Speaker 1: Brought to you by Bank of America Merrill Lynch seeing
Speaker 1: what others have seen, but uncovering what others may not.
Speaker 1: Global Research that helps you harness disruption voted top global
Speaker 1: research from five years running. Meryll Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and
Speaker 1: Smith Incorporated. But if I were to sit down with
Speaker 1: the President elect, I'd say, you have two ways to
Speaker 1: see China. You can see China through a fear of prism,
Speaker 1: and you can you can articulate the U. S. China
Speaker 1: relationship through fear to the American people, which I think
Speaker 1: does it a disservice, Or you can articulated through a
Speaker 1: prism of of opportunity, which I think there is a
Speaker 1: lot of on both sides. Hello, and welcome back to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Benchmark, a show about the global economy. I'm Scott
Speaker 1: landman and economics editor with Bloomberg News in Washington, and
Speaker 1: I'm Danielmost, Executive editor for Global Economics at Bloomberg in
Speaker 1: New York. So, Dan, we heard a lot about China
Speaker 1: during the past year's election campaign. President elect Donald Trump
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time bashing China, talking about how
Speaker 1: it's manipulated its currency, taking jobs away from Americans. He's
Speaker 1: also pledged to pull out of a Pacific RIM trade accord,
Speaker 1: which gives China an opening to do its own big
Speaker 1: pan Asian trade deals. And while we're on transitions, China
Speaker 1: is going through one of its own. The ruling Communist
Speaker 1: Party is gearing up to elect their words it's new
Speaker 1: leadership team late next year. The speculation the President, Shi
Speaker 1: jing Ping, who took office as party secretary in could
Speaker 1: set himself up to lead the nation beyond tennees, which
Speaker 1: would break with race and practice and hawken back to
Speaker 1: the days of Chairman Mao. And in addition to a
Speaker 1: political transition, the country is also going through a profound
Speaker 1: economic transition. The China that Trump ranted and raved about
Speaker 1: during the campaign sounds like the low cost, low end
Speaker 1: sweatshop image stuck in the ninety nineties. But today it's
Speaker 1: not really about T shirts in Guangdong Province. It's about
Speaker 1: the Starbucks sprouting up all around the suburbs of Beijing
Speaker 1: and Shanghai. We have a distinguished guest today who can
Speaker 1: offer insight like few others on China's economy and politics.
Speaker 1: John Huntsman served as US Ambassador to China in the
Speaker 1: early years of the Obama administration and before that, elected
Speaker 1: twice as Republican governor of Utah. He's now co chairman
Speaker 1: with Joe Lieberman of No Labels, a group trying to
Speaker 1: push a nonpartisan economic agenda. He's also chairman of the
Speaker 1: Atlantic Council, I think tank in d C. And let's
Speaker 1: not forget briefly ran for President. John. We really appreciate
Speaker 1: you being here. Thank you Dan's guard. It's a pleasure
Speaker 1: to be with you. John. I just described Trump's image
Speaker 1: of China, one that probably looms large in the minds
Speaker 1: of many Americans. You were there for two years as ambassador,
Speaker 1: visited there many times. UH have deep connections there. How
Speaker 1: much of that picture that Trump described as true? And
Speaker 1: if you're briefing him on China, what would you tell him? Well,
Speaker 1: I think you have to see China. Uh. First of all,
Speaker 1: let's recognize where we are. We're in the political season.
Speaker 1: We're ending one aspect of political season. We're about to
Speaker 1: start the governing aspects of presidential politics. While at the
Speaker 1: same time in China, you've also got a political dynamic
Speaker 1: playing out in the run up to the nineteenth Party Congress,
Speaker 1: which will take place about a year from now. Party
Speaker 1: congresses they have every five years and have since the
Speaker 1: death of Mantzedong in nineteen six. So the peculiarity here
Speaker 1: is that you've got politics playing out in the United
Speaker 1: States and we're about to begin a political season in China,
Speaker 1: and they're almost running into each other in the form
Speaker 1: of a head on collision, which means on both sides,
Speaker 1: we're going to hear most more nativist talk, more nationalistic talk.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about closing markets, not opening them.
