June 6, 2025 • 41 mins
Watch Carol and Tim LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
US and Chinese negotiators will resume trade talks on June 9 in London, President Donald Trump announced, as the world’s two largest economies look to resolve a simmering dispute over tariffs and technology that has unnerved markets.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will meet Monday “with Representatives of China, with reference to the Trade Deal,” Trump posted Friday on social media. “The meeting should go very well.”
The new round of talks follow a 90-minute call between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday that saw the two agree to defuse growing tensions spurred by concerns over the flow of critical minerals needed by American firms.
Earlier talks between the two countries in Switzerland in May resulted in a tariff truce between Beijing and Washington that set the stage for further talks on trade. But negotiations between the rivals stalled after the Geneva meeting, with both sides accusing the other of violating the agreement that brought down duties from massive highs.
Today's show features:
- Bloomberg Balance of Power cohost Joe Mathieu
- Phil Gramm, Economist and former Republican US Senator from Texas
- Gary Bettman, Commissioner of the National Hockey League on the Stanley Cup Finals
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. This is Bloomberg business
Weekdaily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay
ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping
today's complex economy. Plus global business finance and tech news
(00:23):
as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with
Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Carol, you mentioned we're talking about immigration. That's thanks to
the news a little over a half hour ago that
we got from ABC that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man
that the Trump administration acknowledged was wrongly deported to El Salvador,
is on his way back to the US. ABC News
did report today he will face criminal charges for allegedly
transporting undocumented migrants within the US, ABC citing people familiar
(00:54):
with the matter. Reporter, We've got Joe Matthew with us.
He's closed of Bloomberg Bounce of Power. He joins us
from Why Washington, d C. Joe was surprised to see.
I was surprised to see two things. One the headline
that Abreger Garcia was returning to the US, but also
that he was facing these charges. That and We're going
to hear from Pambandi of the Justice Department a little
(01:16):
later in our program. She's giving a press conference. What
do we know about these charges that ABC News is reporting.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
We know very little other than the fact that it's
a two count indictment and it was filed under seal
in federal court last month in Tennessee. So this is
something that the administration has known about in terms of
this approach for some time, knowing that the administration had
gone to great lengths to try to speak to the
reputation and background of this man who they say deserve
to be sent away, not only deported, but to that
(01:44):
Seacock prison in El Salvador. They're accusing him of taking
part in a conspiracy that lasts the better part of
a decade to move undocumented migrants illegal immigrants from Texas
into the interior of the country. This indictment apparently refers
to the domestic transport of thousands of non citizens, including
(02:04):
some children, including as well.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Members of the MS thirteen gang.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
If you're with us on YouTube right now, you see
this moment when Chris Van Holland, the Senator Democrat from Maryland,
went all the way down to that prison to meet
with Abrago Garcia.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
He wanted him to come home.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Guys, this is not exactly I think how he wanted
to see it happen.
Speaker 5 (02:26):
Yeah, I'm a little confused, Joe, because I thought the
administration said we can't bring him home or weren't willing
to bring him home.
Speaker 6 (02:32):
Obviously, this is not a great way to come home.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
But I'm just curious why this has happened or what
we're hearing about it.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
Well, they've obviously been cooking this up, and you know
Tim mentioned at about three forty five, about ten minutes
from now east coast time, we will be hearing from
Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, on this, so I'm sure
we'll shed a lot more light on it. But you're right,
even after being compelled by the Supreme Court Carol, who
said that the administration must facilitate was the word the
Court used the return of Abrago Garcia. The White House
(03:02):
said it wasn't possible. They actually didn't have the means
to get him, and the President of El Salvador said
the same. So it is an interesting moment to consider
that he's on his way home suddenly and an indictment
that's been sitting around for about a month.
Speaker 7 (03:16):
Right, the politics of this.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
You mentioned US Senator Chris van Holland of Maryland, and
we showed the picture there moments ago.
Speaker 7 (03:23):
There was a time, just a few.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Weeks ago, that his case was really brought up as
a cause of I think many people on the left,
and it wasn't necessarily that they were proclaiming his innocence,
but they were saying, this is a guy who deserves.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
His day in court.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
What are the political implications around these charges.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
It's true this was a case of due process that
even if in fact this ended with his deportation, the
idea was that he would get a hearing, much like
any of the individuals who were sent out of the
country unknowingly to this maximum security prison in El Salvador.
And this is why the administration pushed back so hard
on that image. The White House even admitted that he
(04:05):
was mistakenly deported, but they've also gone to great lengths
to suggest that he deserved They even put forth an
arrest record from years ago in Prince George's County, Maryland,
knowing as well that he was not convicted on charges.
So look, we're going to have to hear from the
Attorney General. She's going to have some questions to answer here.
But yes, this became a cause celeb for many Democrats
(04:28):
to suggest the Senator went all the way down there
to hold that event. It was concluded by a grand
welcome at the airport here with a round of applause
and a news conference.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
I'll be curious to see what he says.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
Now, Hey, Joe, before we pivot to US China relations,
I want to ask you though, So I guess, on
one hand, great, he's going to get his day in court,
which is something that is a part of the American
fabric when it comes to do processing. At the same time,
and I hate to be asking this, and I can't
believe I'm asking, but will he get a fair day
in court?
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Your guests is as good as mine.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
We're going to be talking to legal analysts about this
as well, and I'm not the person who should be
answering that question. We haven't even heard from the Attorney
General yet. This will be enlightening when we hear from
Pam Bondi, and it's something that I'm sure we'll be
learning a bit about untruth social as well. But let's
get him back first, Let's see what kind of representation
he has and what the process will be. That's a
good point that press conference, by the way, said schedule
(05:25):
to start in just seven minutes, will bring it to
you live as soon as it does start. Sometimes these
things don't necessarily start on time.
Speaker 7 (05:31):
Joe, what we have you?
Speaker 2 (05:31):
We got to switch gears and talk a little bit
about the latest with trade and with China. I want
to start with the news that we got from the
President a little earlier today that at least three representatives
from the US, including the Treasury Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce,
and the USTR Jameson Greer, are headed across the pond
for a meeting on Monday with Chinese counterparts. Are we
(05:52):
starting to see a thaw or at least progress when
it comes to the relationship and trade between the US
and China?
Speaker 8 (06:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Maybe.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
I mean, there was a ninety minute call, as we know,
between the two presidents yesterday that clearly brought us to
this moment. But every expert we talked to tells us
the same thing. They're adding Howard Lutnik to the mix.
Maybe that's an indication that there could be some new
business level negotiations, maybe when we're talking about export controls
specifically to Nvidia chips in this type of thing. But look,
(06:22):
a major trade deal with China would likely take years,
and I do think that people are trying to advance
the process a little bit quickly here. China does not
move as quickly as we want them to in this case.
And having heard from Nick Burns, the former US ambassador
to China on this, over the course of the past
couple of days, he's done a couple of great interviews,
including one on Bloomberg's Surveillance on Bloomberg Radio. Donald Trump
(06:46):
didn't help himself by laying on tariffs on Japan at
the same time as China on South Korea, at the
same time as China on the EU.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Canada and Mexico.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
These were all allied trading partners who were on the
same side of the fence as US when it came
to China, and the President may well have lost leverage
by doing this blanket tariff when he could have actually
created a coalition to have some strength.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
So we'll be watching this on Monday. It's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
The President writing on Truth Social the meeting should go
very well, we're about.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
To find out.
Speaker 6 (07:18):
I love that you went there.
Speaker 5 (07:18):
We just talked with former Senator Phil Graham and he
specifically understood maybe the pursuit of China in terms of
the US maybe not necessarily the mode, but he questioned
some of the tactics that have come out of the
White House and the President, specifically when it comes to
European allies or Mexico and Canada.
Speaker 6 (07:38):
Hey, one last question on US China.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
We did see markets stocks move up when the headline crossed.
