 1: and there is no real need for private ownership. So
Speaker 1: I don't believe we can get it done, but it
Speaker 1: is consequential and we should get it done. How about
Speaker 1: the age to bio weapon Senator? A lot of people
Speaker 1: are pointing out the fact they keep hearing about how
Speaker 1: this eighteen year old should never been able to do this,
Speaker 1: that you can't rent a car when you're eighteen years old.
Speaker 1: Would it be that difficult to raise the age to
Speaker 1: twenty one, even if nothing changed in terms of access
Speaker 1: at that point. That's the point that we LEAs should
Speaker 1: be considering. I think our healthcare professionals would tell us
Speaker 1: that the teen year olds are still at that state
Speaker 1: where their judgment may not be where we want them
Speaker 1: to be in having the easiest ability to buy a firearm,
Speaker 1: So at the stage difficult for us to get such
Speaker 1: consensus here. But to me, that is a matter that
Speaker 1: should be considered, and I personally believe should raise the age.
Speaker 1: What's your message to your colleagues who are going to
Speaker 1: be speaking at the n r A convention, Senator, I
Speaker 1: would tell them that I'm not sure this is the
Speaker 1: right moment. If they're gonna talk about getting things done
Speaker 1: for gun safety, that's one thing. But if they're going
Speaker 1: to talk about the n r A and there his
Speaker 1: art positions, this would be the wrong time for that.
Speaker 1: Do you have hope for the Mansion to Me amendment?
Speaker 1: Are there any pieces of legislation available right now that
Speaker 1: you would put your name on. Well, I would put
Speaker 1: my name on several pieces of legislation, and I don't
Speaker 1: think that's going to be the test. I would certainly
Speaker 1: support any effort that would advance gun safety in this country.
Speaker 1: Uh and bel to co sponsor and support the electriction
Speaker 1: if it doesn't go far enough to really make a
Speaker 1: significant difference in regards to the easy accessibility of military
Speaker 1: doll weapons. And uh, the people are not responsible being
Speaker 1: able to get guns. But I'm going to continue to voice,
Speaker 1: but I would certainly support effort to move us in
Speaker 1: the right direction. Senator Ben Cardon of Maryland Democrat expressing
Speaker 1: urgency and skepticism. And we had another voice now in
Speaker 1: Matt Bennett, the co founder of Third Way. He serves
Speaker 1: on the board at Sandy Hook Promise, and importantly he
Speaker 1: advised Joe Biden when he was vice president in the
Speaker 1: aftermath of New Town, when Joe Biden was drawing up options,
Speaker 1: as asked options beyond legislation for President Obama to pursue
Speaker 1: at the time, Matt welcome. What executive options does President
Speaker 1: Biden have? Not very many? Uh. We found that when
Speaker 1: we were working back and we were uncovering every rock
Speaker 1: in the federal code to try to figure out what
Speaker 1: the president could do on his own authority to make,
Speaker 1: you know, some progress in gun safety. And there were
Speaker 1: a few things he could do. And there's some things
Speaker 1: that President Biden has done as president involving ghost guns,
Speaker 1: The thing that most gun city advocates are focused on
Speaker 1: now is expanding the definition of what it means to
Speaker 1: be in the business of selling firearms, because if you
Speaker 1: can do that, you can sweep into the background check
Speaker 1: process more people who now are pretending that they're not
Speaker 1: licensed dealers and really are. That would help a little,
Speaker 1: but it really can't do that much. I also can't
Speaker 1: get the votes for a bill like that. We spoke
Speaker 1: yesterday with Congressman Thompson, a Democrat from California with a
Speaker 1: background check bill that passed the House and apparently doesn't
Speaker 1: have a prayer in the Senate. Matt, based on what
Speaker 1: you're hearing today, is there is there any opportunity for
Speaker 1: conversation or is this the happy talk portion of the
Speaker 1: program before we all know how it ends in the
Speaker 1: last chapter. Well, uh, the bitter experience of twenty eight
Speaker 1: years of no progress since its ban would suggest that
Speaker 1: this is happy talk. But I don't want to take
Speaker 1: off the table to possibility that senators like corn Corner
Speaker 1: or genuine and do want to do something. A red
Speaker 1: flag law would help, certainly, raising the age to buy
Speaker 1: assault rifles and other rifles would help. But the really
Speaker 1: big deal would be closing the loopholes in the background
Speaker 1: checks system that allow people to buy guns on the
Speaker 1: internet or at gun shows without going through background checks.