Speaker 1: We're going to hear more about saber rattling as opposed
Speaker 1: to collaboration. I think this is to be expected, But
Speaker 1: if I were to sit down with the President elect,
Speaker 1: I'd say, you have two ways to see China. You
Speaker 1: can see China through a fear of prism and you
Speaker 1: can you can articulate the U. S. China relationship through
Speaker 1: fear to the American people, which I think does it
Speaker 1: a disservice, Or you can articulated through a prism of
Speaker 1: of opportunity, which I think there is a lot of
Speaker 1: on both sides. But you have to carefully balance the
Speaker 1: two to be sure. You have to recognize that we
Speaker 1: have some irreconcilable differences. You can spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time talking about them, but in the end there are
Speaker 1: no easy solutions. But as we talk about those, don't
Speaker 1: forget that we're we're wasting a lot of time by
Speaker 1: not talking about areas of commonality and collaboration. Uh. And
Speaker 1: they include economic opportunities both on trade and investment, on
Speaker 1: intellectual property protection, on the advancement of technology, opening markets
Speaker 1: where they are closed, helping China and make its transition
Speaker 1: from the old investment led export model to more of
Speaker 1: a consumption model, which is very good for US exports
Speaker 1: longer term. And there are a lot of areas of
Speaker 1: commonality on the security side, notwithstanding our friction in the
Speaker 1: South China Sea in the East China Sea, let's not
Speaker 1: forget we have a common cause as it relates to
Speaker 1: counter terrorism. We both want to calm down the Middle East.
Speaker 1: We want to make sure that the supply and the
Speaker 1: trade routes are are protected for purposes of prosperity, and
Speaker 1: we want to be prepared for disaster relief. When disaster strikes,
Speaker 1: how we can go to the aid of those affected countries.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot to be done on the on
Speaker 1: the positive side of the ledger, but we have to
Speaker 1: manage the downside friction as well, which is never an
Speaker 1: easy thing. So is the politics driving the economics at
Speaker 1: this moment or is the economics driving the politics? Well,
Speaker 1: that's that's a very very good question. I would say
Speaker 1: politics are driving much of the economy x because there
Speaker 1: is evidence that economics are driving some of the fear
Speaker 1: uh and anxiety that people feel here in the United States.
Speaker 1: Uh So, I suspect we're going to see some early
Speaker 1: clashes in the in the Trump administration. He has said
Speaker 1: that he would cite China as a currency manipulator. So
Speaker 1: let's just say that he does that on day one,
Speaker 1: which he said he would do. That takes us to
Speaker 1: January twenty or one. The Treasury Department, which manages these issues,
Speaker 1: has a semi annual report to Congress on currency manipulating countries.
Speaker 1: The next one up is in April. So if this
Speaker 1: just plays out as as it might, you could have
Speaker 1: China deemed a currency manipulator, which is in words only.
Speaker 1: But I suspect there may be some appetite on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 1: given that you've got a new balance of power on
Speaker 1: the Republican side in Congress that might want to stand
Speaker 1: behind Donald Trump because it does play well politically back home.
Speaker 1: And there are reasons that China is not playing by
Speaker 1: the playbook that everyone agreed to, at least under the
Speaker 1: w t O as session documents back back in two
Speaker 1: thousand one. UH. And if China were or if if
Speaker 1: the US Congress were to slap sanctions onto a currency
Speaker 1: manipulation bill, you could have some early days that that
Speaker 1: would include some some back and forth on the economic side,
Speaker 1: because China with then retaliate, of course in kind, and
Speaker 1: then you'd see a spiraling out of control of the
Speaker 1: bilateral trade and economic relationship until some equilibrium was found
Speaker 1: a little bit like the Tires case early on in
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. The great irony of this, though, is
Speaker 1: if China is manipulating the currency now, it's to prevent
Speaker 1: it from weakening. Why would Donald Trump want a week
Speaker 1: you want, Well, this is where you've got to sit
Speaker 1: down with the economists and you you have to you
Speaker 1: have to get the real story. So are they purposefully
Speaker 1: manipulating the running b or is it taken down as
Speaker 1: a result of an economy that is performing poorly? UH?