As you said, any new deal with China is going
to take a long time. But is there some hope
that we can take away out of this story, in
this development that things are even moving forward a little bit.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Let's watch the rare Earth's and batteries story.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
This is a big deal for automakers who suddenly, Carol,
we're talking about sending engines to China to put a
battery in it and send it back so they didn't
break the.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
Tariffs and so forth through.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
There could be a couple of items around the edges
like that, maybe when we're talking about computer chips where
maybe we'll see signs of progress. We need to get
these guys all in the same room though, And there's
a question, of course, when we're going to get Donald
Trump and President She in the same room, that might
be a sign of things getting serious.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
That's a really terrific point, all right, Joe, as always
look forward to your reporting and anchoring s six pm,
actually five pm Wall Street Time.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
I'm a little off.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
I'm on the West Coast. I don't know what time
it is. Joe Matthew co host a Balance of Power.
Catch him and Kelly Lines at five pm Wall Street
Time on Bloomberg TV and Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 9 (08:44):
If you're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily podcast, catch
us Live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern.
Listen on Applecarplay and the Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I think it's fair to say Carol our next guest
understands policy, politics, economics, and Wall Street. Phil Graham served
six years in the US House of Representatives and for
eighteen years represented Texas in the US Senate.
Speaker 7 (09:14):
He was also then Chairman of the Banking Committee.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Later, he was vice chair of UBS Investment Bank, and
early on in his career before he went to Washington.
Speaker 7 (09:22):
He was a professor in economics.
Speaker 6 (09:24):
He's done a lot.
Speaker 5 (09:25):
He is now senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He's
also co author of a new book. It was just
out last month. It's entitled The Triumph of Economic Freedom,
Debunking the Seven Great Myths of American Capitalism. And he
joins us from Texas Senator Graham. It is so nice
to have you with us. There's so much going on,
and there's a lot we want to get into, including
your book. But I think we'd be remiss if we
(09:46):
didn't start to ask you your view.
Speaker 6 (09:48):
Someone who spent so much time in.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
Washington and Washington politics and had relationships with various presidents,
what you make of the once seemingly very close and
now not so c I was relationship between President Trump
and the world richest man Elon Musk, and kind of
the very public.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
Fighting that we have seen on social media.
Speaker 10 (10:10):
Well, I think both men are ill. It was to
get into personal conflicts. Always viewed when someone attacked me
personally that it was a sign of weakness, and I
always do my bis not to respond in personal attacks.
I think it especially makes supposed to look bad, and
(10:35):
I think in the end, it will end up hurting
both people.
Speaker 7 (10:39):
Do you think it gets resolved? Senator?
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Is this something that these two who seemed inseparable for
so many months and indeed even during the campaign, do
they go back to being united or do they stay divided?
Speaker 10 (10:56):
It's hard to tell. I think both of them are
were getting over it. I think it would have been
better had it not happened. But where it goes, I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Do you think it was bad for Elon Musk in
general to be involved with the political with politics with
the Republican Party, to be involved with the government with Doze.
Speaker 10 (11:23):
Well, he clearly made a sacrifice, and being away from
his business, I think he contributed.
Speaker 8 (11:32):
In the process.
Speaker 10 (11:34):
I think to think that they were going to be
these huge savings without Congress getting involved was maybe.
Speaker 8 (11:42):
A little naive.
Speaker 10 (11:44):
But I give Elon was very high marks on what
he did, and I think people supported the idea that
government is too big, too inefficient, too powerful, and they
wanted to change it. So he gave up a lot personally,
and I think one of the reasons I think these
(12:06):
personal attacks are more harmful of the president than to
Elon Musk is that he came to serve the country
and the president and probably deserved better.
Speaker 5 (12:20):
You know, I love that you talked about Congress, and
you know, it does seem like we're in an environment
where checks and balances is not happening, and it does
seem like and it's not just this administration, but subsequent
you know, prior or, I should say prior administrations, where
we've seen increasingly the power of the president, whether it's
through mostly executive orders to kind of do what they want.
(12:44):
Are you comfortable, well, power imbalances in the government that
seemed to be in place right now.
Speaker 10 (12:50):
Yeah, Listen, I think for the last three administrations, we've
seen a growth in the power of the executive branch.
I think the legislation the branch needs to reassert its
authority over its constitutional powers. And I think this has
been building from Obama to Baden to Trump, and I
(13:14):
think it is a problem. And one of the reasons
it's a problem is that we don't tend to have
now a steady, predictable path for American government because executive
orders now carry so much weight and have such a
big impact. Who wins a presidential election determines basically the
(13:39):
policy of the American government. I don't think the founders
ever intended.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
That, Senator I want to move on and talk a
little bit about China. We heard from the President just
in the last hour that US representatives, including Secretary of
Commerce Howard Lutnik and Treasury Sectory of Scott Besson, along
with USTR Jameson Greer, will headed across the pond to
London for a Monday meeting with representatives from China. How
(14:05):
do you view China in relation to the United States
right now, and which country, in your view has more
of the cards when it comes to working out some
sort of mutually beneficial trade deal.
Speaker 10 (14:21):
Well, I think both economies have power to do real
harm to themselves. Detectionism hurts the country imposing it more
than it hurts the country that they're imposing it against.
I'm glad the meeting is occurring. I hope we can
work something out. I think our relationship with China is
(14:45):
a difficult relationship, but the two largest economies in the
world are now so entwined that this idea that we
can suddenly stop trading and things not be drawn radically
changed I think.
Speaker 8 (15:02):
Was a native to start with.
Speaker 10 (15:05):
So I hope an agreement can be worked out, and
I hope that we can mutually reduce teriffs of goods
coming into the United States goods coming into China a
real reciprocal trade agreement. Present uses the term, but that's
(15:26):
not really what he's trying to implement.
Speaker 8 (15:28):
It seems to me what.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
Do you think he is trying to implement.
Speaker 10 (15:34):
Well, he's trying to basically use the power of intimidation
to get countries to agree to an increase in tariffs.
In America, I think that's what happened in the British agreement.
We had an open, fairly open trade with Great Britain.
(15:54):
Our level of protectionism was relatively similar a surplus were
Great Britain. And what the President demanded in return for
reducing tariffs that had been jacked up to levels that
would have been done real harm to both economies was
that Brittan except a ten percent across the board tariff
(16:19):
on all British goods and services.
Speaker 8 (16:22):
Coming into the country.
Speaker 10 (16:23):
And I don't think the European Union will every accept
such an agreement, and I'm not sure what China is
going to be willing to agree to.
Speaker 6 (16:35):
We're going to talk about your book.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
I just have one more question so you said, you
don't really, I think think it's good the way President
Trump leads through intimidation.
Speaker 6 (16:45):
Do you think he's not a good leader.
Speaker 10 (16:48):
No, Look, I just everybody has their own methods and techniques.
Protectionism is a very destructive policy. We've tried it throughout
American history. It has always failed economically, it has always
failed politically. And even if you can force another country
(17:14):
to accept tariffs against their goods, Americans end up paying
those taxes. They end up being taxes on American consumers.
And I'll just give you an example. The steel and
aluminum tariff fifty percent as being imposed at a time
when we're getting ready to spend one hundred billion dollars
(17:37):
on new defense expended to its and every defense item
we're going to build it is going to have a
lot of steel and it's going to have a lot
of aluminum in it. So we're in essence raising the
price of the very defense item from trying to procure
with detective tariffs. And so I just don't think that's
(17:58):
good policy. I don't think it's will fall out. I
think it's going to be harmful, and I think if
we can't find a way to get out of this
tariff war, this trade war, that we could easily tip
the economy into a recession. That's what I'm concerned about.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
We're speaking with former Senator Phil Graham. He was also
in the House of Representatives for six years. Senior Fellow
now at the Brookings Institution. His new book co authored,
it's called The Triumph of Economic Freedom, Debunking the Seven
Great Myths of American Capitalism.
Speaker 7 (18:35):
It's out now.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Senator, if tariffs aren't the right answer to address trade
imbalances between the US and other countries, or what the
President has deemed on fairness between the US and other countries,
what is the answer.
Speaker 10 (18:50):
Well, first of all, the European Union has lower average
tariffs against American goods, then we have a in the
European Union goods. The President thinks it's unfair that they
sell us more than they buy from us. But no
(19:11):
economic logic that has ever been espoused by anybody takes
the view that you have to have a trade balance
with everybody you trade with. I've bought groceries at Walmarts
where I live for twenty three years, probably spent one
hundred thousand dollars there. They've never bought anything for me.
