LARRY: IT SHOULDN’T BE ASKING
TOO TERRIBLY MUCH TO KEEP THE
FEDERAL RETIREMENT OUT OF THE
CHINESE COMMUNIST MILITARY
MACHINE YOU WOULD THINK BUT THEN
AGAIN YOU HAVE WALL STREET,
LARRY FINK AND OTHERS TRYING TO
SNEAK IT BACK IN, HERE TO TELL
US ABOUT IT FORMER INTERNATIONAL
DEPUTY FOR THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC
COUNCIL, WELCOME BACK, GOOD TO
SEE YOU.
I THOUGHT O’BRIEN AND I AND A
BUNCH OF US CLOSE THIS WINDOW
FOR THE FEDERAL THRIFT SAVINGS
PLAN BUT NOW THERE’S A MUTUAL
FUND WINDOW COMING UP AND
THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE
MUTUAL FUNDS AND NOBODY KNOWS
WITHIN THEIR, SOME OF THAT COULD
GO INTO COMMUNIST COMPANIES.
SHOULDN’T THIS BE STOPPED, THAT
IS THE ISSUE.
>> THIS IS EASY I DON’T THINK
IT’S SO MUCH TO ASK THAT THE
MONEY IN THE PENSIONS OF U.S.
MEN AND WOMEN FORM SHOULD NOT GO
TO CHINESE MILITARY COMPANIES I
THINK IT’S THAT SIMPLE NOT
STRAIGHTFORWARD YOU AND ROBERT
O’BRIEN DID A GREAT JOB ON
REVERSING FOR SIMILAR POLICY IN
2020 IF THEY WERE TO ROLL THAT
BACK NOW OR DO SOMETHING
FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT THAT
WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE.
LARRY: I DON’T MEAN TO INTERRUPT
ABOUT 5000 MUTUAL FUNDS, NOBODY
KNOWS WITHIN THIS THING.
AS YOU SAY NOT ONLY DO I NOT
WANT TO OPEN THAT WINDOW WE HAD THIS NAILED DOWN.
THIS NAILED DOWN.
THIS GUY JONES WHO RUNS THE
BOARD OF THE THRIFT SAVINGS
PLAN, WHAT IS HE DOING WHAT DOES
HE THINK HE’S DOING.
>> I’M NOT SURE WHY THEY’RE
REVISITING IT BUT THEY ARE
EXPECTED TO MAKE A DECISION ON
IT IN THE SHORT TERM.
I THINK YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT
THE FOCUS ON THE TRANSPARENCY.
FOR ME THIS GOES BEYOND NATIONAL
SECURITY AND OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE
CONCERNS MILITARY CAVITIES ARE
VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS BUT
TRANSPARENCY IS JUST AS
IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW CHINA’S ONLY
COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT ALLOWED
OUR REGULATORS TO ACCESS TO
BOOKS AND RECORDS THAT THE
COMPANIES ARE LISTED ON THE U.S.
EXCHANGE.
WERE GOING TO A PROCESS WHERE WE
MAY INDEED RISK THOSE COPIES
FROM THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
AND TO BE AT THE SAME TIME IS
THAT, GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS
TO POSSIBLY DOUBLE DOWN WITH A
U.S. GOVERNMENT PENSION PROGRAM
DOES NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.
>> IS INVESTOR PROTECTION TO
NATIONAL SECURITY LET’S MOVE TO
THE BATTLE INSIDE THE BODY TO
ADMINISTRATION WITH SOME PEOPLE,
THE ECONOMICS CROWD WANTS TO
REMOVE THE TARIFFS ON CHINA THAT
WERE PUT IN PLACE BY OUR FORMER
BOSS DONALD TRUMP.
I THINK THE NATIONAL SECURITY
PEOPLE DO NOT, WHERE YOU COME
OUT ON THAT NOT TO PUT THE
QUESTION TO STRAIGHTFORWARDLY
BUT IS IT TIME TO GIVE CHINA A
PENNY AND REMOVE THE TARIFFS?
>> I THINK THE WHOLE WAY THAT
YOU FRAME LET IS THE WAY THAT
THEY’RE LOOKING AT IT.