Speaker 1: And capital outflows are they you know, so they're protecting
Speaker 1: their currency to the tune of maybe sixty to a
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars a month and have been for many months,
Speaker 1: which has taken their their foreign exchange reserves from four
Speaker 1: drillion maybe down to three point one where it sits today.
Speaker 1: So I think these are emergency measures that the Chinese
Speaker 1: are taken, just taking just to keep the currency afloat, uh,
Speaker 1: not manipulating for purposes of cheap chief exports. So once
Speaker 1: the facts are on the table, uh, And that rarely
Speaker 1: is the case when you're in the middle of a campaign,
Speaker 1: But once you're president, you've got to take a look
Speaker 1: at the facts and then and then based policy on
Speaker 1: that you might have you might have a different outcome. Well,
Speaker 1: you have a Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, who who
Speaker 1: has been uh, you know, leading this issue for many
Speaker 1: years to call China currency manipulator. He has a kindred spirit,
Speaker 1: it seems now in President elect Trump. Is there anything
Speaker 1: I mean you say that maybe when they see the
Speaker 1: facts on the ground, they might they might halt. Is
Speaker 1: there anything to to really stop them now? Or do
Speaker 1: you think you know, we're really on the verge of
Speaker 1: of going down that route. I suspect there will be
Speaker 1: a fulfillment of Trump's promise to cite them as a
Speaker 1: currency manipulator. I think the question will then become, are
Speaker 1: their punitive sanctions that back up those words from Congress? Uh?
Speaker 1: And if there are, I think we're in for uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a wild ride economically in the first six months.
Speaker 1: So this is an example of a president of fulfilling
Speaker 1: their campaign promise, and I think the Chinese, on the
Speaker 1: other side, are are fully prepared for that. The question
Speaker 1: will be how do they then retaliate and does that
Speaker 1: cause a counter retaliation and then a spiraling out of
Speaker 1: control of the economic relationship, which UH makes it more
Speaker 1: difficult to invest to trade. There's a loss in confidence
Speaker 1: overall that we we wipe out a year or two
Speaker 1: of productive economic engagement. I think the first few months
Speaker 1: will really be telling well. And to be fair, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was not the first presidential candidate to bash China
Speaker 1: on the campaign trial Bill Clinton famously referred to the
Speaker 1: butchers of Beijing. Yet if anything, the economic relationship with
Speaker 1: China became far more intimate under his administration. How do
Speaker 1: you see this shaking out in reality? Well, you can
Speaker 1: go all the way back to Ronald Reagan. I remember
Speaker 1: because I worked for him when he talked about moving
Speaker 1: our ambassador out of Beijing. Remember we we we had
Speaker 1: the fulfillment of the Shanghai community in nineteen seventy nine
Speaker 1: under Jimmy Carter, our ambassador went from Taipei to Beijing.
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan talked about bringing him back to Taibei uh
Speaker 1: and then made a famous trip. I was on that
Speaker 1: trip with him as part of the staff in the
Speaker 1: early nineteen eighties and spoke to a billion Chinese people
Speaker 1: on live television and had warm discussions with Dung Hiao
Speaker 1: Ping and some of the other early leaders where they
Speaker 1: talked about most favored nations, aid that they talked about
Speaker 1: non proliferation. You never would have guessed that in the
Speaker 1: heat of the nineteen eighty campaign, and the same U
Speaker 1: site with Bill Clinton, and the list goes on and
Speaker 1: on and on. So the governing aspects of the U. S.