(19:36):
Now does that say that I'm being ripped off exploited?
Speaker 8 (19:41):
I don't think so.
Speaker 10 (19:42):
I buy groceries there because it's convenient and it's cheap, and.
Speaker 8 (19:46):
It benefits me.
Speaker 10 (19:48):
So I just think the president's view of trade is
a view that if you.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
Buy something from somebody, you lose.
Speaker 10 (19:58):
If you sell them something to win, and that's not
the way the war works.
Speaker 5 (20:05):
So then let me just ask you something in terms
of free trade. And I understand where you're coming from,
but I do wonder about, you know, how much in
terms of manufacturing and supply Chains moved out to China
and we saw how exposed we were post COVID, So
I do wonder who do you what do you blame
for that? Is it greed in that more companies trying
(20:28):
to be profitable and going for the cheapest supply Chains
was a consultants who said, you know, get other.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
Folks to do manufacturing.
Speaker 5 (20:37):
Like, what was it? And how do we I don't
know kind of come back from that.
Speaker 10 (20:43):
Well, first of all, I think China is a special case.
We should be negotiating with China, but we shouldn't be
in a trade war with Europe. With Canada and with Mexico.
We have problem with China, they have huge industrial subjecties. Unfortunately,
(21:06):
in recent years we have gone to the same policy
and the policies have failed here like they fail there.
So China is a special case. I think you've got
to deal with a series of problems in China, including
defense and security issues. But again, I don't think the
(21:27):
solution is that we don't trade with China, and I
don't think the solution is to impose tariffs against all
of our friends in the world, and for example with
Mexico in Canada, to have the president unilaterally overturn a
(21:48):
free trade agreement that was adopted by Congress and has
benefited all three countries immensely, I think it's bad economics.
I think it's an abuse of the system. I don't
think the president ought to be able to overturn a
(22:08):
legislative trade agreement unless there's some extraordinary circumstances and it's
hard or that steel or aluminum coming from Mexico and
Canada to the defense crisis or threatens our national security.
That's where I'm coming from. I want just to prosper.
(22:28):
We've got the ingredients to have prosperous country.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
You know, to that point, your book, The Triumph of
Economic Freedom Debunking the Seven Great Myths of American Capitalism.
You dedicate this book to America. You write that you're
not dedicating it to the idealized, shining city on a hill,
but rather an unfinished work of a few people, of
a free people who strive and often fail to live
up to their high principles, but who then learn from
(22:53):
their mistakes and perpetually rededicate themselves to the task. Do
you think we as a country are right now learning
from past mistakes or repeating past mistakes?
Speaker 10 (23:05):
Well, I think we always repeat some fat past mistakes.
I think we make progress when we learn from them
and when we improve our policy. America works best when
we give people freedom and opportunity and where goveropment enforces
(23:27):
the law and let's markets work. And I think government
subsidizing industry, who gives them the knowledge to know what
industries need to grow?
Speaker 8 (23:39):
Only the market really can determine.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
That centergram one last question, and unfortunately only have about
thirty forty seconds least here, but please come back already.
But you do say, as Tim just said, you know
we're not the ideolized shining city on a hill, but
rather unfinished work of a free people who's driving off
and feilt live up to their high principles.
Speaker 6 (24:01):
Are we still a free people? Because I often hear
a lot of.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
Folks, very established leaders, heads of publicly held companies, investors,
who talk about a lot of fear and fear of
talking out against the administration.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
Are we still free?
Speaker 10 (24:16):
Well, we are still the freest country in the world.
And there's no other place I would want to live
in America. But I don't like the President saying to Walmart,
why don't you cheat your investors by absorbing the cost
of tariffs that President Trump imposed rather than passing those
(24:42):
costs under the consumer. That's not the government. That is
a government that I won't have in America. I don't
like that policy. I think it is a destructive policy.
And again it's trying to bully people. And I don't
(25:02):
like it, and I think Americans don't like it.
Speaker 8 (25:05):
Now.
Speaker 10 (25:06):
There are many policies of Trumps. I'm four, but bullying Walmart,
a company that's done more for working people in any
other country, any other company in this country, I think
it is bad policy and I don't think.
Speaker 8 (25:22):
People like.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Senator Phil Graham. Thank you so much for taking the time.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Applecarflay, and
Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also
listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.
Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
All right, folks, we're thinking about the weekend. We're thinking
about Friday night because we are close to it. We
know that political tensions, as we keep talking about US China,
they are definitely high. They're also high between the United
States and Canada. Pretty tense on the ice as well
as tonight's Game two of the Stanley Cup Finals between
the Edmonton Oilers and the defending champion Florida Panthers. And that,
(26:18):
of course was Game one, the Oilers leading the best
of seven series thanks to a win in Game one.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
Our next guest was watching.
Speaker 5 (26:24):
Of course, he'll be watching it again tonight, we assume,
as he has watched all other finals and guided and
growing the league for the last thirty two plus years.
He's the National Hockey League's first ever commissioner, making him
the longest serving executive chief executive among major North American
pro sports leagues.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
With us, we've got a Gary Badman, commissioner of the NHL,
joining us from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Also joining us to
our in house hockey expert, Scarlettfeu. She's a Bloomberg TV
anchor of The Close. She's back in our New York
studio Mission Badman, Welcome to the program.
Speaker 7 (26:57):
It's good to see you. No Canadian team has won.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Just thinking, are the Canadian fans a bit more edgy
considering the political tensions between the US and Canada right now?
Speaker 7 (27:05):
Can we talk politics a little bit?
Speaker 11 (27:08):
We can do that. Thank you for having me. It's
good to be with you. Our fans are passionate for
the teams that they root for, there's no question about that.
But there seems to be a little bit of movement
towards Edmonton being Canada's team because, as you said, the
Stanley Cup hasn't been awarded to a Canadian team in
(27:30):
the last thirty plus years, Montreal being the last club
to win it in nineteen ninety three. In terms of
the tensions initially and it was around the same time
as our four Nations tournament, which Canada won back in February.
There was some booing of anthems in both countries. That's
(27:51):
all simmered down. People are focused on playing hockey, rooting
for their team, and the competition throughout the end of
the regular season and into the playoffs has been terrific.
And the question that I get most frequently asked is, well,
what does that do for the Canadian clubs with respect
(28:12):
to the tariffs and everything else, because our players in
Canada still get paid in US dollars. And the answer
is the Canadian dollars actually up a little bit since
all this started a few months ago. I think three
four months ago, the Canadian dollar was at seventy cents.
It's now with seventy three, and so we'll watch what
goes on. But I think what the great thing about
(28:35):
sports is it brings people together and even if there's
a little political tension around the edges, ultimately fans get
into and focus on rooting for their favorite team.
Speaker 5 (28:48):
So you just answered a question I was going to
ask you about, you know, the possible negative implications of
US Canada tariffs and the Canadian dollar. It does feel
like things have settled down, But are you still a
little bit on pins and needles about concerns about how
this could escalate a gain. We know from the White
House Commissioner that things can change rapidly and we.
Speaker 11 (29:07):
Have to be flexible and adaptable, and we always are,
and you know that's been something that I've dealt with
over three decades. The issue on the Canadian dollar, which
is where any sort of league issue would come, is
really a function of what happens with the Canadian economy.
And if the Canadian economy stays stable and the dollar
(29:30):
relative to the U Canadian dollar relative to the US
dollar doesn't change dramatically, things should be fine. I think
what we've seen worldwide is a little bit of softening
in the US dollar and the Canadian dollar has been
holding its own. If that changes, if it becomes a problem,
we'll address it. But so far, so good. And again
(29:50):
the good news is people are focused on the hockey,
which has been sensational, as you mentioned Game two tonight,
and so you know, we're looking forward to a really
terrific conclusion to what has been a great season.
Speaker 12 (30:05):
All right, well, let's talk about the hockey for a
moment here, because this will be the sixth straight year
that a Florida based team is participating in the Stanley
Cup Final. And of course a lot of people will
talk about the state's tax benefits as a reason why
Florida teams are doing so well. I know that you
and Bill Daly have kind of dismissed that as a factor,
but I'm curious, mister commissioner, what is it about Florida's
(30:28):
operating environment that enables its teams to consistently outperform.
