Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm term Keene Jaylie.
Speaker 1: 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. So
Speaker 1: the main event, it's Chairman Powell. In this first semi
Speaker 1: annual testimony Deutsche Banks Alan Ruskin saying the following, and
Speaker 1: I love this quote. When a new sheriff comes to town,
Speaker 1: what does he do if things have been unruly? He
Speaker 1: asserts himself and shows whose boss. If the old regime
Speaker 1: was largely peaceful, successful, he follows the old sheriff's protocols.
Speaker 1: So is it time to follow the old sheriff's product tools.
Speaker 1: Let's ask Brian Levitt shown we openheim At Funds Senior
Speaker 1: investment strategist, BRIANO. It's great a cash up with you.
Speaker 1: Is that what today is about? Keeping the peace and
Speaker 1: not saying too much? Yes, that's what today is about.
Speaker 1: And this is a federal reserve who is going to
Speaker 1: be gradually raising interest rates. But you'll hear things like
Speaker 1: data dependent and you know the expectation of continued improvements
Speaker 1: in the US economy and and rising inflation expectations, which
Speaker 1: is all good news for the equity markets and good
Speaker 1: news for households. But UM, remember the Federal Reserve is
Speaker 1: still looking at their preferred measure of inflation, which is
Speaker 1: below their comfort zone. And and so we have some
Speaker 1: time here. I think that investors shouldn't get too concerned
Speaker 1: that this tightening cycle UM is gonna curtail this cycle
Speaker 1: anytime soon. There is some excitement out there, Brian about
Speaker 1: the prospect of moving from three hikes to four. One
Speaker 1: on earth with a new chairman Jerome pal come in
Speaker 1: and make that move, to communicate to the market this early,
Speaker 1: He would not, And and I gotta be honest with you,
Speaker 1: I don't see why why anybody would UM want to
Speaker 1: set forth and say we're gonna have four interest rate
Speaker 1: hikes in the coming year. Remember the last or in
Speaker 1: this year. The last time we did that, I believe
Speaker 1: was in late early sixteen. Stanley Fisher was was signaling
Speaker 1: four interest rate hikes in the year ahead, and the
Speaker 1: dollar rallied substantially. So the Fed wants to be cautious
Speaker 1: on this. The good news is this is not late
Speaker 1: growth outside the United States looks a lot better than
Speaker 1: it did in late so we don't need to see
Speaker 1: the dollar rally significantly on the back of interest rate hikes.
Speaker 1: But if the Fed gets too tight, they could flatten
Speaker 1: the Yelk curve and and increase the dollars. So I
Speaker 1: don't We're not going to hear four interest rate hikes
Speaker 1: this year. We're gonna hear, you know, gradual rise in rates,
Speaker 1: but it'll be data depending at each meeting. So another
Speaker 1: question that overhangs the new leadership of the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: is how willing he may be to allow for an
Speaker 1: inflation overshoot. Big conversation about that brant going into this um.
Speaker 1: Do you think this Federal Reserve is willing to accommodate
Speaker 1: an inflation overshoot? Well, it's spect that this this Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve is going to be willing to allow inflation above
Speaker 1: two percent for a period of time. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: high and rising inflation, like there's a there's a level
Speaker 1: where high and rising inflation is detrimental to businesses in
Speaker 1: the equity market. But when you're coming out of a
Speaker 1: deflationary scare in two thousand and eight, a deflationary scare
Speaker 1: in sixteen. The last thing you want to do is
Speaker 1: harm the first time you see any real hints of inflation.
Speaker 1: Brian love it with this with Hoppenheimer Funds. Good morning everyone,
Speaker 1: John Farrell and Tom Keen. Huge news flow this morning,
Speaker 1: just just just stunning what we had to deal with
Speaker 1: early in the morning. We're gonna do a lot on that,
Speaker 1: particularly this this amazing British merger of Sky TV, and
Speaker 1: of course we're hugely advantage toy of John Farrell where
Speaker 1: this Who's do you watch a lot of Sky John?