Speaker 1: China relationship are are a lot different than the campaign
Speaker 1: aspects of the U. S. China relationship. So once in office,
Speaker 1: you have to look at your stakes, your equities UH
Speaker 1: and and how you can manage what clearly is the
Speaker 1: most important relationship of the twenty century. Now, now you
Speaker 1: might be a little biased on this question, but how
Speaker 1: much does it matter who President elect picks as his
Speaker 1: ambassador to China, And how important is the ambassador's role
Speaker 1: in managing that relationship compared with say the president or
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State or the Treasury secretary. I think
Speaker 1: the and I am a little bit biased having served
Speaker 1: in that position, I think the ambassador in Beijing is
Speaker 1: disproportionately important because the part of the role is to
Speaker 1: explain the U S system to Chinese leaders, to party
Speaker 1: leaders who oftentimes are very confused about how we do business. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then on the flip side, it's too explain to
Speaker 1: senior leaders in the US government how the Chinese side
Speaker 1: works and how through it all we can actually come
Speaker 1: up with with a strategy, bilateral strategy to get a
Speaker 1: few things done. Because the stakes are so high on
Speaker 1: both sides, and because both are members of the U
Speaker 1: N Security Council, both are nuclear armed, We've got the
Speaker 1: two largest economies on the face of the earth, growing
Speaker 1: numbers of disputes. It's ever important to have an ambassador
Speaker 1: who can carry messages back and forth. But in the end,
Speaker 1: let's face it, it really will depend on how much
Speaker 1: skin the president wants to put in the game. So
Speaker 1: if you want to just sort of manage the downside
Speaker 1: without any sense of building the upside capacity, you can
Speaker 1: do that. You can sort of manage downside friction and
Speaker 1: risks and all of that, but you lose the upside
Speaker 1: potential of the relationship. We haven't had in quite some time.
Speaker 1: Uh And I would say Richard Nixon tried to do
Speaker 1: this when he kicked off the relationship shortly after is
Speaker 1: managing a true strategic dialogue which takes a little bit
Speaker 1: of what the Chinese want and what the United States want.
Speaker 1: But it's sort of countercultural for us because we're short
Speaker 1: term thinkers, were more transactional. We negotiate in ways that
Speaker 1: achieve a certain defined outcome. The Chinese, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: want to think in terms of forty years. Uh. And
Speaker 1: we haven't been able to really strike a long term
Speaker 1: strategic relationship that spell out our goals over a long
Speaker 1: period of time. And I would advocate for any incoming
Speaker 1: president of the United States to build a strategy visa
Speaker 1: of Eachina that serves US interests, that brings on a
Speaker 1: bilateral basis problem solvers together in State Department, Treasury, Commerce,
Speaker 1: Defense Department in ways that do more than just talk
Speaker 1: about the tactical, but are able to engage in more
Speaker 1: of the strategic. Just going back to your time on
Speaker 1: White House staff in the eighties again, does this sound
Speaker 1: like the white people talked about the US Japan relationship
Speaker 1: back in the eighties in the early nineties in terms
Speaker 1: of economic mercantilism. Yes, because I was also in a
Speaker 1: trade position in the eighties which brought me in contact
Speaker 1: with Japan UH, and we had the structural impediments initiative,
Speaker 1: you know, we had all kinds of concerns about their
Speaker 1: mercantilistic behavior and activity, only to find and tremendous levels
Speaker 1: of investments coming in the United into the United States,
Speaker 1: buying a lot of trophy UH investments that are well
Speaker 1: known by by most of your listeners, H. And that
Speaker 1: all came to an end, and the structural efficiencies were
Speaker 1: never adequately addressed in Japanese policy making, and they still
Speaker 1: exist today. I would say in the case of China,
Speaker 1: it is a more resilient economy, it's mercantilistic today. One
Speaker 1: of the big problems is You've got state owned enterprises
Speaker 1: a hundred and fifty thousand of them that have not
Speaker 1: been touched, that have gone beyond being reformed. Some of
Speaker 1: them have been built up in recent years as a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, and they are backwaters of of inefficiencies. UH.
Speaker 1: Sweetheart contracts for princeling UH, princeling members of Chinese society.