Speaker 1: And that's just insane. We have got to plug. That
Speaker 1: wouldn't have stopped this one, though, right, It would not
Speaker 1: have stopped this one, that's right. He went through a
Speaker 1: background check. The thing that would have stopped him was
Speaker 1: raising the age to twenty one. Right. So I just
Speaker 1: asked Senator Ben Cardon about that, that that's not going
Speaker 1: to happen by executive order, that that actually takes sixty votes,
Speaker 1: and that that's a long shot, right, correct, You can't
Speaker 1: do that by executor where there's very little left on
Speaker 1: the table for the president to do on its own authority.
Speaker 1: Most of Democrats came to the table and said, God,
Speaker 1: you could be able to get as many a R
Speaker 1: fifteen as you want. This is not about gun control.
Speaker 1: We're simply raising the age matters. That's still too far, apparently,
Speaker 1: I mean it shouldn't be. The fact is that kid
Speaker 1: couldn't have gone down to the seven eleven and bought
Speaker 1: a white claw or a beer, but he could go
Speaker 1: and buy two assault rifles and three fifty rounds of
Speaker 1: ammunition that is insane, and any anyone who tries to
Speaker 1: defend it is going to have a tough time with it.
Speaker 1: But alas Republicans seem unwilling to go there. Fascinating conversation
Speaker 1: when you explore how little actually this president has to
Speaker 1: deal with here in terms of tools. Uh, Matt, you
Speaker 1: know Joe Biden, having worked with him, this could be
Speaker 1: a long year for him. What's it going to mean
Speaker 1: for his presidency as we work up to the mid
Speaker 1: term elections. I only have thirty seconds. Look, he feels
Speaker 1: about this, uh with He approaches this issue with as
Speaker 1: much passion as any He's been working on gun safety
Speaker 1: for thirty years. He has lost two children, not to
Speaker 1: gun violence, but he knows the pain. So he's up
Speaker 1: to this fight, yes, and he knows these families. He's
Speaker 1: desperately hoping to make progress on this, but also very
Speaker 1: aware of how tough that's going to be. Come back
Speaker 1: and talk to us. Matt Bennett on Bloomberg The Panels.
Speaker 1: Next you're listening to Bloomberg, you sound on with Joe
Speaker 1: Mathew on Bloomberg Radio. Grasping for some common grounds as
Speaker 1: I read on the terminal gun school safety talks in
Speaker 1: the Senate on a short timetable. They sure are asking
Speaker 1: for common ground. Sounded like that at times today, other
Speaker 1: times not, as political lines are reinforced on the issue
Speaker 1: of guns. I mentioned a little while ago Chris Murphy,
Speaker 1: the Senator from Connecticut, has been getting a lot of
Speaker 1: attention on this because of of course Connecticut New Town,
Speaker 1: Sandy Hook, and he's been a leader on this issue
Speaker 1: without a heck of a lot to show for it.
Speaker 1: He was outside outside the Capital complex today along with
Speaker 1: a group of other Senators. Kirsten Gillibrand was there ed
Speaker 1: Markey Sheldon white House to press the issue. We are
Speaker 1: not going to allow this to become the new normal.
