August 14, 2025 • 36 mins
Donald Trump has been back at the White House for little more than 6 months, but his mark on the US economy has been profound. If Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was a symbol of the unfettered free market, the Republican president’s approach should perhaps be described as very hands on. This week on Everybody’s Business from Bloomberg Businessweek, Max Chafkin and Stacey Vanek Smith explore some of the industries being, well, handled by Trump.
Trump’s latest right-hand man, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, sat down with the magazine to talk about his views on everything from government data to interest rates and how he, just like his 79-year-old boss, desires greater government involvement in the US economy. Bloomberg Businessweek Editor Brad Stone joins us to break down the story.
The most impactful economic policy Trump has put in place so far is his “most beautiful word.” Most of Trump’s tariffs are still in flux and subject to ongoing litigation, but legal or not, the effect of 34% tariffs on goods from China and other major trading partners has started showing up in US pricing data, including wholesale prices this week from the embattled Bureau of Labor Statistics, which rose the most they have in years. But all imports and exports are not created equal. Trump’s recent talks with US chipmakers Nvidia and Intel portend increased government involvement in the industry, including the introduction of export taxes on chips sold to China, which Bessent said could be a potential model for other industries as well. Also on this episode:
-
A look at this week’s BLS inflation report. According to the government data, tariffs seem to be showing up on store shelves, especially in the coffee aisle, where prices are up more than 14% over last year. New York coffee lovers weigh in.
-
Bloomberg Businessweek’s Stone joins to talk Bessent, government data and government involvement in the chip industry.
-
Is sports betting ruining sports? Bloomberg News reporter Randall Williams joins to talk about the booming business of prop bets and why critics say it’s ruining games.
-
And finally the underrated story of the week: Artificial Intelligence gets personal. Many medical procedures and cancer screenings are now being assisted by AI. As is turns out, smarter technology could be making doctors dumber.
About the show: every week, hosts Stacey Vanek Smith and Max Chafkin take a look at the week’s business news and break down what you need to know with the help of Bloomberg journalists, experts and the people and businesses trying to navigate the economy every day.
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 (00:12):
This is Everybody's Business from Bloomberg BusinessWeek. I'm Stacey Bannocksmith and.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
I'm Max Chafkin and Stacy, I think this week we're
talking all about meddling.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Yes, We've got President Trump meddling in government data.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Also meddling messing with businesses like some big computer chip makers.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
We've also got gamblers medaling in.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Sports and AI meddling where you really don't want it
to meddle.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
I feel like we've said medal too many times, Stacy,
and I've forgotten what it means. Messing. Stacy. We've been
talking for weeks wondering when we're going to see the
effects of Trump's tariffs show up in the data, and
I think finally we're starting to see it.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yes, we got some inflation numbers out earlier this week,
and they are showing that indeed, the tax unimported goods
is starting to show up on store shelves.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Also, just as we're recording this on Thursday, new producer
price index numbers. These are wholesale prices also coming in
super high.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yeah, and a lot of the higher prices are showing
up in goods from China, which makes sense because the
tariff on China is now more than thirty percent. There's
also a really high tariff on goods from Brazil. It's
about fifty percent right now.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Yeah, that's the like get Ballsonaro out of legal jeopardy tariff.
I believe, yes it is. But it's also a coffee tariff. Effectively,
it is.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
A coffee tariff because we get about a third of
our coffee comes from Brazil, a third. If you add
to that the fact that in this because I happen
to be very fond of coffee, looked specifically at it
in the inflation report earlier this week, fourteen percent more
expensive than it was last year. And this is like
kind of pre all the Brazilian tariffs. So I am worried.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Now, I honestly says, I have been kind of like
willfully blind to this, mostly because I am so concerned,
because I am so.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
You you and your wife are very pen serious cos on
coffee and like fancy coffee, yeah, and like fancy.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And I don't want to break the bank. We were
just sort of wondering, like looking at these inflation numbers
come out and seeing like real like increases, like is
coffee about to be the new Eggs? Like? Is this
gonna be the thing that everyone is talking about for
years and years and is really frustrating. So our producers
went out to ask people how much they are spending
(02:33):
on coffee and are they willing to accept a massive
price increase if it comes to it. My go to
coffee order is just good old drip with half and half.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
Three sugars half a half and iced oat latte with
extra ice.