Speaker 11 (30:33):
Well, that's of recent vintage, since we had the salary
cap in the economic system we have in two thousand
and five six. Nobody was talking about this for the
first fifteen eighteen years. Players choose to go to teams
for lots of reasons, and maybe there's a little element
(30:55):
of local state taxes, But the fact is they look
to go to a market they want to live in,
where they want to raise their families, where their kids
will go to school. They look at the organization, they
look at ownership, they look at the coach, they look
at the general manager. There is the cost of living
and by the way, if the players are getting paid
(31:18):
in US dollars and they're living in Canada, that sort
of offsets, any differences in local taxes, and as I think,
you know, players get taxed by the jurisdictions that they
play in on the road, So I think that gets
a little overblown. I think it's too much of an
excuse for clubs that may not be performing as well
as they'd like to. And I think it's a little
(31:39):
bit of an injustice to the great job that the
ownership and organizations have done in South Florida and in Tampa.
Speaker 12 (31:47):
And of course the Florida teams were expansion teams, and
there's always going to be a lot of talk mis
or commissioner about expansion into other markets like Houston, like
Phoenix again, and like Atlanta again. The NHL currently has
thirty two teams, which is kind of considered the sweet
spot because the structure creates this really consistent and clear
format for competition and scheduling. You've got two conferences each
(32:09):
with two divisions with eight teams each. What are team
owners specific concerns about balance if you do pursue expansion
in that format changes.
Speaker 11 (32:19):
Well, the answer to that question is we're not focused
on a formal expansion process. Yes, we've been getting interest
from a number of places, including the three you mentioned,
but we've said we're not going to announce a date,
and if you want an expansion team, everybody apply the criteria.
At ten thousand feet. We look at our first and
(32:40):
foremost ownership market arena and what does it do to
make the league stronger. And we've told the interested parties
if you're ready to come in and make a presentation
to check those boxes, come talk to us and we'll
focus on what needs to be done in terms of
what it would do to our structure, our format of
the ski schedule. That's not something we're even focused on
(33:02):
right now because at the present time, expansion is in
front and center on our agenda.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
To be sure, I want to ask about the media
relationships and the way that people here in the US
are watching and consuming hockey and the way that they're not.
Why does the NHL network in your view, not have
a streaming option or a digital app that you can
authenticate with a third party cable sign on. Does it
feel like you're leaving money on the table by not
offering streaming availability like other leagues do at this point?
Speaker 11 (33:35):
Well, actually we do have a streaming capability. Warner Brothers
Discovery streams the games that they have on Max, ESPN
streams us on the ESPN Plus. As it relates to
the NHL network itself, we're kind of in a transition
period and we're looking at our options. Ninety nine percent
(34:01):
of our games are available either linear or streamed in
the United States, and frankly, to us, the most important
thing in the short term is always making sure that
our games are available to the most number of people,
and we think we do a good job of that
what we do with the NHL network, which relative to
(34:21):
everybody else, has far fewer games. That's something that will
evolve over time with the changing landscape, but we do
have a large, full breadth capacity for streaming, both in
the US and Canada.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Hey, one of the things I do want to ask you,
I mean, there's just so much I feel like on
your play and you talked about this in your Mister Commissioner,
in your Status of the League address prior to Game
one of the finals, and you talk specifically about the
status of collective.
Speaker 6 (34:52):
Bargaining talks that are going on.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
I'm curious, what are you hearing, where are you what
are the priorities for the league, and what do you
expect to be the sticking points. Can you get something
done before the current agreement expires in September.
Speaker 11 (35:06):
Actually, the current agreement expires a year from September twenty
six forget me. Yes, yes, so we have plenty of time.
We started having conversations with the union probably end of
February early March. I think we're having good, constructive discussions.
(35:26):
I think for the most part, we're on the same
page that it's important to work together. We get together
on a regular basis. We even got together yesterday here
in Edmonton, and I'm very optimistic that we're going to
get this done in relatively short order. I don't mean
today or tomorrow, but at the end of the day,
(35:48):
the relationship between the NHL and the NHL Players Association,
which is now under executive director Marty Walsh, was I
think many of you know him as former mayor of
Boston and former Secretary of Labor. We're in a good
place and I think we're going to get it done,
(36:09):
and I think the best the beneficiary from all of
that will not just be the clubs and the players,
but our fans. I'm not anticipating any fundamental problems or
issues that are going to cause us to have fundamental problems.
Speaker 12 (36:24):
Are you on the same page when it comes to
international competition.
Speaker 6 (36:27):
You guys had a very successful.
Speaker 12 (36:29):
Four Nations tournament, and we know the NHL players are
going back to the Olympics next year, so I'm sure
there is a desire on both sides to keep the
energy of international competition going once the Olympics comes and goes.
Speaker 11 (36:42):
There's no question about that. So, going back in ancient
history because it predates me, the League and the Players
Association have been joint partners in the execution of international competition,
particularly best on best, which is the Olympics, the World Cup,
and things like Four Nations that we did to an
(37:02):
outstanding result in terms of fan interest and the competition itself.
Prior leaders of the Players Association, Warrant is immediately focused
as Marty is in terms of understanding the importance of
moving this effort forward. We know that our players, third
(37:23):
of which come from outside of North America, love representing
their countries. It's important to them, which is why the
competition at Four Nations was so good, so competitive, and
so compelling, and so he is focused on not just
doing that in terms of building interest but it also
speaks volumes of how well we're working together. And so
(37:46):
we're looking forward to having the Olympics two years later,
the World Cup two years after that, the Olympics and
so on a regular basis because we know it's great
for the game, it's great for fan interest, and again,
we know how important it is for our players to
represent the countries they come from. And I don't think
there's anything that really compares in the international landscape to
(38:10):
best on best in hockey.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
Hey, one thing I do wonder, Commissioner, is where does
women's hockey fit into this? And we've seen certainly interested
in women's sports skyrocket on so many different levels, and
we've certainly seen some early success, initial success with the
Women's Hockey League, the PWHL. I'm curious about the involvement
by the NHL specifically when it comes to women's sports
(38:32):
and what kind of investment and solid investment are you
guys looking to maybe do in that area.
Speaker 11 (38:38):
Well, certainly at the grassroots level, we're fully supportive and
our programs are very, very inclusive and welcoming. The PWHL,
which is the Women's Professional Hockey League, is off to
a terrific start. They launched very quickly two seasons ago.
We help them get off the ground using our infrastructure
and resources, and we work well with with them. We
(39:01):
try to include them in our major events, and they
just recently announced a two team expansion, so they're off
to a great start, and again we're thrilled and fully supportive.
It's great for the game of hockey.
Speaker 12 (39:15):
Comissure, let's just return to playoffs for this year. When
you look at viewership numbers, they're actually down about twenty
percent from last year's playoffs. To what extent does that
concern you and do you believe it has any kind
of I don't know, future implications. Does it suggest anything
about the future of the league?
Speaker 11 (39:31):
Actually on a North American basis, which is how we
look at these things, because we're a little bit different
than baseball, basketball, and football, because seven of our thirty
two teams are in Canada and they don't show up
in US ratings. But when you look at North America
as a whole, we're about flat. And you have to
take into account that this may be the first time
(39:53):
in the history of the NHL where none of the
four original six US teams were in the playoffs, and
that's Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Boston, all of which
rate extraordinarily well. And Boston and New York. The Rangers
had great runs last season, even though they didn't make
(40:16):
it to the Stanley Cup Final. So it's a little
bit of apples and oranges. But when you look at
it on a North American basis, it's fine. When you
look at, for example, Game seven in last year's Stanley
Cup Final, which was this is a redo. This year
Edmonton and Florida, I think we drew sixteen or seventeen
(40:37):
million fans North American wide, and I think we had
about nine million in the United States and the final
game of four nations was at about the same level.
And so our ratings are strong. We tend to be
a little bit variable, but don't just look at the US.
Speaker 10 (40:57):
We won't.
Speaker 6 (40:58):
We won't. Thank you so much. Busy time for you,
Good luck with Game two.