Speaker 1: And like a Sky Yeah, Yeah, fantastic platform. Brian love
Speaker 1: it with us. And you know what's interesting And I
Speaker 1: mentioned this yesterday at chart by Dean Baker or SEEP
Speaker 1: showing inflation and taking out shelter and there's still no
Speaker 1: inflation when you take out shelter. This sort of reminds
Speaker 1: me of Janet Yellen and cell phones, where she's gonna
Speaker 1: be He's gonna be in a press conference and they're
Speaker 1: gonna go raise Race, Race is gonna go yeah X shelter.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of yeah butts when he goes
Speaker 1: to his first press conference. Well sure, but if I
Speaker 1: mean there are there're gonna be some components of inflation,
Speaker 1: some things that we purchase going up in price, but
Speaker 1: the aggregate numbers are still I mean, we look at
Speaker 1: a lot of things that we consume. We are the
Speaker 1: beneficiaries of as consumers, as lower cost labor around the world, UM, automation, uh,
Speaker 1: things that are bringing the price of a lot of
Speaker 1: our goods down. So we do and we and we
Speaker 1: have not seen the substantial credit growth that usually leads
Speaker 1: to a significant amount of money chasing too few goods?
Speaker 1: Should we do a chart for bluebird radio work? So
Speaker 1: he should do it, John two thousand two. Cleveland CPI
Speaker 1: my favorite number. I know. It is up to two
Speaker 1: points six zero percent early this year off a cliff,
Speaker 1: and it's rebounded about two thirds. But the Cleveland CPI
Speaker 1: hasn't broken out yet. Granted, the vectors in the power
Speaker 1: like you know, one to three four rate increased direction,
Speaker 1: but we're not there yet. And co PC isn't there
Speaker 1: yet either, Brian. So it just makes you wonder what
Speaker 1: the thinking is either the Federal Reserve. Now, I know
Speaker 1: it started to improve recently, at least in terms of
Speaker 1: how they would view things, but quite obviously to a
Speaker 1: lot of people. The bias has been to hike regardless
Speaker 1: of the data, even though they tell us the data dependent. Um,
Speaker 1: can you give me some insight as to why I
Speaker 1: think the people believe that there that were the economy
Speaker 1: is doing better, the patient is, you know, out of
Speaker 1: the emergency room, and there's no reason to a lot
Speaker 1: of people to have this type of ongoing support for
Speaker 1: the economy. What I would counter with that is, you know,
Speaker 1: we've gone through the de leveraging process. The economy is
Speaker 1: doing well, but the last thing you want to do
Speaker 1: is curtail the cycle unnecessarily when more households are are
Speaker 1: participating in the economic expansion and there's still more people
Speaker 1: left to come into the equity markets. I also think
Speaker 1: one of the concerns, Jonathan, is that we have never
Speaker 1: seen stimulus to this extent this late in the cycle
Speaker 1: on the fiscal side. So you know, those that grew
Speaker 1: up in the late seventies and early eighties have this
Speaker 1: fear that we could get back to the environment where
Speaker 1: inflation gets out of hand. I would counter that by saying,
Speaker 1: we are a long ways away from what we saw
Speaker 1: in the late seventies. In the early rise is a
Speaker 1: really important theme that staving and drive at Raffiki has
Speaker 1: been up running some research about recently. It's how does
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve communicate that it's leaning against the policy
Speaker 1: goals of this administration by having tied to monetory policy,
Speaker 1: because you're getting sophiscal So now, serious, serious question, How
Speaker 1: on earth does the Federal Reserve communicate that effectively what
Speaker 1: it's going to be doing is leaning against the policy
Speaker 1: goals of this administration. Yeah, and we do have an
Speaker 1: independent central bank, and I hope that we continue to
Speaker 1: have an independent central bank. And and so the point
Speaker 1: is on the administration and Congress are going to be
Speaker 1: stepping on the gas pedal at the time that the
Speaker 1: Fed is going to be stepping on the brake. So
Speaker 1: what you get in the States is a bounce between
Speaker 1: expansion and slow down. And my opinion that's fine for markets.
Speaker 1: But I think markets will outperform when you have recovery
Speaker 1: and expansion. That's the international and emerging markets. Brian Levin,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, greatly appreciate with and now, and
Speaker 1: particularly after our discussion yesterday was center deportment of Ohio.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to get away from the drone of
Speaker 1: the different issues of Washington, and I can do that
Speaker 1: nicely with Margaret Tullef. She's our senior White House correspondent.