Speaker 6 (02:49):
The most so'll pay is like three point fifty, without fully.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Rolling my eyes, eight or nine, maybe around eight dollars
or so. If it is specialty and it's weekends, I
think nine dollars. What would I replace it with if
the price keept going up, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
I would stay home, I would skip Breakfast.
Speaker 7 (03:09):
Is not replaceable no matter what price it is.
Speaker 6 (03:12):
You still got to put gas in your car because
that's what it takes.
Speaker 7 (03:15):
The same thing with me for coffee.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
If it just got to be ridiculous, I would definitely
stop paying for coffee.
Speaker 8 (03:22):
We're in a very specific slice of life because we're
new parents and we don't really go anywhere, so this
is my restaurant this is my bar, this is everything,
this is the movies, everything we do and spend money on.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
You gotta put gas in the tank, Stacy.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
I'm not gas does matter, Max, But like, how much
would you pay for coffee?
Speaker 4 (03:41):
What you're stealing for a cup of coffee?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Seven thousand dollars, Stacey, that's the point at which I
probably would stop paying.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
So, Max, the Trump administration has been in place for
about seven months, and it has already been making some
pretty major marks on the economy. I mean I would
characterize it, I don't know what you would say.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
I'm kind of like free market out meddling in, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
I mean meddler a little a lot of meddling. I mean,
at least meddling with I guess what are conventional ideas
about maybe our closed minded ideas, that's right, free market
ideas conciss of You know, last week, listeners, remember we
had Erica Goshin, former head of the BLS, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, on the show. We were talking about
(04:33):
all the kind of weirdly politicized changes at the agency
which continue this week.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh yes, the new BLS air apparent. This man named
ej Antoni told Fox that he actually thinks the job
numbers should not come out every month but rather quarterly,
which I'm on social media with a lot of economists,
and this was basically like a bomb going off. I mean,
it was like for the rest of us, maybe not,
but I understand no one seems to be as emotional
(05:02):
as I am about this particular topic. But yeah, so,
I mean, those are potentially huge changes. But it's not
just government data and the government, it's also private industry.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, and we wanted to bring in Bradstone, our colleague
Bloomberg BusinessWeek editor, to talk about this. You know, BusinessWeek
just published this big cover story about Scott Besson with
a big interview Keith an interview with Scott Beston. It
gets into a lot of these issues anyway, and Brad
is here now, Hey Brad, hi, guys.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
So before we jump in, Bloomberg talked with Scott Beston,
Treasury Secretary, and he talked about a lot of a
lot of issues around the economy, starting with data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here he is talking about
the data.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
First of all, what if the BLS data had been
the higher quality and we've had those numbers. Jonathan so
if we've seen those numbers in May in June, I
suspect we could have had rate cuts in June and July.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So this is very interesting for several reasons. One, he
does seem to criticize the government data a little bit,
which is in lockstep with the Trump administration, but pretty
radical for before then. Also, he is talking about cutting
interest rates, which would help juice the economy potentially worse
inflation rad What are your thoughts about what Besson had
(06:25):
to say to Bloomberg and BusinessWeek about his stance on
the economy and kind of how he views things.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
Well, let me address two things. First, on the labor statistics, Stacey,
you know, I learned a lot from Everybody's Business last
week and our interview with Erica Grosshen, the former BLS commissioner,
about how they gather that data. And it is necessarily
an imperfect process. Their surveys of businesses and entrepreneurs, and
(06:52):
the data does change because the surveys come in at
different times and they have to continue to revise the data.
So you're almost like talking about just physics here. And
so when the Treasury Secretary says, you know, the data
was wrong, the commissioner of previous commissioner deserved to be fired.
I think they're being a little disingenuous. And this is
(07:14):
part of the campaign to pressure the Fed to lower
interest rates. And now why is the Trump administration so,
you know, so impatient to lower interest rates? And I
think reading this month's Business Week cover story is like
a great clue. I mean, part of the Secretary's plan
is accelerating economic growth to three percent and then lowering
(07:35):
the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. And you know,
when you think of the impact of the one big
beautiful Bill and the massive deficit impact that the Congressional
Budget Office projects, accelerating that economic growth is really key.