Speaker 1: They get discounted capital, they get cheaper raw materials, and
Speaker 1: they basically engage in nationalistic business practices, and no one
Speaker 1: has had the political will to take them on UH.
Speaker 1: And I suspect that if if the third plan of
Speaker 1: reforms that Chi Jinping talked about after the last Party Congress,
Speaker 1: the eighteenth Party Congress, in if thet or if the
Speaker 1: third plan of reforms which were talked about in the
Speaker 1: end of twenty are to come to fruition which really
Speaker 1: get to the heart and soul of cleaning up the system,
Speaker 1: the state owned enterprises are going to have to be
Speaker 1: dealt with realistically, brought down, bankrupted, a new debt market
Speaker 1: established in order to accommodate some of the inefficiencies. If
Speaker 1: if that isn't done, I think the Chinese economy is
Speaker 1: in for long term serious problems. Japan never dealt with
Speaker 1: those inefficiencies, and we're seeing what what what that is
Speaker 1: brought about. I was there three years ago for those
Speaker 1: the announcement of those Third Plenum reforms, and we're still
Speaker 1: waiting for some of them to to be implemented. Let's
Speaker 1: leave that thought there and take a quick break for
Speaker 1: a word from our sponsor. Will be right back. Brought
Speaker 1: to you by Bank of America. Meryll Lynch. Seeing what
Speaker 1: others have seen, but uncovering what others may not. Global
Speaker 1: research that helps you harness disruption voted top global research
Speaker 1: from five years running. Mary Lynch, Pierce, Venner and Smith Incorporated.
Speaker 1: And we're back John. Let's turn to China's so called elections,
Speaker 1: that's the word they use. But at all levels the
Speaker 1: candidates are picked by the Communist Party, so anyone who
Speaker 1: votes doesn't actually have a choice of candidates. We don't
Speaker 1: get to see the kinds of deals and machinations that
Speaker 1: happened behind the scenes that they do to choose the
Speaker 1: leaders all the way up to the top level. And
Speaker 1: yet when you take a long view of it, this
Speaker 1: authoritarian system has lifted hundreds of millions of people out
Speaker 1: of poverty, kept the economy growing at a relatively rapid
Speaker 1: pace and made China into a global power. They like
Speaker 1: to criticize the way democracy works in the US and
Speaker 1: other Western nations. Is there any merit in their viewpoint? Well,
Speaker 1: I would also say they achieved that success through doing
Speaker 1: it the old fashioned way and the and the easy way,
Speaker 1: which is bad your currency, drawing on cheap labor, and
Speaker 1: exporting products to the major markets of the world while
Speaker 1: keeping your own domestic markets relatively locked up. Uh. And
Speaker 1: now they're hitting the middle income trap, which is causing
Speaker 1: a new reality for them. They have to transition into
Speaker 1: a consumption model in order for their economy to prosper
Speaker 1: longer term and for and for people to move more
Speaker 1: into the middle income categories into the middle class. So
Speaker 1: I see coming with that a lot of opportunities for
Speaker 1: the United States. I see more more purchasing power on
Speaker 1: the part of a consumer class. It will be hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions strong, which is great for US exports. The
Speaker 1: Chinese love to buy US products where they're available, and
Speaker 1: I think increasingly will find more and more opportunity there.
Speaker 1: And I think on the investment side, will see more
Speaker 1: in the way of Chinese investment here in the United
Speaker 1: States that will run more in parallel with US investment
Speaker 1: in China. We're already seeing evidence of that, and the
Speaker 1: political implications, of course, will be fairly profound domestically, as
Speaker 1: Jen Ping pries to keep hold of a one party
Speaker 1: system which doesn't want to be a one party system.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that shift to consumption for a moment.
Speaker 1: Do you feel that, uh, the shift away from exports
Speaker 1: and fixed usset investment to service as a consumption. Do
Speaker 1: you think that is broadly understood in the United States?
Speaker 1: In otherwise it's not your grandfather's Chinese economy anymore. No, No,
Speaker 1: it isn't, um, and I don't think it's it's largely understood.
