August 12, 2025 • 25 mins
- David Kelly, Chief Global Strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management
- Tiffany Wilding, Economist: North America at PIMCO
- Jon Lieber, Head: Research at Eurasia Group
- Elizabeth Economy, Hargrove Senior Fellow and professor at Stanford University
David Kelly, Chief Global Strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management and Tiffany Wilding, Economist: North America at PIMCO react to CPI and discuss thee outlook for inflation and rate cuts in the US. Jon Lieber, Head: Research at Eurasia Group, talks about President Trump's tariffs and economic and political priorities in a second Trump administrating. Elizabeth Economy, Hargrove Senior Fellow and professor at Stanford University, discusses the latest developments in US-China relations
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 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
with Lisa Bromwitz and am Marie Hordern. Join us each
day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and
geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We
are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify
or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the
(00:33):
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. Tiffany Wannaga Pimpos
is going to join us in the meantime. Tiffany, Welcome
to the program. Is the store still open for a
Rake Cup in September?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
I mean, I think this CPI was completely in line
with expectations how we've characterized the sort of Terra related
pass through. The evidence is that it's happening, but it's
happening slower than I think many people expected going back
to April, when when the more dramatic TERRFF announcements were
first implemented or announced. It's happening more slowly and across industries,
(01:09):
you know, it's it's more uneven, you know. So I
think the broader story here that we're still seeing is
that it's very concentrated within goods, it's happening slowly, and
outside of that, you know, inflationary pressures look very manageable.
So I think for a federal reserve, that is a
very good sign.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
You know.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
In addition to that, there's I would argue, better news
in terms of the so called second round effects with
higher prices leading to higher wages and getting.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
More into the inflationary process.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
We've actually seen inflation expectations from various surveys start to moderate.
The University of Michigan survey, which we'll get later this week,
the longer term inflation expectation index for that one had
accelerated more, but it's moderated more recently. So I think
all of this points to, you know, a central bank
that can get on with normalizing policy rates back to neutral.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
It's definitely something we've been exploring throughund the whole of
this morning, and to be fair, over the last several months.
Is whether tariff delayed. That's a taroft story is delayed
by the fact that we've seen fantastic infantry management from
some of the retailers at the moment, and that maybe
we haven't seen the full extent of this. When would
you get comfortable that we've seen the limits of it all.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
Yeah, I mean, I think, like you know, we expect
a good portion of the pass through over the next
several months. But I think the bottom line is is
that companies have room. It appears that companies have room
as a result of still high margins coming out of
the pandemic. Companies have room to sort of more slowly
pass this on to consumers. And and so what that
(02:38):
means is that, you know, goods inflation could be a
little bit more persistent over time, but you're not necessarily
going to have that bigger surge that many people expected
as you get that faster price level adjustment this year.
So I think for the FED, I think that's all
good news. You know. The other thing that we see
when we look at you know, a range of data,
you know, is that companies so far are absorbing we
(03:00):
think the lions share of the additional costs of tariffs,
and as I mentioned, they can do it. Their margins
were elevated post pandemic. That has remained the case, and
so they do have room here. You know, at least
the largest companies have room to sort of manage this process,
and we think that's what they're doing.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
You know. The other thing.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Is is the tax legislation that was recently passed, the
One Big Beautiful Bill, that is, you know, reducing the
effective tax rates for a lot of companies, especially those
companies that are capital intensive.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
They invest a lot.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
They're getting you know, upfront expensing tax credits and that
will help offset the impact of the tariffs as well.
A lot of those tax credits were retroactive for twenty
twenty five. So all of that just means that companies
do have a little bit of flexibility here and can
manage the pass through rate.
Speaker 6 (03:50):
So, Timmy, are you basically saying that because of the
One Big Beautiful Bill, companies are able to eat more
of the higher terifts from this administration.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Yeah, I mean, I certainly think that that's the case.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
You know. Now, the you know, what we estimate in
terms of the tax savings in aggregate for twenty twenty
five is around you know, one hundred and fifty billion.
The tariff tax collections that are happening, we annualize at
about three hundred and fifty billions. So the tax legislation
(04:22):
is not completely offsetting the additional taxes paid by tariffs,
but it certainly is in mitigating some of it. And
so that's why, you know, we've argued you'll still see
we think some pass through of higher tariffs on two prices,
you'll get some price adjustment. But we think the risk
here is just that it takes longer than many people
are expecting, you know, the inflationary effects of this in
(04:44):
the back half of this year somewhat less, you know,
and again.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
That just sets the federal reserve up.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
To you know, to continues to restart its cutting cycle
to get back ultimately to neutral policy rates.
Speaker 7 (04:58):
Tiffany Wold, thank you.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
David Kenny, a JP Mork and Asset Management with us
around a table with David, good morning. Not going to
ask you that question. I just want to ask you
the following. When will you be comfortable that we've seen
the limits of this? How many more months of data
do you need?
Speaker 7 (05:11):
We're just getting started.
Speaker 8 (05:13):
I mean, what we saw today was plenty of inflation
without tariff effects. We didn't have a big increase in
new car prices. We never big increasing in a paro
of prices. But let's look at where we did see
an increase. Airline fares will come down a lot because the.
Speaker 7 (05:25):
Airline industry was very weak.
Speaker 8 (05:26):
But if you look at the recent data on people
going through TSA checkpoints, it's firmed up, and so domestic
airline travel is now back on a positive year over
year basis. We've got a lot of fiscal stimuls going
to kick into the economy early next year, but.
Speaker 7 (05:41):
Also in the tariffs.
Speaker 8 (05:43):
Even in July we saw a lot of money collected,
but it still equates to about a tariff rate of
about eight percent. We think this whole tariff rate is
going to go up to about fourteen and a half
percent measured by that later. So we've got most of
this tariff increase still ahead of us in terms of
just affecting the data. And then you know, people say, oh,
the retailer is going to eat it.
Speaker 7 (06:04):
No they're not. They just wrote the check. So so
of course, of course it.