Speaker 1: We are not prepared to allow our schools to continue
Speaker 1: as killing fields. We are not prepared to allow the
Speaker 1: gun bobby and the gun industry to continue to run
Speaker 1: this town in this place. But what are you going
Speaker 1: to do? It seems like red flag is where we're
Speaker 1: going here, red flag laws keeping guns out of the
Speaker 1: hands of dangerous people. As we just discussed with Senator
Speaker 1: Ben Cardon. John Cornyn today, the Republican from Texas, who
Speaker 1: said he might be ready to have some of these conversations,
Speaker 1: though said it himself no panacea, and it wouldn't have
Speaker 1: stopped at least as far as we know what happened
Speaker 1: this week in Texas. That's a sum of the panel,
Speaker 1: Rick and Janie or with us, I'm happy to say,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Politics contributors Genie Chanzano and Rick Davis, what do
Speaker 1: you make of this? Genie? This is as I asked
Speaker 1: Matt a little while ago. Is this you know, the
Speaker 1: happy part of the show was the part of the
Speaker 1: movie where people start to feel good. You might go
Speaker 1: get a little more popcorn. By the time you come back,
Speaker 1: we're back in the dark stuff and it ends just
Speaker 1: like the one before, sad ending nothing changes. That's how
Speaker 1: it's feeling. And I'm still reeling from your interview with
Speaker 1: both Carton and Matt Bennett, because you know, Matt Bennett
Speaker 1: just saying at the end of the truth, which is
Speaker 1: that you can't at at the age of this shooter
Speaker 1: go buy a a white claw at a seven eleven,
Speaker 1: but you can buy two assault weapons. That is stunning.
Speaker 1: And the fact that we have to push and push
Speaker 1: and push after every one of these events to see
Speaker 1: if we can get anywhere. And I think you're right.
Speaker 1: We may get expanded background checks, we may get the
Speaker 1: red and yellow flag laws that that that would be great.
Speaker 1: That's a step forward, maybe a little step forward, But
Speaker 1: you know, we're not going to get the age changed.
Speaker 1: It looks like we're not going to deal with military
Speaker 1: assault weapons. And those are the things that need to happen.
Speaker 1: And I go back to what President Biden said in
Speaker 1: his speech the other night, which is that these liberties
Speaker 1: that people are talking about the right to bear arms,
Speaker 1: none of these liberties have been absolute. They never have been.
Speaker 1: You have no absolute right to own an assault weapon,
Speaker 1: and no more than you have to go scream fire
Speaker 1: in a crowded theater. So there are there is constitutional
Speaker 1: ways to limit these these rights. And yet here we
Speaker 1: are again after this horrific shooting and looks like nothing's
Speaker 1: going to change in Congress. What do you make of
Speaker 1: the age issue here, Rick, Is that not a conversation
Speaker 1: to have that that that alone would have actually stopped,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe this from happening this week. It would
Speaker 1: have at least gotten to this individual as an eighteen
Speaker 1: year old. Yeah, I think that that is premature for
Speaker 1: us to say any of the stuffs off the table.
Speaker 1: I think the key thing, uh in a turning point
Speaker 1: on this discussion, which is different than what happened to
Speaker 1: Sandy Hook and other mass shootings, is is that Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans both took the moment to actually say that
Speaker 1: they were prepared to consider some options. In other words,
Speaker 1: there wasn't the kind of demo demagogic attacks that usually
Speaker 1: are precipitated by these kinds of events, trying to take
Speaker 1: political advantage. And so I think this is the opening
Speaker 1: that a lot of people are now talking about. And
Speaker 1: and sure, I think people will have a conversation about
Speaker 1: the age you of owning a gun and and and
Speaker 1: it's impressive that so many people are raising it because
Speaker 1: it it is actually had what would have, as you say,
Speaker 1: stopped the yu've all day killer, but but it wouldn't
Speaker 1: have stopped others. And so having a conversation like the
Speaker 1: two me mansion bill from two thousand thirteen that that
Speaker 1: Romney said today he wouldn't mind revisiting, and and he's
Speaker 1: read flag laws which everyone seems to be settling in on,
Speaker 1: like that's good incremental progress. I think we're going to
Speaker 1: have a moment in time where all these things can
Speaker 1: be brought up and and and and I think legitimately
Speaker 1: are going to be considered. It won't be a free
Speaker 1: for all where everybody's gonna love all these solutions. But
Speaker 1: but cabbably together sixty votes around a bill that can
Speaker 1: do a lot of these things. I think has some
Speaker 1: great potential. And so I wouldn't I wouldn't focus on
Speaker 1: what's not going to happen, because nobody knows that until
Speaker 1: the members get together. And and I think the idea
Speaker 1: here is to to, you know, take a look at
Speaker 1: all the different things, be creative and make progress. Don't
Speaker 1: let this moment pass where nothing happens. And I think
Speaker 1: that's what everybody is optimism, Rick, I have to admit
Speaker 1: this week, Genie is the word incremental that Rick just
Speaker 1: used the key here that that we we don't always
Speaker 1: need to overreach that. Yeah, okay, if you get a
Speaker 1: red flag law, maybe that leads to a conversation where
Speaker 1: something else can happen. You know, I hope Rick's optimism
Speaker 1: is right. You know me, I'm usually not optimistic about
Speaker 1: Congress by any stretch of the imagination. So you know, uh,
Speaker 1: it gotta forgive me on that. But as Matt said
Speaker 1: twenty eight years later, there's a reason a lot of
Speaker 1: us are not optimistic. God willing Rick is right. I
Speaker 1: do think incremental is better than nothing. I've always said that.