Speaker 1: I think we're we still see China through a prism
Speaker 1: that has maybe dated by twenty years. We're not looking
Speaker 1: at online purchases, which if you so, don't look at
Speaker 1: inventories of steel and coal and aluminum, which are off
Speaker 1: the charts high um that that's not a good leading
Speaker 1: indicator of where China's economy is going. It's where it's been.
Speaker 1: The leading indicators really are our online sales. Look at
Speaker 1: travel and tourism, look at airline seats, being purchased. UH.
Speaker 1: Look at outbound tourism. UH. Look at legal and architectural services,
Speaker 1: look at education and healthcare services. There's a lot going
Speaker 1: on behind the scenes. And what is exciting for me
Speaker 1: is the United States does extremely well in many of
Speaker 1: these service related areas. And once the markets are more
Speaker 1: and more open, UH, and we're able to define the
Speaker 1: China of the twenty century as opposed to the late
Speaker 1: twentieth century, I think we'll have more in the way
Speaker 1: of opportunities. So it would be ironic if we got
Speaker 1: into a trade wall with China based on a part
Speaker 1: of the Chinese economy that effectively is over. Anyway is
Speaker 1: effective is effectively over. As a matter of fact, you know,
Speaker 1: the bloom is off the rose from a manufacturing standpoint,
Speaker 1: that the golden days are are gone. China's labor rates
Speaker 1: are are are on the on the rise. You've got
Speaker 1: more people leaving the workforce than entering the workforce. By
Speaker 1: they could be deficit twenty million workers. UH. And who's
Speaker 1: picking it up. We'll take a look south into Vietnam, India,
Speaker 1: Bangladesh and beyond. Uh. So China is fundamentally entering a
Speaker 1: new playing field. From an economic standpoint, and we do
Speaker 1: ourselves a disservice by not identifying properly where they're going
Speaker 1: and what therefore the opportunities are for US investors and traders.
Speaker 1: Why isn't that breaking through? Well, remember Dan that we're
Speaker 1: still in a political season. And when you're in a
Speaker 1: political season, you don't talk by way of opportunities, you
Speaker 1: talk by way of fear. UH. And when you talk
Speaker 1: by way of fear, you talk about deficits, You talk
Speaker 1: about threats, you talk about foreign investment that is taking
Speaker 1: away jobs. You talk about UH saber rattling on the
Speaker 1: security side. So now that we're beyond that, it'll be
Speaker 1: very interesting to see if President elect Trump is able
Speaker 1: to take the U S. China relationship and sort it
Speaker 1: out into something that represents less fear and more opportunity
Speaker 1: for job creation here in the euided States, US export
Speaker 1: potential UH IN and overall economic relationship that of course
Speaker 1: is going to be UH riddled with challenges and problems,
Speaker 1: but also there will be plenty of opportunities. Talking about
Speaker 1: the current political situation in the United States and turning
Speaker 1: away from China, we can we can't let you go
Speaker 1: without asking a few questions about what's going on here
Speaker 1: right now. And one of the major stories in the
Speaker 1: news is whether Mr Trump will pick Romney, your fellow
Speaker 1: former Utah governor, as UH Secretary of State. How do
Speaker 1: you think Governor Romney would do as as a secretary
Speaker 1: of State. Well, it's not even worth my speculating on
Speaker 1: any potential candidates. I think President elect Trump has a
Speaker 1: pretty good sense of where he wants to take the world.
Speaker 1: I think it will be important to have people who
Speaker 1: are of common mind as they see where he wants
Speaker 1: to go. Clearly, were some international affairs foreign policy themes
Speaker 1: that came through in the campaign, and they included, Uh,
Speaker 1: the Middle East, We've been there too long, there's too
Speaker 1: much of an overhang, something that's got to be addressed.