Speaker 8 (06:07):
Looks like they're eating at Walmart writes a check, but
eventually they're going to pass it on, and yes, they've
got good margins, but how do they manage to sustain
these margins because they're great at figuring it out and
figuring out how to stiff consumers, and that's what they'll do.
And so this thing will feed through. It's just a
matter of a number of number of months. And you know,
inflation is going up, but it's going up very steadily,
and it will be above we think about three and
(06:29):
a half percent in CPI by the end of the year.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
You've made some important points here. One is that you
believe that goods prices will continue to affirm through the
year ahead, and that you're not going to see an
offset from services. Is that right?
Speaker 8 (06:40):
That's correct, because what's going to happen is the economy
is going to be slower in the second half of
this year as these this goods inflation feeds through. But
the big kicker here that people are not talking about
is a huge rush of income tax refunds that's going
to kick in and the start of the next year.
It's going to be like an extra stimulus check.
Speaker 7 (06:58):
And that you know, we've seen what happens.
Speaker 8 (07:00):
You give him as a cookie, he's going to want
a glass of milk. You give an American consumer a
stimulus check, they will spend it and You're going to
have a surge of spending in the first half of
next year with limited supply because of all these terriff
and supply chain disruptions. You are going to get a
second round of inflation, which is going to sustain inflation
well above three percent, which begs the question of why
again is a FED cutting Well that if infation's heading
(07:22):
the wrong way slowly.
Speaker 6 (07:23):
That was going my next question to you, what does
the FED do with this kind of data?
Speaker 7 (07:27):
They should stay on hold.
Speaker 8 (07:29):
There is I think there's very little argument that in
favor of the FED cutting rates. Rates are not abnormally high.
I don't know why they think three percent is a
neutral rate in the long run, It doesn't equate to
history before the pandemic. I think something four four and
a half percent is more of a neutral rate anyway,
But there is no urgency about cutting rates, and now
I think they will cut rates for political reasons, which
(07:49):
is very unfortunate. But I don't think they should based
on these data.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
As you're talking, traders are actually adding to betts of
September fed raate cup because this basically came in in
line when it comes to inflation. Why for political reasons
when actually we saw a trend three months of not
so great unemployment numbers.
Speaker 8 (08:06):
Well yeah, but if you look at the overall mosaic
of employment, it's still growing. And remember we've got to
labor supply problem too. And one of the things that
Jay Powell pointed out is he's not looking at payroll growth,
he's looking at the unemployment range. If you've got fewer
jobs being created, but we've got fewer workers, then you
still got a certain amount of inflationary pressure. You just
said that the growth potentially of the economy has gone down. Well,
(08:28):
they can't do anything about that. So if you're not
this economy is not going to spark a huge surge
in unemployment. And I think the basic point is by
the end of the year, we think maybe four and
a half percent unemployment, we think over three percent in inflation.
They're missing their inflation target by more than unemployment. Therefore
they shouldn't be come just.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Tanning this up, though, but you believe they will be cuttack.
So you've got a federal Reserve cutting interest rates at
a time when inflation is picking up. And the key
phrase you used with second round effects, you don't believe
this is a one off. You're actually going to see
second round effects in the first half of twenty six.
What's your market for you on something?
Speaker 8 (09:00):
Well, so I think it's the Markt view is not
too bad because I think, for again, for political reasons,
I think unfortunately feder will cut twice this year, maybe
three times next year. They'll get going and cutting. It's
not going to really change the economy that much. But
if you bring long term bring short rates down enough,
it does push extra liquidity into the equity market. So
you could just maintain these bubbly acid markets. What we've
(09:21):
got is a tortoise of an economy and a hair
of a market, and we're just giving more sugar.
Speaker 7 (09:26):
To the hair.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
That's the stock story. What about a fixed income story
for bonds? Because we've had guest staff. The guests come
on this program and site get ready for speryeld curve.
The guy aggressive at the front end, you're going to
see yields LOWA. At the long end, you're going to
say a questionable development.
Speaker 8 (09:40):
Well, you know it's again it's hard for a tortoise
psych economy to generate a really steep yield curve. So
but I think you could see rates move up a bit,
I wouldn't be I wouldn't be long duration here because
I don't think this economy is going to go in
for a session.
Speaker 7 (09:54):
I think by the time that the tariffs really.
Speaker 8 (09:57):
Hit going to be on the verge of physical stimulus
because of this income tax refund thing, and that will
keep this keep this economy moving forward. And if the
economy is moving forward, you got inflation printing at three,
you shouldn't really have a long bond lower than four two.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
What do you think inflation is going to pay cat
in the next twelve months.
Speaker 8 (10:12):
I think CPI is going to peek out about three
and a half percent and then hang there between three
three and a half percent through about June of next year,
and then find it's going to come down again because
this is sugar you know, these income tax refunds.
Speaker 7 (10:22):
It's a sugar rush. It's not proteine. It will wear
her off.
Speaker 8 (10:25):
And then by the end of next year, then I
think the economy is finding cuding it unless, of course,
you get some more stimulus. And that's really the problem,
because if the Fed keeps on cutting rates whenever, whenever,
you know, the other side of Washington asks them to
then it enables more and more rounds of fiscal stimulus
to always keep this economy a little bit too hot.
Speaker 7 (10:41):
So it's not it's not you know, it's called inflammation.
Doctors don't like it.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
David.
Speaker 7 (10:45):
It's got a hair from you.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
It's the nicest This morning, Chinese authorities urging local companies
to avoid using a Video's eight twenty chip. So its
just telling us here at Bloomberger the firms are being
discouraged from using the chips, especially for government related purposes.
Joining US snout to discuss as John Leber, if you
raise a group, John malcome to the program, sir. I
just wonder what the endgame has here for the Chinese
and what ultimately they're trying to achieve.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
I think the end games that the Chinese want to
have their own chip and they don't want to be
dependent on the US tech stack. And that's one of
the reasons that Trump allowed these H twenty exports was
because he bought into the argument that if the US
dominates chip technology, and if the Chinese learned to rely
on that in their own technology stacks, then it brings them.