Speaker 1: But you know, I don't, in my personally believe that
Speaker 1: it's overreached to increase the age or to ban military
Speaker 1: assault style weapons. They've done it before, and it's been
Speaker 1: productive and it's been effective. So I don't think it's overreached.
Speaker 1: But to your point, I can this Congress. It probably
Speaker 1: won't happen, and we will get incremental steps. God willing
Speaker 1: Rick and Jenior with us for the hour, our signature
Speaker 1: sound on panel. As the Secretary of State takes a
Speaker 1: shot across the bow, President she You've got to hear
Speaker 1: Anthony B. Lincoln's words. Today. We're gonna bring in DJ
Speaker 1: Peterson for more on this, and we'll check the markets next.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg broadcasting live from our nation's capital, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: to New York, Bloomberg eleven Frio to Boston, Bloomberg one
Speaker 1: oh six one to San Francisco, Bloomberg nine sixty to
Speaker 1: the country Serious XM Channel one, and around the globe,
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Business app and Bloomberg Radio dot com. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew. If you can't
Speaker 1: change Beijing, you work around Beijing. The spirit of a
Speaker 1: speech today by Anthony B. Lincoln as the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State rolls out a new strategy to deal with China.
Speaker 1: We'll talk talk about it next with DJ Peterson of
Speaker 1: Longview Global Advisers and blunt talk today by Secretary of
Speaker 1: State Anthony blaken finally drops the China speech. This has
Speaker 1: been long anticipated. Of course, he got sick, had COVID.
Speaker 1: A lot of things happened. Today was the day, and
Speaker 1: as I read on the terminal the top US diplomats
Speaker 1: comments were unusually direct. We will remain focused on the
Speaker 1: most serious long term challenge to the national order, and
Speaker 1: that's opposed by the People's Republic of China. Went straight
Speaker 1: for President. She took direct aim at she's performance leading
Speaker 1: the world's second biggest economy. And there wasn't a lot
Speaker 1: new in this speech. The new strategy to invest at
Speaker 1: home and better compete, but we've heard that before. It
Speaker 1: was more about how to deal with Beijing, and that
Speaker 1: Beijing can go its own way if it wants to.
Speaker 1: We cannot rely on Beijing to change its trajectory, so
Speaker 1: we will shape the strategic environment around Beijing to advance
Speaker 1: our vision for an open, inclusive international system. Just go
Speaker 1: around the reaction from the Chinese Embassy in Washington. Interesting spokesperson.
Speaker 1: It's never China's gold to surpass or replace the US
Speaker 1: or engage in zero sum competition with it. How about
Speaker 1: this history and reality show that China and the US
Speaker 1: both stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.
Speaker 1: A cooling effect from the embassy. Curious what DJ Peterson
Speaker 1: makes of all of this, President of long View Global
Speaker 1: Advisors at Geopolitical and Political Advisory Firm, an expert on China,
Speaker 1: former director for eur Asia Group, and formerly a director
Speaker 1: for the Rand Corporation. It's great to have you back, Dj.
Speaker 1: Is this some sort of escalation coming from the White House?
Speaker 1: Here are we letting Beijing know that you know what
Speaker 1: we're done with you? Hey, Joe, you know, I think
Speaker 1: it's he's trying to remind the world that America can
Speaker 1: walk and shoot gum. At the same time that while
Speaker 1: so much attention is back on Europe, where we've been
Speaker 1: focused obviously for the last fifties, sixties seventy years. Um,
Speaker 1: he's trying to signal. And the President this past week
Speaker 1: also signaled that no, we're really specific oriented now and
Speaker 1: that we are definitely still paying attention to China. And
Speaker 1: as he said, China is our number one long term threat.