Speaker 1: UH loads and loads of perspective here on the history
Speaker 1: of the White House and on the temperament of the
Speaker 1: White House in this fractious February. In the March of
Speaker 1: two thousand e tream Margaret. There's a paragraph off of
Speaker 1: Laura Litvin's work where the President had a private lunch
Speaker 1: Sunday with Wayne LaPier of the n r A and
Speaker 1: their top lobbyist, Christopher Cox. He's spoken with Paul Ryan,
Speaker 1: He's spoken with Mitch McConnell. And there's going to be
Speaker 1: a bipartisan lawmakers meeting tomorrow with the President. What is
Speaker 1: he going to say to them or how is he
Speaker 1: going to listen to them? I mean, it is really
Speaker 1: the most important question right now when you think about
Speaker 1: the prospects of having any legislation or change come out
Speaker 1: of this tragedy. And so far the reaction from Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill is that the President, who has been a little
Speaker 1: bit all over the map. On the one hand, E
Speaker 1: and his top aids have said they have a sense
Speaker 1: of urgency. There is a moment here there is a
Speaker 1: window they want something to be done, and then on
Speaker 1: the other hand, they have not yet come forward with
Speaker 1: specific asks. This is what we wanted to plan, this
Speaker 1: is what we don't and he's thrown out things like
Speaker 1: army teachers or whatever that are. You know, lightning rod
Speaker 1: is not going to happen at the federal legislative level,
Speaker 1: and so a lot of lawmakers in the Republican Party
Speaker 1: are now either waiting for guidance if they're in the
Speaker 1: camp that wants something to be done, or are not
Speaker 1: waiting for guidance and think very little as getting done.
Speaker 1: And Democrats are in an interesting position because while the
Speaker 1: overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party uh when they go
Speaker 1: home to their constituency say they want this, there are
Speaker 1: an important handful of Democratic lawmakers to particularly in the Senate,
Speaker 1: particularly in tight races this year, who don't necessarily want
Speaker 1: to be having test votes on something unless it's actually
Speaker 1: gonna happen. You know, Margaret, what I find so important here,
Speaker 1: and you've got a lot more perspective at watching paint
Speaker 1: dry than I do, is the advantage here for the
Speaker 1: entrenched Republicans is to let time go by, and the
Speaker 1: time will slip by and we'll move on. Is that
Speaker 1: the arch presidential strategy? Well, if that's what the president
Speaker 1: is trying to accomplish, that's certainly always true. But I
Speaker 1: really am hearing from inside these what the president does
Speaker 1: want to get things done. The question are what does
Speaker 1: he want to get done and how does he want
Speaker 1: to get it done? And in my conversations last night,
Speaker 1: there seems to be a strategy emerging with the White
Speaker 1: House where they would they believe that it makes sense
Speaker 1: to do this in waves, but if you do sort
Speaker 1: of an omnibus gun control package, there's too many constituencies
Speaker 1: who will be against too many little parts and the
Speaker 1: whole thing will fall apart. So they want to do
Speaker 1: this low hanging fruit first, this six Nick's thing, and
Speaker 1: then they want to come back with school safety grants
Speaker 1: and then kind of come back and try another wave.
Speaker 1: It looks like one of the immediate casualties to all
Speaker 1: of this is the prospect of raising the age on
Speaker 1: the faults. Why is that one? I had three people
Speaker 1: yesterday asked me the why of that? Not that I
Speaker 1: have any unique wisdom on this, but let's parse and
Speaker 1: whatever the gun is an A or whatever the gun
Speaker 1: is that that that creates this horror? What's the difference
Speaker 1: between sixteen eight? Hike? Right? I think the simple answer,
Speaker 1: and there really are no simple answers in gun control,
Speaker 1: is that this is a crucial issue for the lobby,
Speaker 1: and it is an issue that UM lawmakers, either who
Speaker 1: believe in this ideologically or who faced primary challenges, don't
Speaker 1: want to fight out. But even the White House, and
Speaker 1: I talked to officials in the White House, they what
Speaker 1: they kind of sigh when you say, what are the
Speaker 1: prospects creating the age? They say there seems to be
Speaker 1: a different UM gun instinct or reaction on whether a
Speaker 1: little bit more can be done on background checks. The
Speaker 1: bump stock thing seems to be easier, but uh, you know,
Speaker 1: whether this goes to gun sales. Are in the right
Speaker 1: to bear arms? It is like it's an obvious question
Speaker 1: if you can regulate um, you know, alcoholis, why can't
Speaker 1: you regulate the age of having a gun exactly? I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you're Margaret, You're way too young
Speaker 1: to remember when they took the drinking age from eighteen
Speaker 1: up to twenty one. And you know, we had guys
Speaker 1: literally dying in wars in Asia while we were raising
Speaker 1: the drinking age. Nobody really could figure out. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I didn't miss the cut. I was living it and
Speaker 1: it was sporting to say. At the least, Margaret Tell,
Speaker 1: when we look at all this, you'd think conversations would
Speaker 1: be engaged. I tried to do that yesterday from the
Speaker 1: junior senator from Ohio, Rob Portman, the Senator from Cincinnati.