Speaker 1: Trade was prominent, which is a big foreign policy issue, uh,
Speaker 1: And that was we've got to get trade agreements that
Speaker 1: are they're fair to American workers. And immigration was the
Speaker 1: third big area that is a foreign policy issue. So
Speaker 1: I suspect that if these three areas are going to
Speaker 1: be prominent in in the early days of a Trump administration,
Speaker 1: he's got to have people around him who were fluent
Speaker 1: and conversant in where he wants to take the United
Speaker 1: States and what is uh? An increasingly disaggregated world. And
Speaker 1: have you had a telephone call? I've had a telephone call.
Speaker 1: And what was the purpose of that? Just just a
Speaker 1: congratulatory call to Mr Trump. Yeah, we can't also let
Speaker 1: you leave here without asking a question about your own
Speaker 1: personnel plans. You're you're here with us in EC today,
Speaker 1: but your roots are in Utah. You're a popular governor
Speaker 1: there for some time. Uh. You're you've actually partially moved
Speaker 1: back to Utah, kind of splitting your time. And I've
Speaker 1: read that there there's a speculation that you're considering a
Speaker 1: run for the U. S. Senate from Utah. In is
Speaker 1: that true? Well, listen, we've Utah's home. I was. I
Speaker 1: was born and raised in California. I was raised in Utah.
Speaker 1: I've spent time overseas, living overseas four times. Utah's our home, uh,
Speaker 1: and we feel pretty passionately about that. And we've we've
Speaker 1: gone back and forth the last few years, UH, and
Speaker 1: we're looking forward to spending more and more of our
Speaker 1: time there. I've always said that I've got one more
Speaker 1: run left in our bones. And I don't know what
Speaker 1: that will be. But I love this country. I've got
Speaker 1: two sons serving in uniform. I have always believed that
Speaker 1: our best days are ahead, and we're going to take
Speaker 1: a good look at Uh. It may be a future
Speaker 1: Senate run in the state of Utah. And would you
Speaker 1: run as an independent or as a Republican? Well, I've
Speaker 1: been a Republican my entire life. I've watched the Republican
Speaker 1: Party go through different phases, trying to find trying to
Speaker 1: find itself. But I'm of the Party of Lincoln. I'm
Speaker 1: of the Party of Roosevelt, of Eisenhower, of Ronald Reagan.
Speaker 1: I kind of know where our roots are. Uh. And
Speaker 1: I think I know where the Republican Party's roots are.
Speaker 1: And we've gone round and round trying to find them,
Speaker 1: and I think we we might still travel some distance
Speaker 1: before finding exactly what our traditional roots are. And one
Speaker 1: more question, would you run if Senator Hatch decides to
Speaker 1: stand for re election, would you run against him in
Speaker 1: a primary? Well, we'd have to decide whether or not
Speaker 1: we're actually going to to enter the race. Uh. And
Speaker 1: that in part would be based on what Senator has
Speaker 1: chooses to do. He's been a productive Senator for nearly
Speaker 1: half a century. I'm somebody personally who believes in term limits.
Speaker 1: I always have you get into your job, you get out,
Speaker 1: hopefully leaving a little bit better for the next person
Speaker 1: to take over. Um. But time will tell on that,
Speaker 1: Governor Huntsman, thank you so much for joining us today.
Speaker 1: This has been a really insightful and fascinating conversation. It's
Speaker 1: been a great pleasure. Thank you. Benchmark will be back
Speaker 1: next week and until then, you can find us on
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Terminal and Bloomberg dot com, as well as
Speaker 1: on iTunes, pocketcasts, and Stitcher. While you're there, take a
Speaker 1: minute to rate and review the show so more listeners
Speaker 1: can find us and let us know what you thought
Speaker 1: of the show. You can talk to and follow us
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Daniel Moss, d c at Scott Landman,
Speaker 1: and our guest at John hunts Thanks for listening and
Speaker 1: see you next time. Brought to you by Bank of
Speaker 1: America Merrill Lynch. Seeing what others have seen, but uncovering
Speaker 1: what others may not. Global Research that helps You Harness
Speaker 1: disruption voted top global research from five years running. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Speaker 1: Fenner and Smith Incorporated it