It gives the US more power, not less here and
(11:39):
if the Chinese recognized that argument, it's somewhat valid, and
so what they want to do is encourage people not
to use the American tech. And they know also how
vulnerable they are to things like the foreign direct Product
rule and the other rules that the US has used
to weaponize their own technology supply chain over the past
several years. And now that's the long term game here.
(12:00):
I think the H twenty is just one part of that.
But technological development is going to determine what happens here,
not necessarily export controls.
Speaker 6 (12:08):
John when it comes to Nvidia and AMD selling these chips,
getting these export licenses to go back into China.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
What kind of pushback have.
Speaker 6 (12:16):
You heard in Washington from both individuals who are questioning
whether the fifteen percent revenue cash back to the United
States is legal and the China Hawks as well in
the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
Yeah, I mean the fifteen percent revenue take makes it
look like to certain people, and I think this is
a valid argument that national security is now for sale.
I'm sure a lot of companies will be very happy
if they had the opportunity to buy their way out
of US regulations that otherwise ban them from doing business.
You know, in a way, this is a version of
a carbon tax, where you're selling you're purchasing the right
(12:48):
to pollute. Here, you're purchasing the right to undermine America's
national security by selling these chips to the Chinese, which
a lot of China Hawks in Washington are not happy
about because they believe that this is a needabling Chinese
technological development. This is a contrary to the policy of
the Biden administration and up until last week, the policy
of the Trump administration, which was of course to deny
(13:09):
the Chinese access to these chips. This is a very
controversial move. It's never been done before as far as
we're aware, and you know there's Trump's getting a lot
of pushback, both from the security hawks and also people
who argue this is an illegal export tax, which I'm
pretty confident they'll find their way around. But this is
something new we've never seen before.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Do you think this is a one off or we're
going to see more policy.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Like this, that's a good question. I think we don't
know yet. I don't think there's a lot of areas
where this type of thing is doable, where you know
you've got an export ban that somebody wants to that
they're offering the chance to raise some revenue off of
So I'm not sure where else we could see it,
but we still have. You Know, one of the things
that's really surprising to me to remember all the time
(13:54):
is there's still three and a half years left in
this administration, and we know Trump loves to do these
types of deals. So it wouldn't surprise me to see
this show up in other areas. It's just hard to
predict which ones yet.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Well, John, let's talk about what we learned from the
first term under President Trump. In Trump Volume one, there
was a coherent ideology governing trade policy. Whether you liked
it or not, I happened to be sympathetic to the
concerns they had about reciprocity in a country like China
who had put barriers to entry up all over the place. John,
Now I'm struggling with what the framework is exactly this
(14:24):
time around.
Speaker 7 (14:25):
How you explaining this to people at the moment.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Yeah, I mean a huge difference between this term and
last term is you don't have the strong personality of
Robert Leitheiser directing a lot of Trump's trade policies. What
you have instead is the strong personality of Donald Trump
directing these policies, and Trump is going every which way,
and you know, it's obvious that in some cases he's
motivated to get a deal. We saw that with all
(14:48):
these countries pre August first, and in other cases you
see personal relationships starting to sour and take over the
ability for the US to cut deals, like what's happening
with the US and India.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Now.
Speaker 5 (15:00):
I think at the core of it, though Trump remains
a very transactional guy. He's somebody that wants to see
higher tariffs, and he's somebody that wants to do deals
in order to keep those in order to get those tariffs.
With China, you know, they've been able to leverage their
use of rare earths and critical minerals to great effect.
The US national security community is in a panic about
(15:21):
its ability to build weapons in the United States because
of the Chow points that China has been using to
deny the US those critical minerals and Trump himself, and
that's driving a lot of the China policy right now.
So I don't think there's a consistent strain that you
can pull through here, but it is worth pointing out
that Trump ran on a campaign of higher tariffs, and
now the US is getting them with an average effective
(15:43):
rate somewhere in the mid to high teens. And that's
a huge shift that reflects Trump's own personality and his
own policy parpers.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Well, let's just sit on that transactional nature. Nothing new,
quite well understood. Where people struggle, is what defines whether
it's a good transaction or a bad transaction, and what
kind of feedback loops is the president's sensitive too.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Well, Clearly he's sensitive to feedback from the private sector.
I mean, the reason that the Liberation Day tariffs were
paused in the first place was because of what he
called the yippiness in the bond market. So that's one
type of feedback. Another type of feedback he's clearly sensitive
to is direct feedback from the business community. His meeting
with Jensen Wong directly led to the selling of these
H twenty chips into China. And I also think that
(16:24):
he's sensitive to the positive feedback he's getting from the
deals that are happening where his US trading partners aren't
putting up any real resistance here, nobody's retaliating. I think
that's an important point, is that he's faced virtually zero retaliation,
and that's allowed him to get away with these higher tariffs.
And I think going forward, the feedback that might cause
him the reverse course would be economic weakness, major complaints
(16:47):
from the US business community, big businesses who are going
to have the ear of the president, and I think
that that means that probably small businesses are getting left
out of this because he's not necessarily hearing their voices.
Speaker 6 (16:58):
John, when it comes to the trade agreement, we have
core have the punting of the negotiations. When it comes
to China and the United States, you mentioned the victory
really of Beijing using those rare earth magnets in lieu
of making sure they can loosen up export controls. Would
you say Beijing has the leverage going into November, Not necessarily.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
I mean, I think you have to be mindful of
the fact that China is going to face higher tariffs.
They're just comfortable their system is prepared for a level
of higher tariffs and they can deal with tariffs in
the thirty percent range, which is where we think tariffs
on China are going to end up here. However, you know,
I don't want to play down the fact that they
have been able to play this critical mineral game very
(17:38):
very well in the US is obviously very serious sensitive
to it. But this is not necessarily a positive story
from the Chinese economy either.