Speaker 1: We talked about Holland, Ohio on the border with Michigan,
Speaker 1: and about he has a constituency with a real agricultural
Speaker 1: fabric and they believe in an n r A of
Speaker 1: a different time and place. Is the President engaging the
Speaker 1: Rob Portman's of the Republican Party. Uh. The President does
Speaker 1: not seem to have decided precisely what he wants to
Speaker 1: ask for yet, And what we do know is that
Speaker 1: he's engaged the n of the world and talking to
Speaker 1: the K Street crew, when with the starting point so
Speaker 1: far has in terms of those behind general discussions, has
Speaker 1: been basically, what can I get without too much of
Speaker 1: a fight? Could we start there? If he wants to
Speaker 1: get something big done, he's gonna need to flip the switch.
Speaker 1: But he seems to have decided were now that getting
Speaker 1: a few smaller things done is pieces may be more
Speaker 1: effective than getting a big thing done, Margaret to shift
Speaker 1: gears here in the final few minutes we have with you,
Speaker 1: um this morning. There seems to be a great curiosity
Speaker 1: within the zeitgeist and certainly within my messaging and email
Speaker 1: from listeners over the future of the two generals, General
Speaker 1: Kelly and General McMaster. Do you lump them together? Are
Speaker 1: those two separate conversations for the President, for Mr Kushner
Speaker 1: and others within the White House? Well, we have always
Speaker 1: been really different figures. I mean McMaster came in and
Speaker 1: as kind of a caretaker after Mike Flynn debacle to
Speaker 1: stabilize things, But things with he and the President were
Speaker 1: always a little bit on easy. McMaster's, you know, like
Speaker 1: it has a different kind of style and has been
Speaker 1: more of a facilitator. Kelly is this guy who he
Speaker 1: and President Trump were sort of forged in the crucible
Speaker 1: of the immigration fight. And he's like a you know,
Speaker 1: like a manly man like getting there and gets stuff done,
Speaker 1: and and he has that sort of the generals of
Speaker 1: the Capital chief thing that President Trump vincerally responds to.
Speaker 1: But then of course became competitive with almost instantly. You
Speaker 1: could like see that coming three miles away. So in
Speaker 1: their uh, in their manner, they're completely different in the
Speaker 1: type of ways in which the interact are completely different.
Speaker 1: The one thing they have in common is that they're
Speaker 1: sometimes chafe at one another, and that President Trump has
Speaker 1: had tensions with them both. I do see them separate
Speaker 1: in terms of the specific calculus. McMaster's job is, by
Speaker 1: design is more of a facilitator job. The chief of
Speaker 1: staff job, particularly when you have a president without real
Speaker 1: political experience, is uh much more kind of one of channeling,
Speaker 1: you know, power and decision making. So but they do
Speaker 1: both speak to kind of that push and pull about
Speaker 1: Presidents Trump's desire to have competent leadership versus President Trump's
Speaker 1: desire to have the flexibility to pivot when he wants
Speaker 1: to Thank you so much. I could go to the
Speaker 1: tweets of the President today, but we'll leave it that
Speaker 1: Margaret Tell has been more than generous with her time.
Speaker 1: Our senior White House corresponded her interview of the day
Speaker 1: on Sky Craig Moffett Moffett uh Nathan Soon Mr. Years
Speaker 1: writing Black Books at Sanford Bursting. Craig I want to
Speaker 1: cut to the chase. US satellites doesn't work, Sky satellites.
Speaker 1: What's Comcast getting themselves into with satellites? Yeah, good morning Tom.