The tariff revenue is not going to make it up,
even though we just heard from the Treasury Department yesterday
terraf for seats grew to like thirty billion in July alone,
(07:57):
but it doesn't cover the entire shortfall. Really do need
to accelerate growth, and that's why they want to see
interest rates come down very quickly.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I think there's kind of a boiling the frog thing
here where like replacing the head of the BLS or
like making some comments that are perceived to be you know,
an attempt to bully the FED to like lower interest rates. Like,
none of this stuff is that bad in itself. There
is a case for maybe a different approach at the BLS,
(08:26):
not necessarily a politicized case, but like there are real
challenges in terms of collecting data today and same thing,
Like you could make a case for lowering interest rates here,
but the risk is that if it's perceived to be politicized,
which it clearly is, like Brad is saying, like this
is all political, that that over time will start to
(08:47):
erode things and put you in a position where businesses
and other central banks and so on that have hitherto
been like really confident in the US government essentially being
a straight shooter on issues of the economy not being
that confident, And that seems kind of like low key,
very very bad.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Well, first of all, hitherto does not come up enough
in casual conversation. But I think you're absolutely right, And
I was very surprised to read the best in interview
just because it seems like he's quite on board with this.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
I mean, to me, like one of the most interesting
parts of the interview is just Besson has sort of
figured out that to survive in the Trump administration, you
got to be deferential, and he's you know, his whole
thing is like, I'm not doing this like Wall Street, you.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Got to drink kool aid, you got to terrify.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Yeah. Yeah. Wall Street is like trusts me to like
save them from the kind of protectionist or whatever impulses
of Donald Trump. But Besson is saying, no, no, no, no,
this is all Trump. Like I'm not I'm not some
kind of like counterweight to Donald Trump. I'm just giving him.
I'm just helping him along. I think he's sort of
learned from some of these other Trump world figures, including
Elon Musk, who kind of flamed out by taking like
(10:02):
too much credit.
Speaker 5 (10:03):
He is a great salesman and that does come through
in the cover story. I mean when it comes to
this unorthodox steward chip of the economy, tariffs on friends
and foes, asking American tech companies to pay a percentage
of their sales to products sold in China, I mean,
there's just no one better.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Brad just hit on something that we should talk about next,
which is like it's one thing to kind of like
meddle with government data. Like I think you could make
a really strong argument that that like that is the
prerogative of the chief executive, right, like.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
This is this is okay, hard disagree, okay, but just
hard hard disagree, but okay.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Like being able to appoint people who lead various federal agencies. Obviously,
that is part of what the president does. Now, what
Trump has also been doing, and we want to talk
to Brad about this, is he's been essentially trying to
like fire CEOs of private companies via truth.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Social Yes, Goldman Zachs, David Solomon, he was just like
he tried to fire him.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I didn't try to fire him exactly, Stacy. What he
did is suggest that maybe David Solomon, the CEO of
Goldman Sachs, should focus on his DJ career. That's right.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
He did say that he would go back to DJ,
he should fire as a DJ, which is yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Trump said that Solomon should fire his economist and maybe
consider firing himself in lieu of DJing. He also, and
I sort of think this was more significant. He basically
told the board of Intel, which is the giant chip
maker at times, you know, at various times in recent history,
has been one of the most valuable companies in the world.
One of the most important manufacturing companies in the United States,
(11:45):
if not the world, basically said Intel's CEO, Lip Bhutan
is like too conflicted, is too close to China and
should be fired. And there's been this very strange backup.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
He definitely did at Yeah, then he met with him
and said he's great, and then also now said in
fact that companies can sell chips to China there was
a big security concern potentially things like that as long
as the US government gets a fifteen percent cut, I guess,
which is so interesting to me because this is like
a tariff coming and going. I mean, the US businesses
(12:21):
are already under so much stress paying these tariffs for
all of their raw materials and products that they're selling.
They're paying that tax. It's the whatever importer of record
who pays the tax. But now they're potentially also having
to pay a tax on exports, which is.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
Very interesting to me.