Speaker 9 (41:02):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday
afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, Tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube
(41:23):
and always on the Bloomberg Terminal
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. This is Bloomberg business
Weekdaily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay
ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping
today's complex economy. Plus global business finance and tech news
(00:23):
as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with
Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Carol, you mentioned we're talking about immigration. That's thanks to
the news a little over a half hour ago that
we got from ABC that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man
that the Trump administration acknowledged was wrongly deported to El Salvador,
is on his way back to the US. ABC News
did report today he will face criminal charges for allegedly
transporting undocumented migrants within the US, ABC citing people familiar
(00:54):
with the matter. Reporter, We've got Joe Matthew with us.
He's closed of Bloomberg Bounce of Power. He joins us
from Why Washington, d C. Joe was surprised to see.
I was surprised to see two things. One the headline
that Abreger Garcia was returning to the US, but also
that he was facing these charges. That and We're going
to hear from Pambandi of the Justice Department a little
(01:16):
later in our program. She's giving a press conference. What
do we know about these charges that ABC News is reporting.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
We know very little other than the fact that it's
a two count indictment and it was filed under seal
in federal court last month in Tennessee. So this is
something that the administration has known about in terms of
this approach for some time, knowing that the administration had
gone to great lengths to try to speak to the
reputation and background of this man who they say deserve
to be sent away, not only deported, but to that
(01:44):
Seacock prison in El Salvador. They're accusing him of taking
part in a conspiracy that lasts the better part of
a decade to move undocumented migrants illegal immigrants from Texas
into the interior of the country. This indictment apparently refers
to the domestic transport of thousands of non citizens, including
(02:04):
some children, including as well.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Members of the MS thirteen gang.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
If you're with us on YouTube right now, you see
this moment when Chris Van Holland, the Senator Democrat from Maryland,
went all the way down to that prison to meet
with Abrago Garcia.
Speaker 4 (02:20):
He wanted him to come home.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Guys, this is not exactly I think how he wanted
to see it happen.
Speaker 5 (02:26):
Yeah, I'm a little confused, Joe, because I thought the
administration said we can't bring him home or weren't willing
to bring him home.
Speaker 6 (02:32):
Obviously, this is not a great way to come home.
Speaker 5 (02:35):
But I'm just curious why this has happened or what
we're hearing about it.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
Well, they've obviously been cooking this up, and you know
Tim mentioned at about three forty five, about ten minutes
from now east coast time, we will be hearing from
Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, on this, so I'm sure
we'll shed a lot more light on it. But you're right,
even after being compelled by the Supreme Court Carol, who
said that the administration must facilitate was the word the
Court used the return of Abrago Garcia. The White House
(03:02):
said it wasn't possible. They actually didn't have the means
to get him, and the President of El Salvador said
the same. So it is an interesting moment to consider
that he's on his way home suddenly and an indictment
that's been sitting around for about a month.
Speaker 7 (03:16):
Right, the politics of this.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
You mentioned US Senator Chris van Holland of Maryland, and
we showed the picture there moments ago.
Speaker 7 (03:23):
There was a time, just a few.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Weeks ago, that his case was really brought up as
a cause of I think many people on the left,
and it wasn't necessarily that they were proclaiming his innocence,
but they were saying, this is a guy who deserves.
Speaker 4 (03:37):
His day in court.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
What are the political implications around these charges.
Speaker 3 (03:43):
It's true this was a case of due process that
even if in fact this ended with his deportation, the
idea was that he would get a hearing, much like
any of the individuals who were sent out of the
country unknowingly to this maximum security prison in El Salvador.
And this is why the administration pushed back so hard
on that image. The White House even admitted that he
(04:05):
was mistakenly deported, but they've also gone to great lengths
to suggest that he deserved They even put forth an
arrest record from years ago in Prince George's County, Maryland,
knowing as well that he was not convicted on charges.
So look, we're going to have to hear from the
Attorney General. She's going to have some questions to answer here.
But yes, this became a cause celeb for many Democrats
(04:28):
to suggest the Senator went all the way down there
to hold that event. It was concluded by a grand
welcome at the airport here with a round of applause
and a news conference.
Speaker 4 (04:37):
I'll be curious to see what he says.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
Now, Hey, Joe, before we pivot to US China relations,
I want to ask you though, So I guess, on
one hand, great, he's going to get his day in court,
which is something that is a part of the American
fabric when it comes to do processing. At the same time,
and I hate to be asking this, and I can't
believe I'm asking, but will he get a fair day
in court?
Speaker 4 (05:01):
Your guests is as good as mine.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
We're going to be talking to legal analysts about this
as well, and I'm not the person who should be
answering that question. We haven't even heard from the Attorney
General yet. This will be enlightening when we hear from
Pam Bondi, and it's something that I'm sure we'll be
learning a bit about untruth social as well. But let's
get him back first, Let's see what kind of representation
he has and what the process will be. That's a
good point that press conference, by the way, said schedule
(05:25):
to start in just seven minutes, will bring it to
you live as soon as it does start. Sometimes these
things don't necessarily start on time.
Speaker 7 (05:31):
Joe, what we have you?
Speaker 2 (05:31):
We got to switch gears and talk a little bit
about the latest with trade and with China. I want
to start with the news that we got from the
President a little earlier today that at least three representatives
from the US, including the Treasury Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce,
and the USTR Jameson Greer, are headed across the pond
for a meeting on Monday with Chinese counterparts. Are we
(05:52):
starting to see a thaw or at least progress when
it comes to the relationship and trade between the US
and China?
Speaker 8 (06:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Maybe.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
I mean, there was a ninety minute call, as we know,
between the two presidents yesterday that clearly brought us to
this moment. But every expert we talked to tells us
the same thing. They're adding Howard Lutnik to the mix.
Maybe that's an indication that there could be some new
business level negotiations, maybe when we're talking about export controls
specifically to Nvidia chips in this type of thing. But look,
(06:22):
a major trade deal with China would likely take years,
and I do think that people are trying to advance
the process a little bit quickly here. China does not
move as quickly as we want them to in this case.
And having heard from Nick Burns, the former US ambassador
to China on this, over the course of the past
couple of days, he's done a couple of great interviews,
including one on Bloomberg's Surveillance on Bloomberg Radio. Donald Trump
(06:46):
didn't help himself by laying on tariffs on Japan at
the same time as China on South Korea, at the
same time as China on the EU.
Speaker 4 (06:54):
Canada and Mexico.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
These were all allied trading partners who were on the
same side of the fence as US when it came
to China, and the President may well have lost leverage
by doing this blanket tariff when he could have actually
created a coalition to have some strength.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
So we'll be watching this on Monday. It's going to happen.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
The President writing on Truth Social the meeting should go
very well, we're about.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
To find out.
Speaker 6 (07:18):
I love that you went there.
Speaker 5 (07:18):
We just talked with former Senator Phil Graham and he
specifically understood maybe the pursuit of China in terms of
the US maybe not necessarily the mode, but he questioned
some of the tactics that have come out of the
White House and the President, specifically when it comes to
European allies or Mexico and Canada.
Speaker 6 (07:38):
Hey, one last question on US China.
Speaker 5 (07:40):
We did see markets stocks move up when the headline crossed.
As you said, any new deal with China is going
to take a long time. But is there some hope
that we can take away out of this story, in
this development that things are even moving forward a little bit.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Let's watch the rare Earth's and batteries story.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
This is a big deal for automakers who suddenly, Carol,
we're talking about sending engines to China to put a
battery in it and send it back so they didn't
break the.
Speaker 4 (08:07):
Tariffs and so forth through.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
There could be a couple of items around the edges
like that, maybe when we're talking about computer chips where
maybe we'll see signs of progress. We need to get
these guys all in the same room though, And there's
a question, of course, when we're going to get Donald
Trump and President She in the same room, that might
be a sign of things getting serious.
Speaker 5 (08:25):
That's a really terrific point, all right, Joe, as always
look forward to your reporting and anchoring s six pm,
actually five pm Wall Street Time.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
I'm a little off.
Speaker 5 (08:35):
I'm on the West Coast. I don't know what time
it is. Joe Matthew co host a Balance of Power.