Speaker 1: And I agree with that statement, especially as we see
Speaker 1: kind of the long term geopolitical decline of Russia. Yes,
Speaker 1: China is out there on top as ours as our
Speaker 1: our leading uh priority. Well, this is sort of a
Speaker 1: contrast to President Biden, for instance, you know, talking with
Speaker 1: President she trying to get on the same page. Hey,
Speaker 1: we're happy competitors were not here for confrontation. This sounds like, okay,
Speaker 1: we're done trying to convince you. If you want to
Speaker 1: go hang out with Vladimir Putin, go ahead, but we
Speaker 1: have our own agenda for the Indo Pacific DJ. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's I think the President is still very interested in
Speaker 1: having a constructive, constructive dialogue with Beijing. That doesn't go away.
Speaker 1: But I think what they're capitalizing on or seeking to
Speaker 1: seize right now is frankly beijing slightly tarnished image in
Speaker 1: the world. You know, for so long they have been
Speaker 1: shaping the global environment through trade, through its UH infrastructure
Speaker 1: development and lending programs. And what we see right now
Speaker 1: is that things aren't going all that great on a
Speaker 1: number of fronts economically with COVID, there's more pushback. You
Speaker 1: see in in Asia, there's more concerned. The Europeans are
Speaker 1: much more concerned about China, and their alignment with Russia
Speaker 1: in the Ukraine War has certainly dented their image. So
Speaker 1: I think what's very interesting right now is the Secretary
Speaker 1: Um is trying to sees a little bit of initiative
Speaker 1: that China has lost, and China has been seeking to
Speaker 1: reshape the global environment, and they're basically just turning that word,
Speaker 1: those words back on China and saying, no, it's our
Speaker 1: turn to shape the environment. Again, does this sound like
Speaker 1: an administration that's about to lift tariffs on Chinese imports?
Speaker 1: Not at all, Not at all. Why open that door?
Speaker 1: Remember the President last week said, you know, when I
Speaker 1: get back, I'll talk to Janet yelling about that. But
Speaker 1: if if we're not going in that direction, why why
Speaker 1: float the carrot Well, I think it's it's out there
Speaker 1: exactly as a carrot um that he's saying that we
Speaker 1: are open to negotiations, but it's basically contingent on China,
Speaker 1: significant changes in China policy, UM in China and UM.
Speaker 1: So it's he's signaling that we're not completely inflexible, that
Speaker 1: we're not locked into some uh static mentality, but it's
Speaker 1: highly unlikely in this environment. Actually, as you see, for instance,
Speaker 1: the value of the Chinese currency going down, so in
Speaker 1: some ways increasing the competitiveness of Chinese goods. UM, that
Speaker 1: doesn't I just don't see the political interest accepted, perhaps
Speaker 1: very very specific arenas to lift tariffs unless there was
Speaker 1: a real impact on domestic inflation, and some suggest there
Speaker 1: would be uh DJ maybe a d coupling with Russia
Speaker 1: might be rewarded. However, is that is that your point
Speaker 1: by lifting some of these sanctions, if they if they
Speaker 1: stopped fooling around with Vladimir Putin, well, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't see it going that far. We've seen obviously tremendous
Speaker 1: inflationary pressures in the United States for a variety of reasons,
Speaker 1: but those inflationary pressures, pressures from China and tariffs, occurred
Speaker 1: years ago, and so companies have adjusted, consumers have adjusted
Speaker 1: to those tariffs based price increases. UM. I think that
Speaker 1: the ability that they desire to ease tariffs to address
Speaker 1: the inflationary peter would only be at the margins and
Speaker 1: in certain arenas, especially arenas say where we're having severe
Speaker 1: supply chain disruptions. But I do not see a broad
Speaker 1: based easing of the trade war with China. In fact,
Speaker 1: I could see it getting worse. We just imposed sanctions
Speaker 1: on one of their um their companies that that we
Speaker 1: import surreilans cameras from. So that I see these this
Speaker 1: trend of increasing restrictions in the near future. Well, this
Speaker 1: is something and there could be some real disappointment there
Speaker 1: when you hear the response that I mentioned from the embassy. Lastly, here, DJ,
Speaker 1: what does that sound like to you? It's never China's
Speaker 1: gold to surpass or replace the US or engage in
Speaker 1: zero sum competition with It sounds like they want to
Speaker 1: be friends exactly, and it's you called out. I think
Speaker 1: a really interesting tone here, which is last at least
Speaker 1: this this message was left confrontational, which of course could
Speaker 1: be different tomorrow. Right, this is like the manic relationship.