Speaker 5 (12:38):
Well, look, in one way, Trump is consistent, right, he
thinks that companies should pay for access to big, promising markets,
and that's the rationale, part of the rationale behind tariffs.
Speaker 7 (12:51):
To the US.
Speaker 5 (12:52):
But you kind of lose some of the logic in
the tax on the chip companies selling into China. I mean,
what is industrial policy. It's not general economic management, it's
like specific action to promote or protect certain industries. Well,
these industries don't really need any more promotion, they don't
need any more protection. And Video is the largest company
(13:15):
in the world by market cap. So it's really just
it's almost like clarifying about Trump's thinking. This is just
a viig It is just like somebody said on the
New York Times, it's costan noster capitalism, right. He just
wants business to run through the White House to be
seen as making a deal. And look, I mean I
(13:35):
think it's sent a really dangerous precedent.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
I mean, it's just there's something somewhat incoherent. Like back
in April, the Trump administration essentially banned the export of
these chips. These are H twenty in the case of
Nvidia chips. These are like kind of scaled down, like
a crappier version of the high end AI chips that
are sold around the world and that are essentially powering
(14:01):
you know, the Great AI Revolution. When you read about
open Ai, you know, developing these next generation large language
models are using in media chips AI chips, and this
is like a version of those, they're not quite as good.
But anyway, a few months ago, the White House was
saying essentially that these are too good to let into China,
that if we allowed China or Chinese companies to have
(14:24):
access to these chips, we would be sort of seating
an important strategic technology to a geopolitical rival. And now
we're kind of saying the opposite, or we're saying something
that's like, well, I guess we're okay with letting them
have them as long as we get paid a fifteen percent,
you know, Viig like Brad is saying. And that kind
(14:44):
of raises the question, well, which is it. Are these
strategically important? Are these so strategically important that like letting
another geopolitical rival have them is going to put us
at a huge disadvantage or are we just is this
just a cash grab? And I don't think we know.
I mean, I guess I think.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
We know a little because Besson came when BESM was
talking to Bloomberg. They asked him about this and he said, quote,
I think we could see this in a lot of
industries over time. But now we have a model and
the beta test, so why not expand it? And that
would indicate a little bit of the Kosa nostra capitalism
where it's like, Okay, well, yeah, you can export if
(15:23):
it's an important industry, but like we need we're gonna
need a taste.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
You know. And the other thing what is so disconcerting
here is that if you've been following sort of the
trajectory of AI, you know that China has been doing
really well, like deep Seek the chat japt competitor obviously
one example. We've also seen lots of signs that like
Chinese chip makers are getting closer and closer and closer
(15:48):
to like catching up with the US essentially, and they're
probably not there yet. These you know, Nvidia chips are
very valuable, but like if the US really is in
this race, like I'm not sure sure that like dickering
over what happens to the Age twenty is really the
best bet you you really want is like making sure
that American tech companies are continuing to innovate. And that's
(16:11):
part of why, like the Intel thing is so strange.
Like on one hand, you have Trump saying, you know, here,
like sell these Age twenty chips as long as we
get fifteen percent and then on the other hand, kind
of pushing around this already beleaguered chip company that you know,
during the Biden administration was seen as a national champion
and now is just like, you know, another pawn in
(16:34):
what feels like some kind of weird I don't know,
like political show.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
Can I add one bit of context? And I saw
this in the Financial Times they reported that deep Seek
had delayed its latest model because it had failed to
train the language model on Huawei chips. And so that
does suggest that China still is at a bit of
a disadvantage, and that the argument made most prominently by
Dario amodevn Thropic that you know that this is really
(17:02):
a foot race and a national security concern and companies
like Nvidia should not and amb should not be selling
their chips to China.
Speaker 7 (17:11):
That it is a national security issue.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
And you know that, and like it's funny, we've the
Trump administration has been so inconsistent on that point. But
it does suggest that this economic advantage of the fifteen
percent tax has Trump pun intended a real national security issue.