Speaker 6 (17:45):
When it comes to what the United States wants to
see out of China. They're dealing with export controls, They're
dealing with rare eergs. The President the other day was
truthing about soybeans. What else is on the list before
potentially she and Trump can meet and get to this
grand bargain of a deal.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
Yeah, I mean, we don't see a grand bargain. I
think we don't think a grand bargain is necessarily the
right way to describe this. We're thinking about this as
a very transactional deal. So the US is going to
raise its tariff levels on Chinese goods. China will make
some purchase commitments about market access. They're not going to
fundamentally reform their economy, which was of course the goal
in Trump won and the goal of some of the
Chinahawks in this administration. But what they're going to do
(18:26):
is make enough promises to buy enough time that they
can live with these thirty percent tariffs and then hope
to fight that out in the next presidential term. I'm
not at all convinced these tariffs are going down even
after President Trump's term is over. None of the China
tariffs went down after his first term, and these things
have a way of being enduring.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
John, I appreciate the update, the reaction from you, sir
as always, thank you, John labor there if you write
your group and listen with the economy of the Hoover
Institution and the former senior advisor for China and the
Commis Department under President Biden. Elizabeth, welcome back to the program.
Speaker 7 (19:07):
It's going to hear from you.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
I want to lead on your expertise here and your
experience and something I know you're thinking about the moment.
Are we blurring the lines between national security and trade?
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Yeah, I mean I think that is a question that
was clearly raised over the past week or two with
the President's President Trump's decision to reverse his administration's earlier
decision April decision to put the export controls on in
Vidia's H twenty chit. You know, typically you put an
export control on technology that you believe could contribute to
(19:42):
you know, a country or companies in that country developing
military capabilities.
Speaker 9 (19:47):
That will undermine your national security.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
So that was the.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Decision that the administration made just in April, and then
we saw, you know, just earlier this month, that the
President reversed that decision without any explanation as to why
that decision was being reversed. And I think it points
to a larger challenge with its administration and that they
have not yet articulated a real China strategy. We don't
(20:10):
know whether this president considers China to continue to be
the greatest long term strategic threat, which is something that
his first administration did put out there as part of
a China strategy that helps an administration set priorities, you know,
understand the trade offs that you're.
Speaker 9 (20:26):
Going to make or not make.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
But without that kind of overarching framework, we don't know,
you know, where this president is coming.
Speaker 9 (20:33):
From, where he's going, whether everything is up for negotiation moving.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
Forward, Elizabeth, given your work in the Commerce Department, have
you ever seen anything like this, some corporation able to
get their hands on a license because they're willing to
give some of the revenue back to the US government.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
No, I mean, that was certainly a new twist, but
even taking one step back from that, it's a new
twist to have the head of the Bureau of Industry
and Security, Jeffick Kessler, go to London to be part
of the trade negotiations with China. You know, in the
Bide administration and frankly, in all previous administrations, you would
never consider linking export controls with trade negotiations. Export controls
(21:13):
deal with broad issues of foreign policy and national security.
You know, tying them in some way to trade really
makes no sense. But that's what this administration has opened,
the sort of the door to So I think it's
a it's a bigger problem, even more than just this
one off decision.
Speaker 9 (21:30):
Is just this new, you know world that we found
ourselves in.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
And as far as the fifteen percent revenue, you know,
the sort of you know, Nvidian A and D having
to give fifteen percent of their China the revenues from
the sale of these chips back to the US government.
Of course, that only sort of amplifieser reinforces the sense
that somehow our national security is up for sale, because
you know, does that mean that all chips moving forward,
(21:55):
or even other goods that the United States you know,
sells to China, can all that be subject to some
kind of new tax of some sort, and the revenues
will have to come back to the US government.
Speaker 9 (22:05):
It really is fundamentally.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Changing the nature of the inter relationship between national security
and trade, and frankly just trade generally.
Speaker 6 (22:13):
There's a number of issues brewing between these two economies. Fentanyl,
China continuously buying Russian and Iranian crude, disagreements about US
business operations in China when they sit down. What do
you think is the US's main goal out of this relationship.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
I mean, I would have said in the first Trump
administration that there was an emphasis placed first on, of course,
securing these big purchase agreements that again President Trump seems
to place as a top priority. He mentioned just yesterday
or the day before, having China quadruple its purchases of soybeans.
Speaker 9 (22:49):
Of course, China's already diversified away from the US.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
It gets seventy percent or more of its soy beans
for Brazil now because of the tariffs that the president began,
the tariff war that he started when he first came
into power.
Speaker 9 (23:01):
But I think number one, yes, getting more purchases from
the Chinese.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
But I think also the US wants to secure and
stable supply of rare earth elements from China, which are
of course essential for both our national security and technology industries.
And we saw what happened when China put the squeeze
on those, you know earlier, just a month or two ago.
You know, companies in the United States really began to
(23:27):
feel the pinch. So I think that's probably the second priority.
And then all of the trade adjacent issues that you
just mentioned, fentanyl, you know, China's economic support for Russia
in its war of aggression against Ukraine, you know, TikTok
is still standing out there. But I think those fundamental
issues around the Chinese economy, things like China's export of
(23:49):
its overcapacity in many areas of core technologies, I think
those are going to be very difficult for the Trump
administration to make progress on. I don't think they have
the leverage that they need, or maybe that they even
think they have to get China to sort of fundamentally
change the way that it does business.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
We're up against the clock, heare. But in the forty
five seconds we have left, Elizabeth, why has it been
so difficult to convince the Chinese they need to rebalance
their economy when so many economists agree that it might
be good for them.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
I mean, I think she Jinping has a vision of
how the Chinese economy should work in which is reliant
on exports and have the investment investment now into core technologies,
and he believes it is working for the Chinese economy
and is willing to suppress Chinese consumer demand and Chinese
incomes to achieve what he believes will be will put
China in a stronger long term putting moving forward.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Elizabeth Economy of the Hoover Institution, Elizabeth, thank you appreciate it.