Speaker 1: I guess that we have, DJ. Thank you always wish
Speaker 1: we had more time with d J. Peterson. Longview Global
Speaker 1: Advisers will reassemble the panel next. Rick and Genie weigh
Speaker 1: in on China news on Saudi Arabia as well. I'm
Speaker 1: Joe Matthew. This is Bloomberg. You're listening to Bloomberg Sound
Speaker 1: On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. And I think
Speaker 1: President Biden and the First Lady are still unpacking from
Speaker 1: their trip to Asia. Anthony Blinkoln drops the speech today
Speaker 1: on China with months. By the way, we should note
Speaker 1: this having just talked to d J. Peterson about the
Speaker 1: China policy and the idea of well maybe someday lifting tariffs.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Now reporting that after speaking with the top US
Speaker 1: trade official, the administration's review of those tariffs, well it
Speaker 1: says he'll do that as soon as he's ACTI is back.
Speaker 1: Now is likely to take months, and the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State says the US isn't looking to sever China from
Speaker 1: the global economy. This isn't Russia part two again. We're
Speaker 1: just going to work around them if necessary. As we
Speaker 1: reassemble the panel, Rick Davis and Genie Chanzy know are
Speaker 1: with us Bloomberg Politics contributors. Do you like the sound
Speaker 1: of this approach? Rick, does it sound like a new
Speaker 1: look here after the president's trip and meeting with the Quad, Well,
Speaker 1: it really is the first time we've heard of a
Speaker 1: strategy from the Biden administration on Asia, and I think
Speaker 1: it is a refreshing new approach to what has been,
Speaker 1: you know, sort of a very bilateral approach to China.
Speaker 1: And what was the standard and the Trump administration was,
Speaker 1: you know, you sort of focused on economics and that's it,
Speaker 1: you know, and you punished them by tariffs, and you
Speaker 1: you rewarded them by other economic policies going in place
Speaker 1: it would benef at them, and and that wasn't particularly
Speaker 1: good way, I think, to to look at China, although
Speaker 1: people were pleased that at least he took a harder
Speaker 1: line than than what was examined in the in the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. So so this is the first comprehensive look
Speaker 1: at that, and it definitely is like we're going to
Speaker 1: pursue our aims and our goals around the world. We're
Speaker 1: going to promote democracy, you know, we're going to promote
Speaker 1: human rights. We're going to promote institutions that helped govern
Speaker 1: the economy and trade and and and we don't expect
Speaker 1: China necessarily to abide by that, but we're going to
Speaker 1: do everything we can to force the rest of the
Speaker 1: world into it. And and in that regard, the message
Speaker 1: is kind of we're gonna isolate you, but at the
Speaker 1: same time, Genie, we also really want to buy your stuff.
Speaker 1: That's right. We we want to work with you. I
Speaker 1: think the watchword of the day in my mind is asymmetric.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is what we keep hearing. We did
Speaker 1: get hints of this strategy. There was a classified version
Speaker 1: of this and this is a shorter version of that
Speaker 1: that came out last fall, and the Secretary of State
Speaker 1: reiterated that today and asymmetrical playbook and asymmetrical approach. You know.
Speaker 1: To me this is important because, as Rick said, for
Speaker 1: a while during the campaign and after that, we kept asking,
Speaker 1: how does Biden's approach to China in particular differ from
Speaker 1: Trump's And you couldn't really get a good sense of it,
Speaker 1: but we have it clearly from that classified briefing or
Speaker 1: strategy and also from the words today, And to me
Speaker 1: it's important. It seems to suggest that the United States,
Speaker 1: at least this administration has decided that efforts at diplomacy
Speaker 1: and engagement, both economic and diplomatic have largely failed, and
Speaker 1: so we are going to to your in your words,
Speaker 1: work around them. But the question is, you know, it's
Speaker 1: not a cold war, we still want to work with them. Well,
Speaker 1: what are the limits there? And that's what I didn't
Speaker 1: get a good sense of today from you know, blinkin speeches.