Speaker 1: You know, look, I think that's going to be the
Speaker 1: question of the day, and I think that Comcast investors
Speaker 1: are going to be scratching their heads over this um
Speaker 1: for a while, irrespective of whether they actually win the
Speaker 1: bidding here or whether Disney comes in and top says,
Speaker 1: when satellite has been proven to already be an obsolete
Speaker 1: technology in the US and and starting to go into
Speaker 1: free fall, why in heaven's name is Comcast saying we
Speaker 1: want a piece of that in Europe before that same
Speaker 1: evolution takes place. Within this is the profitability. I looked
Speaker 1: at the Bloomberg quickly, and it looks like Comcast is
Speaker 1: way more profitable than Sky. Can they move the needle down?
Speaker 1: The income statement on emerged Sky TV not clear why?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, Comcast is a good operator, but
Speaker 1: it's not clear that that Sky is not a good operator.
Speaker 1: And so um so I'm not sure that there's some
Speaker 1: missing magic sauce that Comcast bring to the table. Well,
Speaker 1: explained US Craig. Why then a T and T in
Speaker 1: their direct TV operations? Is that not successful? And I
Speaker 1: thought that people were cutting the cord. People are cutting
Speaker 1: the cord and that's the problem for a T and
Speaker 1: T and direct TV. I mean, look direct tv, um,
Speaker 1: they bought direct tv what two and a half years
Speaker 1: ago for eight times ibata UM. Two and a half
Speaker 1: years later, Ibada is growing at negative at direct TV.
Speaker 1: Subscribership is starting to fall pretty rapidly. Subscribership for Dish
Speaker 1: Network is falling at almost ten percent a year, and
Speaker 1: there he does, falling by five Um, Why in Heaven's
Speaker 1: name again would you want to own a piece of that?
Speaker 1: When you look in your colleague and crying Michael Nathanson,
Speaker 1: When the two of you look in folks generally Mofatt's hardware, wireless, Comcast,
Speaker 1: and Nathanson does touchy feeling he gets to go to
Speaker 1: the movie openings and where exactly you get to go
Speaker 1: to conventions about plumbing and pipes, Craig, when the two
Speaker 1: of you got together on this, to me and Pim,
Speaker 1: it's started with eight T and T time, Warner, let's
Speaker 1: back up. Why are we having a mating of everyone
Speaker 1: in all in media? Um? Well, the first the first
Speaker 1: thing I would say, is it's not entirely clear that
Speaker 1: we are. UM. But let's go back into the dark
Speaker 1: ages for a second. UM. When there were a set
Speaker 1: of rules passed way back in in UH in the
Speaker 1: UH in the Cable Act that that created a prohibition
Speaker 1: carried through the Telecom Act, that created a prohibition for
Speaker 1: vertically integrated UM operators against withholding content from their competitors.
Speaker 1: Those were called the program Access Rules or the exclusivity
Speaker 1: provisions of the Program Access Rules in in Layman's terms
Speaker 1: simple language. They kept it. They made sure that if
Speaker 1: you were a distributor that also owned content, that you
Speaker 1: couldn't exercise under market power by withhold thing that content from,
Speaker 1: say a satellite operator and leaving them from being able
Speaker 1: to compete. When those rules sunset. There was back in
Speaker 1: two thousand nine, there was some speculation that that the
Speaker 1: doors had been thrown open to vertical integration and that
Speaker 1: new strategies that would effectively work around content exclusivity UM
Speaker 1: were made possible UM, And that may still be true. UM.
Speaker 1: You know, Comcast agreed to provisions that would UM that
Speaker 1: would prohibit that kind of behavior for the first seven years.
Speaker 1: Well those seven years expire um, sorry ten years. Those
Speaker 1: those ten years expire in June. In Mark, I mean,
Speaker 1: so next month you're going to get to find out
Speaker 1: whether Comcast can do some of those kinds of things.
Speaker 1: A T and T may be able to do some
Speaker 1: of those kind of things too, and if so, you
Speaker 1: could see more of these types of deals with the
Speaker 1: time that we've got left with you. Is Mr robertson
Speaker 1: a bidding work. I mean, this is all the dusk
Speaker 1: in a settle and the whole I did an extrapolation
Speaker 1: chart which I can send and you can give me
Speaker 1: your royalty and off at Nathanson. But I did a
Speaker 1: log extrapolation chart. We're right on extrapolation and by definition
Speaker 1: it's got to go for one or two standard deviations
Speaker 1: above the eight year trend. That tells me bidding war.