I DON’T THINK THAT’S THE RIGHT
WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
I THINK THERE’S A THIRD OPTION
WE SHOULD NOT BE GIVING CHINA
FREE PASS, SOME OF THESE
PRODUCTS OR CONTRIBUTE ON THE
MARGINS TO INFLATION AND MAYBE
WE DO WANT TO LOOK AT CUTTING
TARIFFS FOR BACK-TO-SCHOOL
SUPPLIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT BUT
AT THE SAME TIME WE CANNOT LET
CHINA TOTALLY OFF THE HOOK, WHAT
I WOULD PROPOSE IS THAT WE LOOK
AT WHAT HAVE THE TARIFFS
ACCOMPLISHED OVER THE LAST FOUR
YEARS WHICH OF THESE TARIFFS ARE
HURTING CHINA WHICH ARE PUTTING
PRESSURE ON CHINA AND WHICH ONES
ARE HURTING THE UNITED STATES
LET’S RECALIBRATE IN DOUBLE
TARIFFS ON STRATEGIC STRATEGIC L
SEMICONDUCTORS AND BATTERIES AND
REMOVE THEM ON ITEMS LIKE
BICYCLES WERE BACK-TO-SCHOOL
SUPPLIES.
I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY
AREN’T FOCUS ON THE OPTION.
I CANNOT TELL IF IT’S LACK OF
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP OR BOTH BUT
THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT THEY
NEED TO GO, THE STATUS QUO IS
WEAK AND ON THE EDGES NIBBLING
AT INFLATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
EITHER.
LARRY: I WOULD THINK ANYTHING
TECHNOLOGY, COMMUNICATIONS,
MILITARY, SATELLITES ALL OF THAT
STUFF.
I WOULD RAISE THE TARIFFS ON
THAT STUFF.
IT LIGHTHIZER WAS ON NOT TOO
LONG AGO A GREAT FRIEND OF BOTH
OF OURS AND HE WANTS TO KEEP THE
CHINESE TARIFFS IN PLACE AND ONE
OF THE REASONS ALL THAT BOB
LIGHTHOUSE BUT ONE FROM NATIONAL SECURITY SAID CHINA’S PLAYING
SECURITY SAID CHINA’S PLAYING
FOOTSIE WITH PUTIN ON UKRAINE
CHINA’S RENT HONG KONG DEMOCRACY
AND GENOCIDE WITH THE UIGHURS
AND WHETHER THAT CAN BE TRUSTED
ON THE PHASE ONE DEAL REMAINS TO
BE SEEN.
LET’S TAKE PRIORITIES MAYBE THAT
IS A LONG RUN.
IF YOU WERE BACK IN THE
GOVERNMENT WITH THE NATIONAL
SECURITY ARGUMENT MATTERS YOU IT
WOULD MATTER A GREAT NEGOTIATOR
AND I THINK THERE’S A WAY WE CAN
DO BOTH.
I AGREE WITH YOU WE SHOULD LOOK
AT DOUBLING TARIFFS ON STRATEGIC
GOODS AND REMOVING THEM ON GOODS
WHERE THERE IS AN INFLATIONARY
PRESSURE BUT WERE SIMPLY NOT
STRATEGIC, THAT IS THE WAY I
WOULD APPROACH IT AND RECOMMEND
THAT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND
ABIDING APPROACH IT, THIS IS
WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IN THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION IN THE BEGINNING
WE SPENT A LONG TIME DESIGNING
THESE LIST SO THEY WOULD BE
STRATEGIC IN NATURE AND HER
CHINA MORE THAN THEY HURT US. ALL I’M SAYING AFTER FOUR YEARS
ALL I’M SAYING AFTER FOUR YEARS
OF TARIFFS LET’S SEE HOW GOOD
OUR THEORETICAL ANALYSIS WAS
YOUNG LEARN FROM THAT AND LET’S
MAKE THESE TARIFFS MORE
EFFECTIVE.
THAT’S WHY THINK THE STATUS QUO
IS NOT THE OPTIMAL POSITION.
I THINK WE CAN BE STRONGER ON
NATIONAL SECURITY BY
RECALIBRATING THE LIST.
LARRY: MORE TO BE REVEALED IS A
COMPLICATED SUBJECT I WOULD
THINK RIGHT NOW I WOULD NOT WANT
TO REWARD CHINA FOR ANYTHING BUT
YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN YOU
HAVE TO BE STRATEGIC ABOUT THIS.
IF I REMOVED ANY TARIFFS EVER
FROM CHINA WHICH I’M NOT
INCLINED TO DO RIGHT NOW BUT NO
ONE HAS ASKED ME, NONETHELESS I
WOULD WANT TO GET SOMETHING
MAJOR FROM THEM, THAT IS THE
THING ABOUT THE CHINESE NOTHING
IS EVER RECIPROCAL, I THINK
THAT’S A BIG ISSUE WITH THE
CHINESE, YOUR KIND TO COME ON WE
WILL HAVE YOU BACK AND CONTINUE
THIS DISCUSSION ANOTHER TIME I