Speaker 1: You know there's areas we want to work at them, climate,
Speaker 1: you know, trade, certainly other errors. But what are the limits?
Speaker 1: How can you freeze somebody or summenentity out and yet
Speaker 1: work with them. How is that going to proceed? We
Speaker 1: don't have a good sense of that from this speech.
Speaker 1: This is just days after the Taiwan flap with President Biden. Look,
Speaker 1: this is just remember this conversation. We're talking about it
Speaker 1: now because it's it's an important element of a much
Speaker 1: bigger story, and the tentacles are long here. I just
Speaker 1: got a briefing at the White House. In terms of geopolitics,
Speaker 1: this is another big story here. It turns out two
Speaker 1: of the president's senior advisors aren't a secret trip to
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. I don't know if you guys heard about this,
Speaker 1: but it was acknowledged and confirmed today by Karine Jean Pierre,
Speaker 1: the new Press secretary. You know, of course we're looking
Speaker 1: for an increase in oil production around the world here
Speaker 1: and well, Saudi Arabia appears to be the place we
Speaker 1: have decided to go at least as of now. Here's
Speaker 1: the Press Secretary. I will confirm that Brett McGurk and
Speaker 1: Amos Hawkstein were in the region to follow up when
Speaker 1: conversations on a range of range of issues, including Iran's
Speaker 1: the destabilizing activities, ensuring stable global energy supplies, and other
Speaker 1: regional issues issues. On your question about oil, you know,
Speaker 1: it's this trip is to review engagement with Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: on energy security as as asking for oil is simply wrong.
Speaker 1: That's the way that we see it, and a misunderstanding
Speaker 1: of both the complexity of that issue as well as
Speaker 1: our multifaceted discussions with the Saudis. Wow, that whole thing
Speaker 1: was written down. They knew there'd be a question. Axios
Speaker 1: had the story earlier. How about that, though, uh Rick,
Speaker 1: on your question about oil, it's this trip is to
Speaker 1: review engagement with Saudi Arabia on energy security, review engagement.
Speaker 1: There's your action phrase there, as asking for oil is
Speaker 1: simply wrong the way we see it, a misunderstanding both
Speaker 1: the complexity of that issue as well as our how
Speaker 1: do they come up with this stuff? Well, this is
Speaker 1: a lot of nothing. Um, it's pretty abundantly clear. We're
Speaker 1: not asking for royal that they're trying to get past
Speaker 1: the sort of penalty box situation that they put Mohammed
Speaker 1: Ben Solomon in for some time, and and and they're
Speaker 1: doing it under the guise of sort of smoking mirror.
Speaker 1: But this is about incredibly bad news that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration keeps getting every week when the price of gas
Speaker 1: goes up, regardless of his policies, regardless of his emergency measures,
Speaker 1: regardless of the commissions that he puts together to try
Speaker 1: and create uh less more downward pressure on pricing, it's
Speaker 1: not working. It's been up since he launched this program
Speaker 1: overt uh the increase in the price of gas. So
Speaker 1: he's drowning in in high price gas right now. And
Speaker 1: the only the only place he's gonna get any help
Speaker 1: that could actually you know, benefit the consumer are with
Speaker 1: these uh energy rich nations as part of OPEC, which
Speaker 1: he which he definitely doesn't want to spend time talk
Speaker 1: to him about because the last thing he wants one
Speaker 1: is to get a political bail out from MBS and
Speaker 1: to look like he's looking past the human rights abuses
Speaker 1: that have been uh in that country. And and he's
Speaker 1: found himself in a box. And so I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna hear double speak out of this. But look if
Speaker 1: he if he can get some progress uh in that regard,
Speaker 1: I think that it's a positive for the U. S. Consumer.
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt apparently would be part of
Speaker 1: this arrangement is, according to Axios, to increase oil production. Genie,
Speaker 1: I have two headlines for you from Bloomberg. Here's one,
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia is making a billion dollars from oil exports
Speaker 1: every day. Oil exports reached thirty billion dollars in March,
Speaker 1: at least the highest in six years. Here's another one.