Speaker 1: Is that what you guys see here? Yeah? Look, I
Speaker 1: think UM Disney will have to come back um and
Speaker 1: decide what it wants to do here the markets already
Speaker 1: anticipating that there will be a higher bid. Um. I
Speaker 1: think the real question here is is this a prelude
Speaker 1: to a Comcast bid for the rest of the same
Speaker 1: Fox assets in the US that Disney is trying to
Speaker 1: buy and this doesn't preclude that in any way. And
Speaker 1: they were on their conference call they were pretty clear
Speaker 1: that um that they aren't ruling that out. They didn't
Speaker 1: want to talk about it. And so if the judge
Speaker 1: in the COMCAT or in the Time Warner A T
Speaker 1: and T case approves the vertical integration of a T
Speaker 1: and T and Time Warner, then the regulatory door is
Speaker 1: open for Comcast to then try to buy a box.
Speaker 1: And you can see a bitting war for the rest
Speaker 1: of Fox. That a lot hinges on what happens in
Speaker 1: that A T and T Time Warner trial. We'll have
Speaker 1: much more to say, I'm sure, Craig Moffatt, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. On short notice, Mafitt Nathanson, if you have
Speaker 1: been taken by the news out of China, this is
Speaker 1: without question, I've only the interview of the day, but
Speaker 1: the interview of the week. On short notice. I'm absolutely
Speaker 1: thrilled to bring to you Stephens Saying out of Oxford
Speaker 1: now at the University of London, and they're wonderful School
Speaker 1: of Oriental and African Studies s o A. S Dr.
Speaker 1: Saying is absolutely definitive. His one volume on Hong Kong
Speaker 1: is heartbreaking at its end when Chris Patton hands over
Speaker 1: the keys to the Chinese doctors, saying, wonderful to have
Speaker 1: you with us this morning. Were you surprised by the
Speaker 1: dictatorship or the extension of President Gee's term. I was
Speaker 1: surprised that he would push it for the extension of
Speaker 1: the potential extension for his term of office as State president.
Speaker 1: I was surprised because it is unnecessary. The State presidency
Speaker 1: is a ceremonial position, is not an office with real power,
Speaker 1: and the office of real power is being General Secretary
Speaker 1: of the Communist Party of China. There's no limits to
Speaker 1: how many terms he can serve as General Secretary, so
Speaker 1: it's not necessary for Ji Jimpings to extend his um
Speaker 1: potential for him to stay on a state president, knowing
Speaker 1: well that there will be significant discomfort within the Communist
Speaker 1: Party and the population at large, and yet he pressed
Speaker 1: for that within This is the divide between presidents activities
Speaker 1: foreign and the power play domestically. Does this set him
Speaker 1: up more for foreign advancement with his relation with other nations,
Speaker 1: or does it have a stronger domestic component. I think
Speaker 1: he's a strong component of vanity more than anything. Else.
Speaker 1: The only difference whether he stays on as state president
Speaker 1: in twenty three or not, it's whether he can have
Speaker 1: formal state visits. When he travels overseas as the leader
Speaker 1: of China holding the office of General Secretaryship of the
Speaker 1: Communist Party, he will be treated as the leader of
Speaker 1: China wherever he goes, and he will be able to
Speaker 1: have some meetings. She just cannot have sat to day
Speaker 1: foremost day visits. And that is the only difference, doctor saying.
Speaker 1: I went back and looked at an interview I did
Speaker 1: on September fourteenth of two thousand four or fourteen years
Speaker 1: ago when the acclaimed Marshall Goldman, who at the time
Speaker 1: was in Moscow, and really it was one of those
Speaker 1: days where he realized and others realized that Mr Putin
Speaker 1: was going to do a power play and maintain his
Speaker 1: decades long influence. Did we see a Putin equivalencye yesterday
Speaker 1: and Sunday? Did we see did we see President g
Speaker 1: try to get the power that we have perceived out
Speaker 1: of Mr Putin over the last decade. I think we
Speaker 1: saw confirmation over the weekend wather than the indications he made,
Speaker 1: the indication that at the nineteenth Party Congress last October
Speaker 1: when he broke with the convention after majodong In not
Speaker 1: allowed going a successors to him to be named at
Speaker 1: the nineteen Party Congress, which what happens the Constitutional convention um.