As always, this is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you
the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics. You can watch
the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six
am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple,
Spotify or anywhere else you lists, and as always on
(25:01):
the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business out Mm hmm
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
with Lisa Bromwitz and am Marie Hordern. Join us each
day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and
geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We
are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to
nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify
or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the
(00:33):
Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business App. Tiffany Wannaga Pimpos
is going to join us in the meantime. Tiffany, Welcome
to the program. Is the store still open for a
Rake Cup in September?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (00:45):
I mean, I think this CPI was completely in line
with expectations how we've characterized the sort of Terra related
pass through. The evidence is that it's happening, but it's
happening slower than I think many people expected going back
to April, when when the more dramatic TERRFF announcements were
first implemented or announced. It's happening more slowly and across industries,
(01:09):
you know, it's it's more uneven, you know. So I
think the broader story here that we're still seeing is
that it's very concentrated within goods, it's happening slowly, and
outside of that, you know, inflationary pressures look very manageable.
So I think for a federal reserve, that is a
very good sign.
Speaker 5 (01:24):
You know.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
In addition to that, there's I would argue, better news
in terms of the so called second round effects with
higher prices leading to higher wages and getting.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
More into the inflationary process.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
We've actually seen inflation expectations from various surveys start to moderate.
The University of Michigan survey, which we'll get later this week,
the longer term inflation expectation index for that one had
accelerated more, but it's moderated more recently. So I think
all of this points to, you know, a central bank
that can get on with normalizing policy rates back to neutral.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
It's definitely something we've been exploring throughund the whole of
this morning, and to be fair, over the last several months.
Is whether tariff delayed. That's a taroft story is delayed
by the fact that we've seen fantastic infantry management from
some of the retailers at the moment, and that maybe
we haven't seen the full extent of this. When would
you get comfortable that we've seen the limits of it all.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
Yeah, I mean, I think, like you know, we expect
a good portion of the pass through over the next
several months. But I think the bottom line is is
that companies have room. It appears that companies have room
as a result of still high margins coming out of
the pandemic. Companies have room to sort of more slowly
pass this on to consumers. And and so what that
(02:38):
means is that, you know, goods inflation could be a
little bit more persistent over time, but you're not necessarily
going to have that bigger surge that many people expected
as you get that faster price level adjustment this year.
So I think for the FED, I think that's all
good news. You know. The other thing that we see
when we look at you know, a range of data,
you know, is that companies so far are absorbing we
(03:00):
think the lions share of the additional costs of tariffs,
and as I mentioned, they can do it. Their margins
were elevated post pandemic. That has remained the case, and
so they do have room here. You know, at least
the largest companies have room to sort of manage this process,
and we think that's what they're doing.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
You know. The other thing.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Is is the tax legislation that was recently passed, the
One Big Beautiful Bill, that is, you know, reducing the
effective tax rates for a lot of companies, especially those
companies that are capital intensive.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
They invest a lot.
Speaker 4 (03:34):
They're getting you know, upfront expensing tax credits and that
will help offset the impact of the tariffs as well.
A lot of those tax credits were retroactive for twenty
twenty five. So all of that just means that companies
do have a little bit of flexibility here and can
manage the pass through rate.
Speaker 6 (03:50):
So, Timmy, are you basically saying that because of the
One Big Beautiful Bill, companies are able to eat more
of the higher terifts from this administration.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
Yeah, I mean, I certainly think that that's the case.
Speaker 4 (04:02):
You know. Now, the you know, what we estimate in
terms of the tax savings in aggregate for twenty twenty
five is around you know, one hundred and fifty billion.
The tariff tax collections that are happening, we annualize at
about three hundred and fifty billions. So the tax legislation
(04:22):
is not completely offsetting the additional taxes paid by tariffs,
but it certainly is in mitigating some of it. And
so that's why, you know, we've argued you'll still see
we think some pass through of higher tariffs on two prices,
you'll get some price adjustment. But we think the risk
here is just that it takes longer than many people
are expecting, you know, the inflationary effects of this in
(04:44):
the back half of this year somewhat less, you know,
and again.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
That just sets the federal reserve up.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
To you know, to continues to restart its cutting cycle
to get back ultimately to neutral policy rates.
Speaker 7 (04:58):
Tiffany Wold, thank you.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
David Kenny, a JP Mork and Asset Management with us
around a table with David, good morning. Not going to
ask you that question. I just want to ask you
the following. When will you be comfortable that we've seen
the limits of this? How many more months of data
do you need?
Speaker 7 (05:11):
We're just getting started.
Speaker 8 (05:13):
I mean, what we saw today was plenty of inflation
without tariff effects. We didn't have a big increase in
new car prices. We never big increasing in a paro
of prices. But let's look at where we did see
an increase. Airline fares will come down a lot because the.
Speaker 7 (05:25):
Airline industry was very weak.
Speaker 8 (05:26):
But if you look at the recent data on people
going through TSA checkpoints, it's firmed up, and so domestic
airline travel is now back on a positive year over
year basis. We've got a lot of fiscal stimuls going
to kick into the economy early next year, but.
Speaker 7 (05:41):
Also in the tariffs.
Speaker 8 (05:43):
Even in July we saw a lot of money collected,
but it still equates to about a tariff rate of
about eight percent. We think this whole tariff rate is
going to go up to about fourteen and a half
percent measured by that later. So we've got most of
this tariff increase still ahead of us in terms of
just affecting the data. And then you know, people say, oh,
the retailer is going to eat it.
Speaker 7 (06:04):
No they're not. They just wrote the check. So so
of course, of course it.
Speaker 8 (06:07):
Looks like they're eating at Walmart writes a check, but
eventually they're going to pass it on, and yes, they've
got good margins, but how do they manage to sustain
these margins because they're great at figuring it out and
figuring out how to stiff consumers, and that's what they'll do.
And so this thing will feed through. It's just a
matter of a number of number of months. And you know,
inflation is going up, but it's going up very steadily,
and it will be above we think about three and
(06:29):
a half percent in CPI by the end of the year.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
You've made some important points here. One is that you
believe that goods prices will continue to affirm through the
year ahead, and that you're not going to see an
offset from services. Is that right?
Speaker 8 (06:40):
That's correct, because what's going to happen is the economy
is going to be slower in the second half of
this year as these this goods inflation feeds through. But
the big kicker here that people are not talking about
is a huge rush of income tax refunds that's going
to kick in and the start of the next year.
It's going to be like an extra stimulus check.
Speaker 7 (06:58):
And that you know, we've seen what happens.
Speaker 8 (07:00):
You give him as a cookie, he's going to want
a glass of milk. You give an American consumer a
stimulus check, they will spend it and You're going to
have a surge of spending in the first half of
next year with limited supply because of all these terriff
and supply chain disruptions. You are going to get a
second round of inflation, which is going to sustain inflation
well above three percent, which begs the question of why
again is a FED cutting Well that if infation's heading
(07:22):
the wrong way slowly.
Speaker 6 (07:23):
That was going my next question to you, what does
the FED do with this kind of data?
Speaker 7 (07:27):
They should stay on hold.
Speaker 8 (07:29):
There is I think there's very little argument that in
favor of the FED cutting rates. Rates are not abnormally high.
I don't know why they think three percent is a
neutral rate in the long run, It doesn't equate to
history before the pandemic. I think something four four and
a half percent is more of a neutral rate anyway,
But there is no urgency about cutting rates, and now
I think they will cut rates for political reasons, which
(07:49):
is very unfortunate. But I don't think they should based
on these data.
Speaker 6 (07:52):
As you're talking, traders are actually adding to betts of
September fed raate cup because this basically came in in
line when it comes to inflation. Why for political reasons
when actually we saw a trend three months of not
so great unemployment numbers.
Speaker 8 (08:06):
Well yeah, but if you look at the overall mosaic
of employment, it's still growing. And remember we've got to
labor supply problem too. And one of the things that
Jay Powell pointed out is he's not looking at payroll growth,
he's looking at the unemployment range. If you've got fewer
jobs being created, but we've got fewer workers, then you
still got a certain amount of inflationary pressure. You just
said that the growth potentially of the economy has gone down. Well,
(08:28):
they can't do anything about that. So if you're not
this economy is not going to spark a huge surge
in unemployment. And I think the basic point is by
the end of the year, we think maybe four and
a half percent unemployment, we think over three percent in inflation.
They're missing their inflation target by more than unemployment. Therefore
they shouldn't be come just.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Tanning this up, though, but you believe they will be cuttack.
So you've got a federal Reserve cutting interest rates at
a time when inflation is picking up. And the key
phrase you used with second round effects, you don't believe
this is a one off. You're actually going to see
second round effects in the first half of twenty six.
What's your market for you on something?
Speaker 8 (09:00):
Well, so I think it's the Markt view is not
too bad because I think, for again, for political reasons,
I think unfortunately feder will cut twice this year, maybe
three times next year. They'll get going and cutting. It's
not going to really change the economy that much. But
if you bring long term bring short rates down enough,
it does push extra liquidity into the equity market. So
you could just maintain these bubbly acid markets. What we've
(09:21):
got is a tortoise of an economy and a hair
of a market, and we're just giving more sugar.
Speaker 7 (09:26):
To the hair.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
That's the stock story. What about a fixed income story
for bonds? Because we've had guest staff. The guests come
on this program and site get ready for speryeld curve.
The guy aggressive at the front end, you're going to
see yields LOWA. At the long end, you're going to
say a questionable development.
Speaker 8 (09:40):
Well, you know it's again it's hard for a tortoise
psych economy to generate a really steep yield curve. So
but I think you could see rates move up a bit,
I wouldn't be I wouldn't be long duration here because
I don't think this economy is going to go in
for a session.
Speaker 7 (09:54):
I think by the time that the tariffs really.
Speaker 8 (09:57):
Hit going to be on the verge of physical stimulus
because of this income tax refund thing, and that will
keep this keep this economy moving forward. And if the
economy is moving forward, you got inflation printing at three,
you shouldn't really have a long bond lower than four two.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
What do you think inflation is going to pay cat
in the next twelve months.
Speaker 8 (10:12):
I think CPI is going to peek out about three
and a half percent and then hang there between three
three and a half percent through about June of next year,
and then find it's going to come down again because
this is sugar you know, these income tax refunds.
Speaker 7 (10:22):
It's a sugar rush. It's not proteine. It will wear
her off.
Speaker 8 (10:25):
And then by the end of next year, then I
think the economy is finding cuding it unless, of course,
you get some more stimulus. And that's really the problem,
because if the Fed keeps on cutting rates whenever, whenever,
you know, the other side of Washington asks them to
then it enables more and more rounds of fiscal stimulus
to always keep this economy a little bit too hot.
Speaker 7 (10:41):
So it's not it's not you know, it's called inflammation.
Doctors don't like it.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
David.
Speaker 7 (10:45):
It's got a hair from you.
Speaker 2 (10:56):
It's the nicest This morning, Chinese authorities urging local companies
to avoid using a Video's eight twenty chip. So its
just telling us here at Bloomberger the firms are being
discouraged from using the chips, especially for government related purposes.
Joining US snout to discuss as John Leber, if you
raise a group, John malcome to the program, sir. I
just wonder what the endgame has here for the Chinese
and what ultimately they're trying to achieve.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
I think the end games that the Chinese want to
have their own chip and they don't want to be
dependent on the US tech stack. And that's one of
the reasons that Trump allowed these H twenty exports was
because he bought into the argument that if the US
dominates chip technology, and if the Chinese learned to rely
on that in their own technology stacks, then it brings them.
It gives the US more power, not less here and
(11:39):
if the Chinese recognized that argument, it's somewhat valid, and
so what they want to do is encourage people not
to use the American tech. And they know also how
vulnerable they are to things like the foreign direct Product
rule and the other rules that the US has used
to weaponize their own technology supply chain over the past
several years. And now that's the long term game here.
(12:00):
I think the H twenty is just one part of that.
But technological development is going to determine what happens here,
not necessarily export controls.
Speaker 6 (12:08):
John when it comes to Nvidia and AMD selling these chips,
getting these export licenses to go back into China.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
What kind of pushback have.
Speaker 6 (12:16):
You heard in Washington from both individuals who are questioning
whether the fifteen percent revenue cash back to the United
States is legal and the China Hawks as well in
the Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
Yeah, I mean the fifteen percent revenue take makes it
look like to certain people, and I think this is
a valid argument that national security is now for sale.
I'm sure a lot of companies will be very happy
if they had the opportunity to buy their way out
of US regulations that otherwise ban them from doing business.
You know, in a way, this is a version of
a carbon tax, where you're selling you're purchasing the right
(12:48):
to pollute. Here, you're purchasing the right to undermine America's
national security by selling these chips to the Chinese, which
a lot of China Hawks in Washington are not happy
about because they believe that this is a needabling Chinese
technological development. This is a contrary to the policy of
the Biden administration and up until last week, the policy
of the Trump administration, which was of course to deny
(13:09):
the Chinese access to these chips. This is a very
controversial move. It's never been done before as far as
we're aware, and you know there's Trump's getting a lot
of pushback, both from the security hawks and also people
who argue this is an illegal export tax, which I'm
pretty confident they'll find their way around. But this is
something new we've never seen before.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
Do you think this is a one off or we're
going to see more policy.
Speaker 5 (13:32):
Like this, that's a good question. I think we don't
know yet. I don't think there's a lot of areas
where this type of thing is doable, where you know
you've got an export ban that somebody wants to that
they're offering the chance to raise some revenue off of
So I'm not sure where else we could see it,
but we still have. You Know, one of the things
that's really surprising to me to remember all the time
(13:54):
is there's still three and a half years left in
this administration, and we know Trump loves to do these
types of deals. So it wouldn't surprise me to see
this show up in other areas. It's just hard to
predict which ones yet.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Well, John, let's talk about what we learned from the
first term under President Trump. In Trump Volume one, there
was a coherent ideology governing trade policy. Whether you liked
it or not, I happened to be sympathetic to the
concerns they had about reciprocity in a country like China
who had put barriers to entry up all over the place. John,
Now I'm struggling with what the framework is exactly this
(14:24):
time around.
Speaker 7 (14:25):
How you explaining this to people at the moment.
Speaker 5 (14:27):
Yeah, I mean a huge difference between this term and
last term is you don't have the strong personality of
Robert Leitheiser directing a lot of Trump's trade policies. What
you have instead is the strong personality of Donald Trump
directing these policies, and Trump is going every which way,
and you know, it's obvious that in some cases he's
motivated to get a deal. We saw that with all
(14:48):
these countries pre August first, and in other cases you
see personal relationships starting to sour and take over the
ability for the US to cut deals, like what's happening
with the US and India.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Now.
Speaker 5 (15:00):
I think at the core of it, though Trump remains
a very transactional guy. He's somebody that wants to see
higher tariffs, and he's somebody that wants to do deals
in order to keep those in order to get those tariffs.
With China, you know, they've been able to leverage their
use of rare earths and critical minerals to great effect.
The US national security community is in a panic about
(15:21):
its ability to build weapons in the United States because
of the Chow points that China has been using to
deny the US those critical minerals and Trump himself, and
that's driving a lot of the China policy right now.
So I don't think there's a consistent strain that you
can pull through here, but it is worth pointing out
that Trump ran on a campaign of higher tariffs, and
now the US is getting them with an average effective
(15:43):
rate somewhere in the mid to high teens. And that's
a huge shift that reflects Trump's own personality and his
own policy parpers.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Well, let's just sit on that transactional nature. Nothing new,
quite well understood. Where people struggle, is what defines whether
it's a good transaction or a bad transaction, and what
kind of feedback loops is the president's sensitive too.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
Well, Clearly he's sensitive to feedback from the private sector.
I mean, the reason that the Liberation Day tariffs were
paused in the first place was because of what he
called the yippiness in the bond market. So that's one
type of feedback. Another type of feedback he's clearly sensitive
to is direct feedback from the business community. His meeting
with Jensen Wong directly led to the selling of these
H twenty chips into China. And I also think that
(16:24):
he's sensitive to the positive feedback he's getting from the
deals that are happening where his US trading partners aren't
putting up any real resistance here, nobody's retaliating. I think
that's an important point, is that he's faced virtually zero retaliation,
and that's allowed him to get away with these higher tariffs.
And I think going forward, the feedback that might cause
him the reverse course would be economic weakness, major complaints
(16:47):
from the US business community, big businesses who are going
to have the ear of the president, and I think
that that means that probably small businesses are getting left
out of this because he's not necessarily hearing their voices.
Speaker 6 (16:58):
John, when it comes to the trade agreement, we have
core have the punting of the negotiations. When it comes
to China and the United States, you mentioned the victory
really of Beijing using those rare earth magnets in lieu
of making sure they can loosen up export controls. Would
you say Beijing has the leverage going into November, Not necessarily.
Speaker 5 (17:18):
I mean, I think you have to be mindful of
the fact that China is going to face higher tariffs.
They're just comfortable their system is prepared for a level
of higher tariffs and they can deal with tariffs in
the thirty percent range, which is where we think tariffs
on China are going to end up here. However, you know,
I don't want to play down the fact that they
have been able to play this critical mineral game very
(17:38):
very well in the US is obviously very serious sensitive
to it. But this is not necessarily a positive story
from the Chinese economy either.
Speaker 6 (17:45):
When it comes to what the United States wants to
see out of China. They're dealing with export controls, They're
dealing with rare eergs. The President the other day was
truthing about soybeans. What else is on the list before
potentially she and Trump can meet and get to this
grand bargain of a deal.
Speaker 5 (18:03):
Yeah, I mean, we don't see a grand bargain. I
think we don't think a grand bargain is necessarily the
right way to describe this. We're thinking about this as
a very transactional deal. So the US is going to
raise its tariff levels on Chinese goods. China will make
some purchase commitments about market access. They're not going to
fundamentally reform their economy, which was of course the goal
in Trump won and the goal of some of the
Chinahawks in this administration. But what they're going to do
(18:26):
is make enough promises to buy enough time that they
can live with these thirty percent tariffs and then hope
to fight that out in the next presidential term. I'm
not at all convinced these tariffs are going down even
after President Trump's term is over. None of the China
tariffs went down after his first term, and these things
have a way of being enduring.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
John, I appreciate the update, the reaction from you, sir
as always, thank you, John labor there if you write
your group and listen with the economy of the Hoover
Institution and the former senior advisor for China and the
Commis Department under President Biden. Elizabeth, welcome back to the program.
Speaker 7 (19:07):
It's going to hear from you.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
I want to lead on your expertise here and your
experience and something I know you're thinking about the moment.
Are we blurring the lines between national security and trade?
Speaker 1 (19:17):
Yeah, I mean I think that is a question that
was clearly raised over the past week or two with
the President's President Trump's decision to reverse his administration's earlier
decision April decision to put the export controls on in
Vidia's H twenty chit. You know, typically you put an
export control on technology that you believe could contribute to
(19:42):
you know, a country or companies in that country developing
military capabilities.
Speaker 9 (19:47):
That will undermine your national security.
Speaker 4 (19:49):
So that was the.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Decision that the administration made just in April, and then
we saw, you know, just earlier this month, that the
President reversed that decision without any explanation as to why
that decision was being reversed. And I think it points
to a larger challenge with its administration and that they
have not yet articulated a real China strategy. We don't
(20:10):
know whether this president considers China to continue to be
the greatest long term strategic threat, which is something that
his first administration did put out there as part of
a China strategy that helps an administration set priorities, you know,
understand the trade offs that you're.
Speaker 9 (20:26):
Going to make or not make.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
But without that kind of overarching framework, we don't know,
you know, where this president is coming.
Speaker 9 (20:33):
From, where he's going, whether everything is up for negotiation moving.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
Forward, Elizabeth, given your work in the Commerce Department, have
you ever seen anything like this, some corporation able to
get their hands on a license because they're willing to
give some of the revenue back to the US government.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
No, I mean, that was certainly a new twist, but
even taking one step back from that, it's a new
twist to have the head of the Bureau of Industry
and Security, Jeffick Kessler, go to London to be part
of the trade negotiations with China. You know, in the
Bide administration and frankly, in all previous administrations, you would
never consider linking export controls with trade negotiations. Export controls
(21:13):
deal with broad issues of foreign policy and national security.
You know, tying them in some way to trade really
makes no sense. But that's what this administration has opened,
the sort of the door to So I think it's
a it's a bigger problem, even more than just this
one off decision.
Speaker 9 (21:30):
Is just this new, you know world that we found
ourselves in.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
And as far as the fifteen percent revenue, you know,
the sort of you know, Nvidian A and D having
to give fifteen percent of their China the revenues from
the sale of these chips back to the US government.
Of course, that only sort of amplifieser reinforces the sense
that somehow our national security is up for sale, because
you know, does that mean that all chips moving forward,
(21:55):
or even other goods that the United States you know,
sells to China, can all that be subject to some
kind of new tax of some sort, and the revenues
will have to come back to the US government.
Speaker 9 (22:05):
It really is fundamentally.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Changing the nature of the inter relationship between national security
and trade, and frankly just trade generally.
Speaker 6 (22:13):
There's a number of issues brewing between these two economies. Fentanyl,
China continuously buying Russian and Iranian crude, disagreements about US
business operations in China when they sit down. What do
you think is the US's main goal out of this relationship.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
I mean, I would have said in the first Trump
administration that there was an emphasis placed first on, of course,
securing these big purchase agreements that again President Trump seems
to place as a top priority. He mentioned just yesterday
or the day before, having China quadruple its purchases of soybeans.
Speaker 9 (22:49):
Of course, China's already diversified away from the US.
Speaker 1 (22:52):
It gets seventy percent or more of its soy beans
for Brazil now because of the tariffs that the president began,
the tariff war that he started when he first came
into power.
Speaker 9 (23:01):
But I think number one, yes, getting more purchases from
the Chinese.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
But I think also the US wants to secure and
stable supply of rare earth elements from China, which are
of course essential for both our national security and technology industries.
And we saw what happened when China put the squeeze
on those, you know earlier, just a month or two ago.
You know, companies in the United States really began to
(23:27):
feel the pinch. So I think that's probably the second priority.
And then all of the trade adjacent issues that you
just mentioned, fentanyl, you know, China's economic support for Russia
in its war of aggression against Ukraine, you know, TikTok
is still standing out there. But I think those fundamental
issues around the Chinese economy, things like China's export of
(23:49):
its overcapacity in many areas of core technologies, I think
those are going to be very difficult for the Trump
administration to make progress on. I don't think they have
the leverage that they need, or maybe that they even
think they have to get China to sort of fundamentally
change the way that it does business.
Speaker 2 (24:05):
We're up against the clock, heare. But in the forty
five seconds we have left, Elizabeth, why has it been
so difficult to convince the Chinese they need to rebalance
their economy when so many economists agree that it might
be good for them.
Speaker 1 (24:17):
I mean, I think she Jinping has a vision of
how the Chinese economy should work in which is reliant
on exports and have the investment investment now into core technologies,
and he believes it is working for the Chinese economy
and is willing to suppress Chinese consumer demand and Chinese
incomes to achieve what he believes will be will put
China in a stronger long term putting moving forward.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
Elizabeth Economy of the Hoover Institution, Elizabeth, thank you appreciate it.
As always, this is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you
the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics. You can watch
the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six
am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple,
Spotify or anywhere else you lists, and as always on
(25:01):
the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business out Mm hmm
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!