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia says it's done all I can do for
Speaker 1: the oil market. The energy crisis, they say, is more
Speaker 1: complex than simply pumping more oil. So what are we
Speaker 1: doing over there? Uh? You know, I think that's why
Speaker 1: you've got these two seen your advisors over there on
Speaker 1: this you know, not so secret now trade reviewing engagement
Speaker 1: on energy security and let's not forget Biden once said
Speaker 1: he would make Saudi Arabia pariah because of the killing
Speaker 1: of Jamal Kashogi. The Washington Post reporter um that U.
Speaker 1: S Intelligence has said the prince is responsible for, which,
Speaker 1: of course Audi Arabia has denied. But you know, this
Speaker 1: is where people become very, very frustrated with what they
Speaker 1: see is the hypocrisy coming out of not just this
Speaker 1: White House but others. You know, at this point, when
Speaker 1: I heard this news, I wondered whether Jared Kushner was
Speaker 1: on this trip with potentially with the White House, because
Speaker 1: this is a White House that said it would not
Speaker 1: engage in this, and yet when the heat is on
Speaker 1: in terms of oil prices, they are. I'm not surprised,
Speaker 1: but they're gonna have to do a better job explaining it,
Speaker 1: and that didn't happen today. I don't know how you
Speaker 1: bring this one forward. I mean, look, I guess on
Speaker 1: on on one level, Rick, low gas prices is a win,
Speaker 1: but you also have to explain in this particular case,
Speaker 1: you owe the American people in explanation as to how
Speaker 1: they got lower gas prices. Now, look, you're not gonna
Speaker 1: get this done in a vacuum. Right, there is no
Speaker 1: secrets and we're realizing that they couldn't even get off
Speaker 1: the airport before they were um, so, so why don't
Speaker 1: we just make this transparent? Uh? This administration is engaging
Speaker 1: with Saudi Arabian order to lower gas prices in advance
Speaker 1: of an election where they're losing right now. Are doing
Speaker 1: it with a guy who has a horrible human rights record.
Speaker 1: Take the hit. What's more important to you the human
Speaker 1: rights record or gas prices? That's that's true, Genie. People
Speaker 1: appreciate the honesty, even if it's ugly. Uh. I would
Speaker 1: appreciate the honesty. But I'll tell you, when you say
Speaker 1: that oil prices are more important than human rights and
Speaker 1: human life, it's a hard thing. It's a hard pill
Speaker 1: for a lot of us to swallow. And I I
Speaker 1: you know they're gonna hopefully they listen to Rick. I
Speaker 1: don't think they will. I don't think we'll hear them
Speaker 1: say that. I think they will continue to opit skate,
Speaker 1: And that's going to be a problem for them as
Speaker 1: we go forward, because people are watching and he did
Speaker 1: talk about them as a pariah on the international stage.
Speaker 1: They horrifically killed this man the U. S. Intelligence has
Speaker 1: talked all about that, and yet we are going to
Speaker 1: engage because we don't want to pay more at the pump.
Speaker 1: I get the argument, but it's a hard pill for
Speaker 1: people to swallow. Rick and Jennie with another great discussion
Speaker 1: our panel only here on sound On. Don't you feel
Speaker 1: like if you just elected Rick and Jennie things probably
Speaker 1: work out pretty well? Right? I'm Joe, Matthew and Washington
Speaker 1: will of course do this tomorrow. If you showed up late,
Speaker 1: subscribe to the podcast Bloomberg sound On, just search for
Speaker 1: it where you get your podcasts. As we leave you
Speaker 1: with some sweeter sounds from a more gentle age, did
Speaker 1: you hear about ray Leota? Ray Leota died sixty seven,
Speaker 1: Henry Hill. Anybody reminding us to make the best of
Speaker 1: it while you're here? Where you take body? My lord lord,
Speaker 1: that is my the fastest hour in politics. Will be
Speaker 1: back tomorrow Bloomberg Raddy, I'm Jill, Matthew and Washington. Thanks
Speaker 1: to everybody for jumping in. This is Please try to
Speaker 1: get