This administration has to decide what is more important, is
it ai primacy and national security or is it economic
(17:35):
deal making and the benefit the political benefits of an
appearance of a Trump deal making win. And I think
the administration has been very inconsistent on that point.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
All right, well, Bradstone, thank you so much for joining us,
And I think maybe we should let David Solomon DJs out.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Stacy. We've talked about this before, but sports right now,
the business of sports booming.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yes, it's like the only part of live television anybody
watches anymore.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Yeah, totally, although maybe not for long because it's all
moving to streaming. But in any case, we've had we
talked about this on an earlier episode, but the price
of teams are skyrocketing, private equity getting in on the act.
There have been these massive payments for streaming rights, which
we actually saw come up last week. Disney and ESPN
struck a deal paramount paying eight billion dollars for the UFC.
(18:31):
And a big part Stacy of all this is gambling.
Speaker 4 (18:36):
Oh yes, yes, and not just we're everywhere.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
And in particular a specific kind of bet Stacy, the
prop bet. This is a bet on a part of
a game, So you're betting on a player's performance. It
doesn't usually doesn't have anything to do with the ultimate.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
It's like a little detail in the game.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yes, exactly. And these are a huge part of what
has made gambling a big businesssiness. They're also super controversial.
They're controversies and a bunch of sports around alleged manipulation.
And to unpack this, we got Randall Williams. He is
a sports reporter, BusinessWeek contributor, Everybody's Business regular. How are
(19:15):
you doing, Randall?
Speaker 7 (19:16):
I'm doing all right.
Speaker 6 (19:17):
I don't know if I like the intro, You're like, oh,
you know, we're doing this gambling thing.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
Here's a gambler.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
You don't gamble on sports.
Speaker 7 (19:23):
I can confirm it did not.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I feel like, Randall, you can you explain what a
prop that is?
Speaker 6 (19:29):
Yeah, So let's look at this app and I'll just
tuck you through it a little bitp This is FanDuel.
We'll look at baseball specifically. So if you wanted to
go to picture props right here, it has how many
strikeouts this picture is going. Essentially, if you are betting,
you could put together what they call a parlay and
let's just say this is for eight strikeouts for Max Schrezer. Uh,
(19:52):
and then you would go to batter props and you
could do let's say someone's going to hit a home
run and you would put that there.
Speaker 7 (19:58):
And now you have to put.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Together like a little mixture of things where you're like,
I think there's going to be a home run and
I think this picture is going to walk three people
and that kind of thing. Yep, I understand like betting
on a game that makes sense to me, or even
betting on how a player will do, or the spread
as they call it.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
But why is there.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Demand for I mean as a person who can either
confirm nor deny they're betting habits, Like, what is the
appeal of these properties?
Speaker 6 (20:26):
Well, I think that you're a fan of the team,
then yeah, you might want to bet on a daily basis.
But however, you might want to track a player's performance
versus someone. So in the NFL, you would track let's
say Justin Jefferson has had five catches in seven straight
games and another receiver has had four catches in.
Speaker 7 (20:42):
Three straight games.
Speaker 6 (20:43):
Now, that's not going to wield you a lot of money,
But if you put a lot of money up, Let's
say you put three hundred dollars up, that might yield
you a return of let's say three hundred figures, say like,
I think.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
He'll run X number of yards or I think he'll Okay,
these are.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
And the reason we're talking about this, we're kind of
bearing the lead. These bets have become controversial over the
last couple of years. They're they're both really popular. This
is like when somebody says they're betting on sports. Your
friend is like furtively opening the fan duel app at work.
This is kind of what they're doing. But it's also
been sort of wrapped up in all these scandals. So
(21:16):
most recently, Emmanuel Colasse, who's one of the best pitchers
in baseball. He's a closer for the Cleveland Guardians. He
was placed on you know, non disciplinary leads administrative leave
in connection with a gambling investigation. There's also another pitcher
on the team that was.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Wait, what is he doing?
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Rand?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
What is the I mean?
Speaker 6 (21:39):
The basis of the investigation is that they found that
he would throw a ball on just about every first pitch.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
The suggestion is he's pitching deliberately poorly on his first.
Speaker 7 (21:51):
Pitch, it's not even coming close.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
In order to please the gamblers. Now we should say not,
this is not this is like an allegation that I
think think has not been confirmed. I don't even know
that there's been an accused.
Speaker 7 (22:05):
He could very well.