Catch him and Kelly Lines at five pm Wall Street
Time on Bloomberg TV and Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 9 (08:44):
If you're listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily podcast, catch
us Live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern.
Listen on Applecarplay and the Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
I think it's fair to say Carol our next guest
understands policy, politics, economics, and Wall Street. Phil Graham served
six years in the US House of Representatives and for
eighteen years represented Texas in the US Senate.
Speaker 7 (09:14):
He was also then Chairman of the Banking Committee.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Later, he was vice chair of UBS Investment Bank, and
early on in his career before he went to Washington.
Speaker 7 (09:22):
He was a professor in economics.
Speaker 6 (09:24):
He's done a lot.
Speaker 5 (09:25):
He is now senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He's
also co author of a new book. It was just
out last month. It's entitled The Triumph of Economic Freedom,
Debunking the Seven Great Myths of American Capitalism. And he
joins us from Texas Senator Graham. It is so nice
to have you with us. There's so much going on,
and there's a lot we want to get into, including
your book. But I think we'd be remiss if we
(09:46):
didn't start to ask you your view.
Speaker 6 (09:48):
Someone who spent so much time in.
Speaker 5 (09:51):
Washington and Washington politics and had relationships with various presidents,
what you make of the once seemingly very close and
now not so c I was relationship between President Trump
and the world richest man Elon Musk, and kind of
the very public.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
Fighting that we have seen on social media.
Speaker 10 (10:10):
Well, I think both men are ill. It was to
get into personal conflicts. Always viewed when someone attacked me
personally that it was a sign of weakness, and I
always do my bis not to respond in personal attacks.
I think it especially makes supposed to look bad, and
(10:35):
I think in the end, it will end up hurting
both people.
Speaker 7 (10:39):
Do you think it gets resolved? Senator?
Speaker 2 (10:42):
Is this something that these two who seemed inseparable for
so many months and indeed even during the campaign, do
they go back to being united or do they stay divided?
Speaker 10 (10:56):
It's hard to tell. I think both of them are
were getting over it. I think it would have been
better had it not happened. But where it goes, I
don't know.
Speaker 5 (11:10):
Do you think it was bad for Elon Musk in
general to be involved with the political with politics with
the Republican Party, to be involved with the government with Doze.
Speaker 10 (11:23):
Well, he clearly made a sacrifice, and being away from
his business, I think he contributed.
Speaker 8 (11:32):
In the process.
Speaker 10 (11:34):
I think to think that they were going to be
these huge savings without Congress getting involved was maybe.
Speaker 8 (11:42):
A little naive.
Speaker 10 (11:44):
But I give Elon was very high marks on what
he did, and I think people supported the idea that
government is too big, too inefficient, too powerful, and they
wanted to change it. So he gave up a lot personally,
and I think one of the reasons I think these
(12:06):
personal attacks are more harmful of the president than to
Elon Musk is that he came to serve the country
and the president and probably deserved better.
Speaker 5 (12:20):
You know, I love that you talked about Congress, and
you know, it does seem like we're in an environment
where checks and balances is not happening, and it does
seem like and it's not just this administration, but subsequent
you know, prior or, I should say prior administrations, where
we've seen increasingly the power of the president, whether it's
through mostly executive orders to kind of do what they want.
(12:44):
Are you comfortable, well, power imbalances in the government that
seemed to be in place right now.
Speaker 10 (12:50):
Yeah, Listen, I think for the last three administrations, we've
seen a growth in the power of the executive branch.
I think the legislation the branch needs to reassert its
authority over its constitutional powers. And I think this has
been building from Obama to Baden to Trump, and I
(13:14):
think it is a problem. And one of the reasons
it's a problem is that we don't tend to have
now a steady, predictable path for American government because executive
orders now carry so much weight and have such a
big impact. Who wins a presidential election determines basically the
(13:39):
policy of the American government. I don't think the founders
ever intended.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
That, Senator I want to move on and talk a
little bit about China. We heard from the President just
in the last hour that US representatives, including Secretary of
Commerce Howard Lutnik and Treasury Sectory of Scott Besson, along
with USTR Jameson Greer, will headed across the pond to
London for a Monday meeting with representatives from China. How
(14:05):
do you view China in relation to the United States
right now, and which country, in your view has more
of the cards when it comes to working out some
sort of mutually beneficial trade deal.
Speaker 10 (14:21):
Well, I think both economies have power to do real
harm to themselves. Detectionism hurts the country imposing it more
than it hurts the country that they're imposing it against.
I'm glad the meeting is occurring. I hope we can
work something out. I think our relationship with China is
(14:45):
a difficult relationship, but the two largest economies in the
world are now so entwined that this idea that we
can suddenly stop trading and things not be drawn radically
changed I think.
Speaker 8 (15:02):
Was a native to start with.
Speaker 10 (15:05):
So I hope an agreement can be worked out, and
I hope that we can mutually reduce teriffs of goods
coming into the United States goods coming into China a
real reciprocal trade agreement. Present uses the term, but that's
(15:26):
not really what he's trying to implement.
Speaker 8 (15:28):
It seems to me what.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
Do you think he is trying to implement.
Speaker 10 (15:34):
Well, he's trying to basically use the power of intimidation
to get countries to agree to an increase in tariffs.
In America, I think that's what happened in the British agreement.
We had an open, fairly open trade with Great Britain.
(15:54):
Our level of protectionism was relatively similar a surplus were
Great Britain. And what the President demanded in return for
reducing tariffs that had been jacked up to levels that
would have been done real harm to both economies was
that Brittan except a ten percent across the board tariff
(16:19):
on all British goods and services.
Speaker 8 (16:22):
Coming into the country.
Speaker 10 (16:23):
And I don't think the European Union will every accept
such an agreement, and I'm not sure what China is
going to be willing to agree to.
Speaker 6 (16:35):
We're going to talk about your book.
Speaker 5 (16:36):
I just have one more question so you said, you
don't really, I think think it's good the way President
Trump leads through intimidation.
Speaker 6 (16:45):
Do you think he's not a good leader.
Speaker 10 (16:48):
No, Look, I just everybody has their own methods and techniques.
Protectionism is a very destructive policy. We've tried it throughout
American history. It has always failed economically, it has always
failed politically. And even if you can force another country
(17:14):
to accept tariffs against their goods, Americans end up paying
those taxes. They end up being taxes on American consumers.
And I'll just give you an example. The steel and
aluminum tariff fifty percent as being imposed at a time
when we're getting ready to spend one hundred billion dollars
(17:37):
on new defense expended to its and every defense item
we're going to build it is going to have a
lot of steel and it's going to have a lot
of aluminum in it. So we're in essence raising the
price of the very defense item from trying to procure
with detective tariffs. And so I just don't think that's
(17:58):
good policy. I don't think it's will fall out. I
think it's going to be harmful, and I think if
we can't find a way to get out of this
tariff war, this trade war, that we could easily tip
the economy into a recession. That's what I'm concerned about.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
We're speaking with former Senator Phil Graham. He was also
in the House of Representatives for six years. Senior Fellow
now at the Brookings Institution. His new book co authored,
it's called The Triumph of Economic Freedom, Debunking the Seven
Great Myths of American Capitalism.
Speaker 7 (18:35):
It's out now.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Senator, if tariffs aren't the right answer to address trade
imbalances between the US and other countries, or what the
President has deemed on fairness between the US and other countries,
what is the answer.
Speaker 10 (18:50):
Well, first of all, the European Union has lower average
tariffs against American goods, then we have a in the
European Union goods. The President thinks it's unfair that they
sell us more than they buy from us. But no
(19:11):
economic logic that has ever been espoused by anybody takes
the view that you have to have a trade balance
with everybody you trade with. I've bought groceries at Walmarts
where I live for twenty three years, probably spent one
hundred thousand dollars there. They've never bought anything for me.
(19:36):
Now does that say that I'm being ripped off exploited?
Speaker 8 (19:41):
I don't think so.
Speaker 10 (19:42):
I buy groceries there because it's convenient and it's cheap, and.
Speaker 8 (19:46):
It benefits me.
Speaker 10 (19:48):
So I just think the president's view of trade is
a view that if you.