Speaker 1: What he did over the weekend was to confirm that
Speaker 1: this is indeed his intention to do so, and he
Speaker 1: will do so not only by holding power, but holding
Speaker 1: onto the three top offices that he holds currently at
Speaker 1: his own pleasure. Your magisterial A Modern History of Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: which folks, it was my book of the year too
Speaker 1: long ago, and Stephen Yang's younger days Doctors saying you
Speaker 1: ended with a chapter building a new Kitchen. How's the
Speaker 1: building of the new kitchen going in China and for
Speaker 1: that matter, in Hong Kong. Well, the new kitchens that
Speaker 1: Chris Patton built in Hong Kong just before nineteen nine
Speaker 1: was complete, lead dismountled, and so that is now gone,
Speaker 1: and Hong Kong is increasingly under pressure from the Chinese
Speaker 1: government to hold the line, and this will continue even
Speaker 1: further under ci gimping. Now in terms of what's happening
Speaker 1: in China, I think what is disconcerting most is that
Speaker 1: the way, what the way how Jimping is managing things
Speaker 1: means that he is reducing the scope for internal debates
Speaker 1: before policies are being made. China has a very unusual
Speaker 1: system compared to ours. Both the American and the British
Speaker 1: systems can deal with mothering food, we can steal with
Speaker 1: leaders who are not particularly fit for office, because the
Speaker 1: system will limit what damage they can do. China has
Speaker 1: a system that requires the Communist Party and its leader
Speaker 1: to get its policies right really all the time, in
Speaker 1: orders to in orders to deliver a better tomorrow for
Speaker 1: everybody today. Stephen saying with us. Of course, he's with
Speaker 1: the uh School of Oriental and African Studies at the
Speaker 1: University of London, Doctor saying, let me bring in my colleague,
Speaker 1: doctor saying, I was wondering if you could offer your
Speaker 1: thoughts about what are some of the assumptions and the
Speaker 1: misconceptions that particularly investors or even policymakers in the United
Speaker 1: States have about China. They look at it as something monolithic,
Speaker 1: and they may not even speak the language or other culture. Well,
Speaker 1: China is not monolithic monolithic um At the moment, it
Speaker 1: may largely speak with one voice because basically sh Jimping
Speaker 1: doesn't want alternative voices to be heard. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: there are no other exist even in the current situation
Speaker 1: with the UH. With the way how c Jimping has
Speaker 1: to manage the two steps U confirmation of his intentions
Speaker 1: to stay in office and stayed in power for a
Speaker 1: very long time, it shows that he is still facing obstacles.
Speaker 1: He could not have both at the ninete Party Congress
Speaker 1: back in October. He has to deny somebody becoming his
Speaker 1: successor in the Nineteing Congress and wait for another four
Speaker 1: months before he could ask the party and the country
Speaker 1: to approve the prospect for him to stay on as
Speaker 1: state president. I mean that shows that he is not
Speaker 1: completely absolutely UH in control and there are other voices,
Speaker 1: but other voices will not come out unless and until
Speaker 1: She Jumping gets into serious problems, perhaps with the economy
Speaker 1: in China in serious trouble. What do we overestimate and
Speaker 1: underestimate when we think of the power of President Ji Jimping.
Speaker 1: I think we would overestimate if we try to compare
Speaker 1: Si Jimping with Machadong Uh. Si Jimping is not a
Speaker 1: maoist and he is not trying to restore Maoist to
Speaker 1: the retarianism, but he is a very uh strong and
Speaker 1: devoted Leninist. A letinist is somebody who believes in the
Speaker 1: Communist Party, who uses the Communist Party as the main
Speaker 1: instrument for controlling everything. Are there any garbage out there
Speaker 1: in China? There is no go in on the horizons
Speaker 1: in China. And in fact, in twenty twelve, when she
Speaker 1: Jumping become leader, the first major announcement he made was
Speaker 1: that under his watch China, the Communist Party of China
Speaker 1: will not make the mistake of the Communist Party of
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union and allowed to take it like Gobachov
Speaker 1: to emerge, he will squash him the minute he says
Speaker 1: such a think, emerging professor saying thank you so much.
Speaker 1: We greatly appreciate. It's just saying with us, folks, and
Speaker 1: of course this will lead our podcasts this morning in
Speaker 1: ac usually eventful day. He is with the School of
Speaker 1: Oriental and African Studies the University of London. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio