This is a Calculated Strategy, Peter Navarro Says

I'm cautially hopeful that will reach an agreement. Jim Glassman with US JP Morgan, head economist of Commercial Banking here in New York. Jimmy, you cautiously hopeful that'll reach an agreement with the Chinese. Yeah, you know, because obviously we don't like the sound of terriffs. Tariffs remind us of global trade wars from a hundred years ago, in nineteen thirties. But the truth is, if if you really look past all the noise, the real argument here is a beef

with China and intellectual property rights and technology transfers. I've been hearing that story from businesses for a long time, so I think what we're hoping is this is part of a big negotiating strategy and what it's gonna do is make China realize they need to work harder to figure out how to how to take care of this issue. So I think at the end of the day, this is not going to spark global trade war. It's not in anyone's interest. We would lose as much as anybody

else would. And I think there's reason to be to give them the benefit of the doubt that if this actually sets the States for some real negotiations behind these on the scenes, and we don't need tariffs, fine, I mean we we've already seen many of the still a luminate tariffs most countries were exempted from. They have been big coughs out for for a lot of countries. There

is a fairbout Jim, this neghost yadding tactic. If you want to frame the approach of this administration, that why um gets out of control and wrong and thing's gonna be dangerous base case though, Jim, I think the base cases there's too much at stake here for both China

and US and everybody else. Uh. And it's it's it's bizarre to me that after having gone through all this effort to get the taxed before them and get a U. S. Tax code in a line with everybody else, We're gonna come along and do something on the trade front to totally undermine that it doesn't make sense. So I'm willing to I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the real goal here is to try to

address these violation of intellectual property rights. We've been using you this morning, Jim Glass, to give us great international economics. We had met on the guard On earlier. We got Peter Navarro coming up, Like, folks, I'm gonna get out in front of this because Dr Navarro has got some real strong views that many of our listeners frankly agree with. Their basic idea off of his books is China's bad, China's evil, and we got to go head on against China.

What's the price of a Navarro approach to China. We all lose, China loses, us loses. We all lose because because what's going on here is Asia is where half the world lives. In Asia, they're going through an industrial revolution. Are the industrial revolution benefited fift of the world's population Europe, In the US what's going on now is benefiting half the world's population. But the thing is, it's not just

benefiting them, it's benefiting all of us. Our business community is engaged there, and so if we do something to try to stymy what's going on in Asia, we all lose out. It's all it's all about future possibilities, future opportunity. And I think that's why you kind of be to my team. My mind. You kind of have to look past I can understand why politicians don't like to do this, but there's gonna be a lot of abuses when when you have large countries growing rapidly rising, there's gonna be abuses.

And I'm sure the Brits complained about American businesses stealing technology in the old days and a couple of years ago. This is just what happens. And I think that over time here, as the region rises, we're going to find out that there's so much benefit for all of us. But Jim, at least just to sit here and say that it's okay for one nation to cheat, even if they're the second biggest economy on the planet. It's okay

for that to cheat because the status quo still benefits US. Yeah, I think everybody cheats frankly, and it's a question of I think it's not surprising that when China is growing so rapidly. I remember the complaints about Japan in the early days they were copying a lot of processes here doing the better. But I think as countries mature, they realize that it's important to respect rule of law and intellectual property rights because Chinese will be inventing things as well.

So I think I think it's it's hard for politicians to do this, but I think if you think about the big picture what lies ahead, there's so much possibility coming for a world, and honestly, I don't think we can stop it. I think when people are poor and they found a way to make it happened. I mean, it's interesting to me that Chinese love American products. You agree with with Brad DeLong and Danny Roderick and others.

At the heart of the matter here is we we had an agreement with the American worker that if we did globalization, you'd somehow be compensated for the loss of your blue collar manufacturing job in North Carolina. That's the failure. That's the failures failure. We all failed. We so we we we economys tend to look at I really think the problem for the guy in Ohio and and the

guy working the auto plant is automation. We saw that coming and we think, well, that's the great that's the way it always is, and we forget that it's disruptive and people lose jobs and lose opportunity. And I think the failure was not working hard to find alternatives for people and helping them get skilled up. And then a lot of that work used to be done by unions,

so we don't do that. To be clear, and you're wonderful power points you put together, and then all the work that JP Morgan does with the Chasman team, what is the mix of domestic economic growth near boom and the foreign dampening that comes from larger large imports lesser exports. You know, it's it's really hard to tell because our exports have risen a huge amount too. So what that means is um if we could somehow close the trade gap and not harm everybody else, we would probably be

able to There would be more jobs here. But the problem is this process of letting free trade open up, even though it means trade deficits, it's also creating new jobs, and so it's difficult to know exactly. And I think that's the problem for most Americans. They see the jobs that might have migrated to Michigan, I mean, to to to Mexico or to China, but they can't see the jobs that are getting created by this globalization that's happening around us. If the world if the problem is it's

not a zero sum pie. The world pie is growing, and so we are an important part of that. And I think you know, you look at how the U. S. Economy is performing. We're doing really well. Now we're back to we're close to full employment. The big challenge has been for people who are working in the industries where automation is displacing routine work. Jim Glassman, thank you so much, greatly appreciative. He charges in with hostile intent for over after over, He even races back to his mark with

unrelenting purpose. Wagner took just three wickets in the match, but one of them critically with his last ball before dinner, was that of Stokes. John. Let's do cricket for like thirty seconds. We're here with the Consul General of the United Kingdom, and sir, you're apault. Is it an international incident that Australia Tampa the ball and England can't beat New Zealand? Is this like international? Is this risen to

an international event? No? I don't think it has. I think the ball tempering is pretty appalling, but I can't put it better than the Australian Prime minister. And as for US losing to New Zealand, world, there's a second test soon and as I once said before on Bloomberg, at least the baseball season starts soon. There you go in basic, can you tamper with the ball in base Oh? We got, yes, we got that. A spit and a spinder used to be legal, and then it was made

ill you can't do. Then you would sit in the backyard and practice it, and then your father would cuff you across the head and say, if you do a spinner in little league, you will not eat for a week. Interesting. I wonder if Anthony Phillipson would prefer to talk about cricket or Brexit politics Anthony in the United Kingdom, this conversation about the city of London improved equivalence. I think is the jargon for improve the covalence. Is that right?

What is that? So? I think I would take us back to the Chancellor made a speech in the City of London on March seventh where he set out in some detail what our our proposals were for the new relationship between the UK and the EU and the area financial services and talked a lot about a system of reciprocal regulatory equivalents with a degree of common supervision, common dispute resolution mechanism, etcetera, etcetera, all designed to sort of

ensure that as we remain engaged, which is our ambition, there will continue to be sort of the necessary degree of financial stability expurence in both directions. So if you're a bank in the City of London and this is the agreement, are they going to get the certainty they need? Well?

I think they will, and maybe in two regards. First of all, one thing that they will get through the implementation period is certainty and clarity out to December twenty twenty, by which time we will have the new partnership ready to come into place. And then if we achieve our ambition has set out as a say in the Chancellor speech. But also I would say reflected in the guidelines that the counts all the twenty seven member states meeting as the Council on Friday issue to the commissioned and I

think will be in a good place. Is it up for the Europeans post twenty to just decide on a whim whether there is equivalence or not. Well, that's why I think we need this, this mechanism that has both sides with with a stake in the discussion, because we need the certainty and we need we need both sides to have the necessary certainty in order to to provide

that assurance going forward. It's become very, very difficult to make an agreement with the Europeans at a time when the United States is pushing for agreements new agreements from from almost everyone has Brexit politics and making trade agreements got harder over the last weeks and not easier. I don't know. I'm not sure it's as a binary sort of one way or the other. I mean, it's a very fluid situation. International trade has always been quite fluid.

I would say the UK, we have our objectives with regard to that. You we have our objectives with regard to the US, and we'll gear up for and drive momentum towards as we as we prepare and then leave the EU, and we'll continue to sort of push in both directions at once. How do you sell exports in the United States? How do you get US? I mean, you want us to buy hardware and all the fancy value add stuff. But how do you get those cookies they have in Herod's as you go in and you

go back three rooms. How do you move more of those in the United States? Well, one thing I would point out is that we've been quite successful at this for a while. I mean, the US single biggest export market across the whole variety of sectors. How about that Blackhead we put up against the Confederacy in eighteen sixty three. That worked out well. We all learn lessons from history, um,

so as we look forward. I think there's actually one thing I would say in Washington last week we did with our colleagues at USTR and Commerce set up a

really good and sort of successful sm dialogue. And the reason I mentioned that is because even before we leave the EU, there's so much that we can do to continue to help UK companies exports to the US and US companies export to the UK, and some of it is just sort of explaining to each other how our systems work and what the benefit are of being in each other's. Well, what's your reciprocity headache? Right now? The President was mental about China reciprocity. We have an issue.

What's a product in the United Kingdom where the United States are better? Out of shape about reciprocity. I think if okay, if I had to pick one, I probably would say that one of the things that our companies wrestle with are things like federal and state level procurement rules. Um. You know, there are things that are a an impediment to trade investment between US and there's those are the sorts of things. Now I'm believing I'm not saying that I expect the US to sort of remove their procurement

rules entirely. It's one of the reasons why we encourage sort of UK companies to invest here and then they become effectively sort of U S entities and and can can invent themselves in local economy. Um. I mean another report we did recently is we we mapped by congressional district the exports from those districts to the UK and the US jobs that rely on them, and we're talking

a hundreds of thousands. With the statistic we like to use, is it every day a million brands going to work for American companies and a million Americans got to work for British company Council Journal will thank you so much, Mr Phillipson. It's with the United Kingdom and Consulate General offices here in New York. Joining us now Peter Navarro.

He is Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing policy and has been a lightning rod of debate and criticism as we have moved to a new trading strategy. Dr Navarro, wonderful day have you with us right now? Your arch critics would suggest that you and the Secretary Commerce Mr Ross are immune to the game theory the responses that are made to us action. What will be the game theoretic response of China to the events you

have proposed and now the actions we see from the President. Well, Tom, I'm good to be here with you. First of all, Um, not in a world of game theory. We're in a real world and we have, as we're speaking, efforts by the Secretary of Treasury Steve Anusian and Ambassador Robert Leichheiser to continue to engage the Chinese side, which we've been doing since they wanted this administration, seeking to address a

couple of things. One is the massive trade imbalance we have with China, which costs US factories, jobs, wages, and the like. But also this pernicious practice of the transfer of US technology and electoral property to China, not just through theft, which most Americans understand that China engages in, but also through this pernicious practice of what's called forced technology transfer, whereby an American corporation which goes to China to try to sell into that market sincerely must be

a minority partner and surrender their case. Okay, this is unacceptable. Well it's unacceptable, but but but Dr Navarro, there seems to be a shift and discourse and rhetoric. Here. We went after aluminum and steel, we backed away from that with all sorts of trading partners, and now we're going after a tariff theory to then go after the intellectual property debate. Why do we need to screw around with tariffs if the real issue is to go after intellectual

property and forced technology transfer? Uh? Tom whot me? You first address the the aluminum steel because because when you dismissed that, I think is is U doesn't do justice to the situation. Um. What we've done with aluminum steel is imposed tariffs across the board. Uh and for a very temporary period through May one, we're giving a selecting number of countries the opportunity to negotiate a better deal

that will be in the interest in national security. But and this is a egg butt, Tom, the proviser is going to be that any country that does not be subject to the tariffs have a quota or some other strict restrictions so that we can maintain the defense of our aluminum stealingscry. So there's no letting people out the door,

willy nilly. This is a very calculated, important strategy for the American people with respect to your question of how to address the Chinese problem with respect to the the intellectual property. It's a two prompt strategy. One carreiffs, the other is investment restrictions, which Secretary Treasury Steven Nutin will be vailing in the not too distant future. Why do we need to caress the reason why we need fifty billion dollars worth of tariffs is because that's the harm that China

does to us annually. You can think of it as a compensatory damages, and it is quite damaging. And it doesn't even take into account the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been estimated to cost the American bill annually from other types of transfer like cyberstp SO tariffs

to recover damages. Investment restrictions basically focus on what is a very large pool of Chinese money coming into the United States and targeting strategically key technology industries, not so that they can make a rate to return like you and I would normally do in a free market, but you're doing that for strategic purposes to enhance their military

security and their eco security at expense. If you're just joining us as Peter Navar with this Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing policy, and we're thrilled to have Washington join us right now Bloomberg Daybreak in a FM Washington as well. We welcome all of you worldwide and across this UH nation. Peter Navarro, what's the common ground of Peter Navarro with Lawrence cut Love, Oh, Larry.

Larry is a very good friend of mine, we go back more than a deck a when when I was on him, was on his show frequently in that Yeah, but he's a free trade guy. He's going to tell you stop at China is not evil, that there's a joint price to going after China where it's going to be the common ground with you with let's step back and look at four point program for the president's. President

Trump's brilliant economic plan is deregulation. Check that box with Larry and I. Tax cuts, and check that box with Larry and I. Unleashing the energy sector so we're gonna have low cost for our manufacturers and consumers. Check that box with Larry and I. When it comes to trade, Larry has been quite vocal about the China issue. He has said, as we all have in this administration, that China basically needs to become a free trader, not an unfair trader. And so a lot of common ground with

Larry Cudlow and I on the China issue. But and he said that it's gonna be great to be in with the President and have discussions where there's different points of view, and that's you didn't have different points whatever. And I will suggest as Dr Navars. You and I have known each other for well over a decade. You came advertised with your books. Now the Coming China Wars was one of your most successful books. You have a

chapter They're Made in China, the ultimate warning label. Are you going to change with your policy with the President? That label made in China? I don't understand that question here and Tom, but my job here in the White House is to create manufacturing jobs for the men and women of America, doing the best things I can and providing the best possible advice I can to the President,

and he gets advice from many different quarters. Key, President Trump, this is his vision, right, he is his own man. I will agree with that, that's true. What how can you think anybody that I somehow be able to push him in one direction or another. That's silly. He just wants advice. But Dr Devar, is his vision for a mercantilist America? Absolutely not, Tom. We are free traders. We

are free traders. But what the President has said is that we have a structural problem in the global economy, massive trade imbalances which are fueled by unfair and non reciprocal trade. And the President Trump's vision, which is brilliant is the restructure of the global trading environment in a

way where trade is pair and reciprocal. There's no reason why the United States has to face fire terrace when it sends its cars to China or Europe than those countries in that block does when it sends them here. It's silly. I mean, if you want to sell sell a car from Detroit to China, you pay a twenty five percent. If they want to sell a car from Shanghai here, it's two point five percent. And when you try to sell a guard to Europe you have a

similar kind of the disadvantage. It's it's not quite of the same magnitude, but it's very significant. That's not fair trade. And and Tom, I mean, look, do you think that China should be stealing our I p of course not. Do you think that they should force Americans? But I would suggest respectfully that in the last two weeks, Start Navarra, we have conflated a tariff debate with an intellectual property debate.

Let me do this, Peter naviar We want to continue this conversation, and we can do that by bringing in my colleague John Farrell. John Farrell with Peter Navarral coast to coast Dotor Navarre. We've spoken before, of course, and you've identified a problem that I think most economists would agree with, and that's China has cheated the international system.

I think there's a real debate about the approach at the moment, about whether this approach actually brings China to the negotiation table or forced to China the other way. How confident are you that this actually brings them to the negotiating typo. Well, there there, we are already at the negotiating table. As the Secretary of the Treasury, Stevenutchen said over the weekend, he and Ambassador Robert Leightheiser actively

engaged with the Chinese side. Add we have been engaged with the Chinese side since day one of this administration. Remember in April there was the Mari Lago Summit. Then a hundred days later we revisited these issues, and all along the way we've been talking. But the problem is talk isn't cheap with the Chinese side. It's been very expensive.

And the history of dialogue with the Chinese, precisely over these issues dates back to two thousand three and the Bush administration, when the Bush administration instituted these annual dialogues with the Chinese. They went on for every year right up until the Trump administration, and all of its happened. Is the deficit with China has swelled Olden. They just keep stealing our stuff and forcing the transfer it. If anything,

it's gotten a lot worse. And when you have the American Chamber of Commerce and the European Chamber of Commerce and Capitol Hill and everybody else in between basically saying the same thing that China is taking advantage of this country, we have now a president with the courage and vision to basically address that situation. I don't disagree with you. I think that's exactly where we're at. People on Wall Street who have acknowledged this problem for years but never

come up with a solution. I don't want to have to debate about whether it's a problem or not, because most people listen to this program agree with you that there's a problem. The Treasury Secretary of the way Ken says he's cautiously hopeful we'll reach an agreement. Can you tell me what we're cautiously hopeful for. I want to talk about the results you expect to get in the coming weeks and months. What are you looking for, Dr Navarro? Well, it's not what I'm looking for. The President has said

quite clearly two things. One like to see a hundred billion dollar reduction in the trade deficit this year. And he would also like to see a China which respects our intellectual property rights and basically becomes part of a global trading system where we have fair and reciprocal trade. I mean, it's not too much to ask, but look,

we have a trade deficit in goods with China. That's sword now, the three hundred and seventy billion dollars a year by some calculations, one billion dollars of the trade deficit due to unfair trade practices, basically exports six thousand American jobs to China. If you if you just tallly that up, that's over two million jobs, good manufacturing jobs we've sent off shore to China a year because of

that deficit, and it pushes down our wages. I mean, since China joined the World Trade Organization, let me just give you the statistic, because it's stunning. There's China joined the World Trade Organization two thousand one econ. He has grown from one trillion a year to twelve trillion growth rate where we went into an era basically the new normal two percent growth rate when the previous five gotta come on, Come on, we're but we're coming off of

a hugely larger base. Dr Navarro, John B. Taylor, Stanford University and Paul Krugman of Princeton don't agree on whether the sun comes up in the East, but they both agree that Navarro econ. Yeah, they don't. I mean, good morning, Dr Taylor listening out in Stanford and Paul Krugman listens every day, Okay, but they both agree that naviro economics

is flawed. How do you respond to the laureate from Princeton and the gentleman from Stanford that invented a lot of our monetary economics when they say naviro economics is wrong? How do you respond? It's quite simple. I'm of the belief, the strong belief, based on analytics, that trade deficits and trade imbalances create unemployment and low wages in the United States, and in doing so, they threaten our manufacturing base, a

defense industrial base. And I'll tell you this. When I wrote that book you referenced earlier to come in China Wars, in two thousand six, everybody accused me of hyperbole. The right now, it's the conventional wisdom. So I would say Mr Taylor and Mr Kruman need to stop looking in their rear view mirror and start looking at what reality is. It's ironic to me that the American people as a whole are much better economists than a lot of people

in my professions. American people understand that they're getting hammered by unfair and non reciprocal trade, which is why they elected a visionary and creation and President Trump. So if we wander back to Helping twelve and David Ricardo and we look at comparative advantage, I mean, but okay, so you don't want to go forward with the David Ricardo, I understand. I get that, but it's gonna be what's

the comparative advantage of China. The comparative advantage of China over the rest of the world is they steal our stuff. They have a sweatshop labor, they don't respect any kind of environmental laws, and they engage in massive subsidization of their interest industries. And they use their state owned enterprises as weapons, not their own race to return but to capture industry. If we conflated then I go back to

my ricardo, I go, that's true. I go back to my original idea, which is we've conflated a tariff discussion with what you just mentioned, which is technology and intellectual property theft. There's no everyone agrees that's going on. But if we conflated the two into an ugly trade war where they will respond to what the president does, well, here's what I was, Well, this is really important what

I'm about. Please, I think everybody needs to stop talking about trade wars and trying to push up these tensions. If you look at what happened, for example, with the terrorifts that were imposed on solar panels and washing machines in January by the Trump administration, we had no trade wars. That we had was a significant influx of new foreign investment coming in to build American factories and allow American workers to make those products. Where we've had with the

steel and aluminum terrorists. Besides the stout defense now of our aluminums steel industry is we're on the verge. It looks like of having an historic renegotiation of the Korean trade deal UH in a way which will both preserve the integrity of the defense of the aluminums steel industries and put an end to that awful trade deal. So if I mean, look, you're you're on Bloomberg, you're talking

to investors. If I were to kind of look at the global chessboard as an investor, all I see is green lights for growth, tax cuts, deregulation, energy, balancing of the trade. What every every economic indicator that you're going to report this month is going to be strong enough the charge. Yeah, I'm gonna run out of time. Dr devar One last quick question. Can you support that we redo and join the new t P P Should we

get back on board TPP? The President, in a historic decision literally his first business day and office, got out of that agreement for one simple reason. As it was structured, it would have been a death blow to our manufacturing sector, particularly to our auto and auto parts industries. So the President has said repeatedly we will negotiate with any country trade deals that are fair and reciprocal and then defend

our manufacturing defense industrial base. And I would not presume to put words in the President's mouth other than what he has said himself. Dr Navarro, thank you so much for the spirited conversation. Greatly appreciated. Peter Navarro is President Trump's UH Assistant to the President rather for Trade and Manufacturing policy. John, I hope I wasn't too rude there. You would have been more gracious than I was. Oh not.

We have attempted to find at least one of our guests who actually read the Spio came in from the cold. That Jim Hurtling, who joins us now from London, is well, I guess the spies are coming in, Jim, in different cities, back and forth. Russia responding quite seriously here in the last twenty minutes that they will respond to what they

call a provocation. We've seen this before. But Jim, if we've seen a coordinated effort before, well, we've seen a coordinated effort in the form of economic sanctions a few years back. And what's interesting about this is that it's being you know, the press release and the announcements are coordinated, certainly, but you'll recall it was at the use some of a few days ago there was hardly unanimity about cracking

down on on Russia. The Greeks and the the Italians certainly expressed them skepticism and and you know Alexa Cippers in Greece, you know, made a point of of congratulating Putin on his reelection and staying on the phone with him for some time. So, um, you know, we've seen, we've seen sanctions, we've seen punishment before. Uh. You know, the markets certainly seemed relatively nonplussed about it, so you know, we shall see, Lisa, here's a tweet from Richard hass

so frequent guests. He's a president of consul and foreign relations, an ambassing let me quote it entirely, Lisa, decision to expel Russian diplomats less than optimal or creative, as will likely lead to Moscow responding in kind. Better to choose asymmetrical response, I eat, targeted economic and travel sanctions, increased public diplomacy versus Putin, etcetera. So that costs fall mostly

on Russia. Although this goes to something that Jim said, which is the US is coordinating with the European Union and sort of displaying this support that we haven't seen to such a decree in the Trump era. I'm wondering, Jim, how much is this being viewed from the European Union angle? As being a huge vote of confidence in them by President Trump, regardless of whatever the reaction is or whatever he should have done, perhaps diplomatical, you know, it's seen

is certainly a welcome vote of confidence. But as we've seen with the Trump administration when it comes to Russia for the past few months, eighteen months, as long as he's been in office, uh, it hasn't There hasn't always been a lockstep movement between the president and his own administration in terms of foreign policy, in terms of how

it how it behaves towards traditional friends and foes. Ald On of a second, so are you suggesting that this move to expel sixty Russian diplomats came from someone other than President Trump and that he could potentially take actions to undermine that and upcoming down. No, No, this certainly seems uh um like it was a unified move by

the administration. But you know, as we saw as recently his last week when his own uh White House leaked that he ignored uh instructions not to congratulate Vladimir Putin, he has continued on the on one track to try and and and so um strong personal relationships with with Putin, regardless of what the national security apparatus says and does. All right, so what's the next step that the European

Union is preparing for girding itself for from Russia. Well, it'll be probably a tip for tat the UH The Russians will probably expelled some some European uh quote unquote diplomats stroke spies, and then they'll probably settle into until the business returns to normal again because the economic ties are are pretty profound and they go both ways. I mean, it always comes back to the natural gas debate. It gets cold in Europe last I knew, and they provide

the heat, don't they. I mean, that's the ultimate diplomatic and strain is the heating of houses in Europe. Right, That's right. And the UK in particular, Um, didn't you know they rely on capital flows, international capital flows, Russian

capital flows into their money management industry. We just saw last week our our colleagues here in London did a terrific story but pointing out that you know, these UK money management firms and in fact Salisbury where that the poison attack took place, their money is invested through their

money managers there. Their money is invested in Russias, Burbank and gas Prom and Russian sovereign bonds because you know they have to be Now, let me do a quick market check here, particularly after what we saw Thursday Friday. We welcome all of you worldwide. Jim Hurtling with us. James Hurtling off our London desk with Lisa Brando Woodson,

Tom Keen. If the Dow rather up four hundred seven points almost to twenty four thousand seven, and you see it with the SMP and up forty one points to six to nine on the SMP, the VIX comes in two point six big figures twenty two point two nine yields up. It's a higher yield environment risk on all

the way. Lisa, well, we should just point out to our seeing huge gains and some mic and some in some tech names, Microsoft up more than five percent, even Facebook shares gaining, so you have to wonder, oh it's now down. It started the day up. But you can see, you know, Alphabet for example, also seeing some firmness. So it's just sort of interesting reversal and fortunes from from last week. Jim her Lane with us here as we look at these Russian headlines as well, Jim out with

free trade. We talked to Peter Navarro this morning and Christine Lagarde obviously two very very different views there on trade. How is the Trump trade policy playing as you see it across the London and European desks. Well, here in Europe, certainly, there's certainly some relief that they seem to have have dodged the bullet. But you know, when it comes to Trump and foreign policy there from Europe, um probably confusion

is the best word. They don't really know where he's coming from, and you know, sort of his his Madman theory of foreign policy seems to um be how it's how it's seen here. They never know which who was going to drop in, which Trump you're gonna get? Sounds like New York as well. Jim Wortly, thank you so much. We appreciate it. One of our senior editors in London, with the decades of perspective in euro about the Paris and London as well. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane. Before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.