Speaker 8 (19:55):
Buy something from somebody, you lose.
Speaker 10 (19:58):
If you sell them something to win, and that's not
the way the war works.
Speaker 5 (20:05):
So then let me just ask you something in terms
of free trade. And I understand where you're coming from,
but I do wonder about, you know, how much in
terms of manufacturing and supply Chains moved out to China
and we saw how exposed we were post COVID, So
I do wonder who do you what do you blame
for that? Is it greed in that more companies trying
(20:28):
to be profitable and going for the cheapest supply Chains
was a consultants who said, you know, get other.
Speaker 6 (20:35):
Folks to do manufacturing.
Speaker 5 (20:37):
Like, what was it? And how do we I don't
know kind of come back from that.
Speaker 10 (20:43):
Well, first of all, I think China is a special case.
We should be negotiating with China, but we shouldn't be
in a trade war with Europe. With Canada and with Mexico.
We have problem with China, they have huge industrial subjecties. Unfortunately,
(21:06):
in recent years we have gone to the same policy
and the policies have failed here like they fail there.
So China is a special case. I think you've got
to deal with a series of problems in China, including
defense and security issues. But again, I don't think the
(21:27):
solution is that we don't trade with China, and I
don't think the solution is to impose tariffs against all
of our friends in the world, and for example with
Mexico in Canada, to have the president unilaterally overturn a
(21:48):
free trade agreement that was adopted by Congress and has
benefited all three countries immensely, I think it's bad economics.
I think it's an abuse of the system. I don't
think the president ought to be able to overturn a
(22:08):
legislative trade agreement unless there's some extraordinary circumstances and it's
hard or that steel or aluminum coming from Mexico and
Canada to the defense crisis or threatens our national security.
That's where I'm coming from. I want just to prosper.
(22:28):
We've got the ingredients to have prosperous country.
Speaker 2 (22:32):
You know, to that point, your book, The Triumph of
Economic Freedom Debunking the Seven Great Myths of American Capitalism.
You dedicate this book to America. You write that you're
not dedicating it to the idealized, shining city on a hill,
but rather an unfinished work of a few people, of
a free people who strive and often fail to live
up to their high principles, but who then learn from
(22:53):
their mistakes and perpetually rededicate themselves to the task. Do
you think we as a country are right now learning
from past mistakes or repeating past mistakes?
Speaker 10 (23:05):
Well, I think we always repeat some fat past mistakes.
I think we make progress when we learn from them
and when we improve our policy. America works best when
we give people freedom and opportunity and where goveropment enforces
(23:27):
the law and let's markets work. And I think government
subsidizing industry, who gives them the knowledge to know what
industries need to grow?
Speaker 8 (23:39):
Only the market really can determine.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
That centergram one last question, and unfortunately only have about
thirty forty seconds least here, but please come back already.
But you do say, as Tim just said, you know
we're not the ideolized shining city on a hill, but
rather unfinished work of a free people who's driving off
and feilt live up to their high principles.
Speaker 6 (24:01):
Are we still a free people? Because I often hear
a lot of.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
Folks, very established leaders, heads of publicly held companies, investors,
who talk about a lot of fear and fear of
talking out against the administration.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
Are we still free?
Speaker 10 (24:16):
Well, we are still the freest country in the world.
And there's no other place I would want to live
in America. But I don't like the President saying to Walmart,
why don't you cheat your investors by absorbing the cost
of tariffs that President Trump imposed rather than passing those
(24:42):
costs under the consumer. That's not the government. That is
a government that I won't have in America. I don't
like that policy. I think it is a destructive policy.
And again it's trying to bully people. And I don't
(25:02):
like it, and I think Americans don't like it.
Speaker 8 (25:05):
Now.
Speaker 10 (25:06):
There are many policies of Trumps. I'm four, but bullying Walmart,
a company that's done more for working people in any
other country, any other company in this country, I think
it is bad policy and I don't think.
Speaker 8 (25:22):
People like.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
Senator Phil Graham. Thank you so much for taking the time.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Applecarflay, and
Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also
listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.
Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 5 (25:48):
All right, folks, we're thinking about the weekend. We're thinking
about Friday night because we are close to it. We
know that political tensions, as we keep talking about US China,
they are definitely high. They're also high between the United
States and Canada. Pretty tense on the ice as well
as tonight's Game two of the Stanley Cup Finals between
the Edmonton Oilers and the defending champion Florida Panthers. And that,
(26:18):
of course was Game one, the Oilers leading the best
of seven series thanks to a win in Game one.
Speaker 6 (26:23):
Our next guest was watching.
Speaker 5 (26:24):
Of course, he'll be watching it again tonight, we assume,
as he has watched all other finals and guided and
growing the league for the last thirty two plus years.
He's the National Hockey League's first ever commissioner, making him
the longest serving executive chief executive among major North American
pro sports leagues.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
With us, we've got a Gary Badman, commissioner of the NHL,
joining us from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Also joining us to
our in house hockey expert, Scarlettfeu. She's a Bloomberg TV
anchor of The Close. She's back in our New York
studio Mission Badman, Welcome to the program.
Speaker 7 (26:57):
It's good to see you. No Canadian team has won.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
Just thinking, are the Canadian fans a bit more edgy
considering the political tensions between the US and Canada right now?
Speaker 7 (27:05):
Can we talk politics a little bit?
Speaker 11 (27:08):
We can do that. Thank you for having me. It's
good to be with you. Our fans are passionate for
the teams that they root for, there's no question about that.
But there seems to be a little bit of movement
towards Edmonton being Canada's team because, as you said, the
Stanley Cup hasn't been awarded to a Canadian team in
(27:30):
the last thirty plus years, Montreal being the last club
to win it in nineteen ninety three. In terms of
the tensions initially and it was around the same time
as our four Nations tournament, which Canada won back in February.
There was some booing of anthems in both countries. That's
(27:51):
all simmered down. People are focused on playing hockey, rooting
for their team, and the competition throughout the end of
the regular season and into the playoffs has been terrific.
And the question that I get most frequently asked is, well,
what does that do for the Canadian clubs with respect
(28:12):
to the tariffs and everything else, because our players in
Canada still get paid in US dollars. And the answer
is the Canadian dollars actually up a little bit since
all this started a few months ago. I think three
four months ago, the Canadian dollar was at seventy cents.
It's now with seventy three, and so we'll watch what
goes on. But I think what the great thing about
(28:35):
sports is it brings people together and even if there's
a little political tension around the edges, ultimately fans get
into and focus on rooting for their favorite team.
Speaker 5 (28:48):
So you just answered a question I was going to
ask you about, you know, the possible negative implications of
US Canada tariffs and the Canadian dollar. It does feel
like things have settled down, But are you still a
little bit on pins and needles about concerns about how
this could escalate a gain. We know from the White
House Commissioner that things can change rapidly and we.
Speaker 11 (29:07):
Have to be flexible and adaptable, and we always are,
and you know that's been something that I've dealt with
over three decades. The issue on the Canadian dollar, which
is where any sort of league issue would come, is
really a function of what happens with the Canadian economy.
And if the Canadian economy stays stable and the dollar
(29:30):
relative to the U Canadian dollar relative to the US
dollar doesn't change dramatically, things should be fine. I think
what we've seen worldwide is a little bit of softening
in the US dollar and the Canadian dollar has been
holding its own. If that changes, if it becomes a problem,
we'll address it. But so far, so good. And again
(29:50):
the good news is people are focused on the hockey,
which has been sensational, as you mentioned Game two tonight,
and so you know, we're looking forward to a really
terrific conclusion to what has been a great season.
Speaker 12 (30:05):
All right, well, let's talk about the hockey for a
moment here, because this will be the sixth straight year
that a Florida based team is participating in the Stanley
Cup Final. And of course a lot of people will
talk about the state's tax benefits as a reason why
Florida teams are doing so well. I know that you
and Bill Daly have kind of dismissed that as a factor,
but I'm curious, mister commissioner, what is it about Florida's
(30:28):
operating environment that enables its teams to consistently outperform.
Speaker 11 (30:33):
Well, that's of recent vintage, since we had the salary
cap in the economic system we have in two thousand
and five six. Nobody was talking about this for the
first fifteen eighteen years. Players choose to go to teams
for lots of reasons, and maybe there's a little element
(30:55):
of local state taxes, But the fact is they look
to go to a market they want to live in,
where they want to raise their families, where their kids
will go to school. They look at the organization, they
look at ownership, they look at the coach, they look
at the general manager. There is the cost of living
and by the way, if the players are getting paid
(31:18):
in US dollars and they're living in Canada, that sort
of offsets, any differences in local taxes, and as I think,
you know, players get taxed by the jurisdictions that they
play in on the road, So I think that gets
a little overblown. I think it's too much of an
excuse for clubs that may not be performing as well
as they'd like to. And I think it's a little
(31:39):
bit of an injustice to the great job that the
ownership and organizations have done in South Florida and in Tampa.
Speaker 12 (31:47):
And of course the Florida teams were expansion teams, and
there's always going to be a lot of talk mis
or commissioner about expansion into other markets like Houston, like
Phoenix again, and like Atlanta again. The NHL currently has
thirty two teams, which is kind of considered the sweet
spot because the structure creates this really consistent and clear
format for competition and scheduling. You've got two conferences each
(32:09):
with two divisions with eight teams each. What are team
owners specific concerns about balance if you do pursue expansion
in that format changes.
Speaker 11 (32:19):
Well, the answer to that question is we're not focused
on a formal expansion process. Yes, we've been getting interest
from a number of places, including the three you mentioned,
but we've said we're not going to announce a date,
and if you want an expansion team, everybody apply the criteria.
At ten thousand feet. We look at our first and
(32:40):
foremost ownership market arena and what does it do to
make the league stronger. And we've told the interested parties
if you're ready to come in and make a presentation
to check those boxes, come talk to us and we'll
focus on what needs to be done in terms of
what it would do to our structure, our format of
the ski schedule. That's not something we're even focused on
(33:02):
right now because at the present time, expansion is in
front and center on our agenda.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
To be sure, I want to ask about the media
relationships and the way that people here in the US
are watching and consuming hockey and the way that they're not.
Why does the NHL network in your view, not have
a streaming option or a digital app that you can
authenticate with a third party cable sign on. Does it
feel like you're leaving money on the table by not
offering streaming availability like other leagues do at this point?
Speaker 11 (33:35):
Well, actually we do have a streaming capability. Warner Brothers
Discovery streams the games that they have on Max, ESPN
streams us on the ESPN Plus. As it relates to
the NHL network itself, we're kind of in a transition
period and we're looking at our options. Ninety nine percent
(34:01):
of our games are available either linear or streamed in
the United States, and frankly, to us, the most important
thing in the short term is always making sure that
our games are available to the most number of people,
and we think we do a good job of that
what we do with the NHL network, which relative to
(34:21):
everybody else, has far fewer games. That's something that will
evolve over time with the changing landscape, but we do
have a large, full breadth capacity for streaming, both in
the US and Canada.
Speaker 5 (34:38):
Hey, one of the things I do want to ask you,
I mean, there's just so much I feel like on
your play and you talked about this in your Mister Commissioner,
in your Status of the League address prior to Game
one of the finals, and you talk specifically about the
status of collective.
Speaker 6 (34:52):
Bargaining talks that are going on.
Speaker 5 (34:53):
I'm curious, what are you hearing, where are you what
are the priorities for the league, and what do you
expect to be the sticking points. Can you get something
done before the current agreement expires in September.
Speaker 11 (35:06):
Actually, the current agreement expires a year from September twenty
six forget me. Yes, yes, so we have plenty of time.
We started having conversations with the union probably end of
February early March. I think we're having good, constructive discussions.
(35:26):
I think for the most part, we're on the same
page that it's important to work together. We get together
on a regular basis. We even got together yesterday here
in Edmonton, and I'm very optimistic that we're going to
get this done in relatively short order. I don't mean
today or tomorrow, but at the end of the day,
(35:48):
the relationship between the NHL and the NHL Players Association,
which is now under executive director Marty Walsh, was I
think many of you know him as former mayor of
Boston and former Secretary of Labor. We're in a good
place and I think we're going to get it done,
(36:09):
and I think the best the beneficiary from all of
that will not just be the clubs and the players,
but our fans. I'm not anticipating any fundamental problems or
issues that are going to cause us to have fundamental problems.
Speaker 12 (36:24):
Are you on the same page when it comes to
international competition.
Speaker 6 (36:27):
You guys had a very successful.
Speaker 12 (36:29):
Four Nations tournament, and we know the NHL players are
going back to the Olympics next year, so I'm sure
there is a desire on both sides to keep the
energy of international competition going once the Olympics comes and goes.
Speaker 11 (36:42):
There's no question about that. So, going back in ancient
history because it predates me, the League and the Players
Association have been joint partners in the execution of international competition,
particularly best on best, which is the Olympics, the World Cup,
and things like Four Nations that we did to an
(37:02):
outstanding result in terms of fan interest and the competition itself.
Prior leaders of the Players Association, Warrant is immediately focused
as Marty is in terms of understanding the importance of
moving this effort forward. We know that our players, third
(37:23):
of which come from outside of North America, love representing
their countries. It's important to them, which is why the
competition at Four Nations was so good, so competitive, and
so compelling, and so he is focused on not just
doing that in terms of building interest but it also
speaks volumes of how well we're working together. And so
(37:46):
we're looking forward to having the Olympics two years later,
the World Cup two years after that, the Olympics and
so on a regular basis because we know it's great
for the game, it's great for fan interest, and again,
we know how important it is for our players to
represent the countries they come from. And I don't think
there's anything that really compares in the international landscape to
(38:10):
best on best in hockey.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
Hey, one thing I do wonder, Commissioner, is where does
women's hockey fit into this? And we've seen certainly interested
in women's sports skyrocket on so many different levels, and
we've certainly seen some early success, initial success with the
Women's Hockey League, the PWHL. I'm curious about the involvement
by the NHL specifically when it comes to women's sports
(38:32):
and what kind of investment and solid investment are you
guys looking to maybe do in that area.
Speaker 11 (38:38):
Well, certainly at the grassroots level, we're fully supportive and
our programs are very, very inclusive and welcoming. The PWHL,
which is the Women's Professional Hockey League, is off to
a terrific start. They launched very quickly two seasons ago.
We help them get off the ground using our infrastructure
and resources, and we work well with with them. We
(39:01):
try to include them in our major events, and they
just recently announced a two team expansion, so they're off
to a great start, and again we're thrilled and fully supportive.
It's great for the game of hockey.
Speaker 12 (39:15):
Comissure, let's just return to playoffs for this year. When
you look at viewership numbers, they're actually down about twenty
percent from last year's playoffs. To what extent does that
concern you and do you believe it has any kind
of I don't know, future implications. Does it suggest anything
about the future of the league?
Speaker 11 (39:31):
Actually on a North American basis, which is how we
look at these things, because we're a little bit different
than baseball, basketball, and football, because seven of our thirty
two teams are in Canada and they don't show up
in US ratings. But when you look at North America
as a whole, we're about flat. And you have to
take into account that this may be the first time
(39:53):
in the history of the NHL where none of the
four original six US teams were in the playoffs, and
that's Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Boston, all of which
rate extraordinarily well. And Boston and New York. The Rangers
had great runs last season, even though they didn't make
(40:16):
it to the Stanley Cup Final. So it's a little
bit of apples and oranges. But when you look at
it on a North American basis, it's fine. When you
look at, for example, Game seven in last year's Stanley
Cup Final, which was this is a redo. This year
Edmonton and Florida, I think we drew sixteen or seventeen
(40:37):
million fans North American wide, and I think we had
about nine million in the United States and the final
game of four nations was at about the same level.
And so our ratings are strong. We tend to be
a little bit variable, but don't just look at the US.
Speaker 10 (40:57):
We won't.
Speaker 6 (40:58):
We won't. Thank you so much. Busy time for you,
Good luck with Game two.
Speaker 9 (41:02):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday
afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, Tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app.
You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube
(41:23):
and always on the Bloomberg Terminal
Hosts And Creators
Tim Stenovec
Carol Massar
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.