Speaker 6 (22:06):
The investigation could come up in conclusive. He could be
playing in the next couple of weeks. He could also
never play again. It's one of those things where the
investigation has to conclude and then we'll find out what
the result of his career.
Speaker 7 (22:17):
Is going to be.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Now, this has also come up in the NBA Johntay Porter,
kind of little known basketball player who was banned.
Speaker 6 (22:23):
Am I wrong, DW No, No, he I think Johntay
Porter is a funny example of this. And essentially what
happened with Johntay Porter was he was part of what
I would consider a betting group slash organization, and he
was getting a little playing time and he would basically
check into the game and then within five or six
minutes he would suffer an injury and I put two
fingers up there because it obviously was not an injury,
(22:45):
and he would check out. Therefore, all of his betting
group would hit on whatever the bet.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Was they were betting on. They were taking the under,
which means they're betting that he would get less than
a line on things like number of points, number of rebounds.
So essentially he would like take himself out of the game.
And because of this he's been banned. I mean, he's
banned from basketball.
Speaker 6 (23:05):
In journalism terms, it's like if someone was betting on
you know, Stacy, You're gonna do three stories today, and
you walk in here and you trip on you know,
the elevator, and then you go home. Well, everybody that
bet on you too doing three stories is now lost money.
But the people that you inside are traded.
Speaker 7 (23:21):
We will won it.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
These prop bets focus on they're so granular. It's not
like throwing a whole game or something. It's not so
it's like one person can can.
Speaker 7 (23:29):
Actually control this in some aspect, yes, and.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
Get paid off.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
Presumably the league's concerns with this is the integrity of
the game portion. You don't want people and the sportsbooks
obviously don't want to lose money. The reason John tay
Porter was was flagged was because people put up an
absurd amount of money. If it's small time money and
it's not regular better.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Like, no one even knows who this guy is exactly exactly.
Speaker 7 (23:51):
It's insane.
Speaker 6 (23:52):
The fact that you know someone to put up whatever
the amount of money that it was, but the sports
book is essentially like, Okay, that is not normal, we
need to look into that, and eventually he was banned
from the entire NBA for the rest of his life.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Now, Renald, I feel like I'm old enough to remember,
and I think most people listening to this podcast will
be old enough to remember that sports leagues generally opposed gambling,
and so what happened here is just it's just money.
Speaker 7 (24:18):
Basically, money started talking.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
I think as the rules and laws changed, you had
leagues and organizations who were the first to embrace this.
But over time it was like are we going to
get into this money or are we not? And you know,
I think some of the thinking is that if you
don't embrace this, then you run the risk of.
Speaker 7 (24:36):
People doing it illegally.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
And so the leagues have jumped all in, and some
leagues have dealt with some serious crisis. Obviously, we've seen
it in the NBA and MLB. The NFL has also
suspended players for different things as well, but nothing outright
to the level that we're seeing from the MLB and
the NBA.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Wait, but you just said, okay, it was coming. People
are doing it, so that's obviously part of it. Isn't
another part of it that the league started to feel
like this was a good way to get fans engaged
like this.
Speaker 6 (25:05):
Different communities, like fantasy football has been one of the
biggest community builders in some ways. Fantasy basketball as well,
and there are some people who play fantasy baseball too,
but let's focus on fantasy football really quickly. Fantasy football
is a community builder. Well, if you have betting, well,
now that you can do betting instead of doing fantasy football.
You can have a group of twenty five guys. Let's
say they all subscribe to one person's twenty five dollars
(25:27):
a month package. That person then sends out betting and
now you're hitting as a community. Now you could also
be losing money as a community, but it's just a
different way that I think sports leagues are looking at
this as fandom well.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
And people are going to really be wanting to watch
these games live. If they have money riding on it,
they're going to care a lot. They're going to be
I mean, you're kind of locking in really dedicated fans,
even if they love the team to start with, they
are going to super be super super invested, you know.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
And it's funny because Randall, you you pointed this out
to me. But twenty seventeen, Adam Silver, he was asked
about this, he said, one of my concerns is that
I will be portrayed as pro sports betting. I view
myself as pro transparency and someone who's a realist in
the business. The best way for the league to monitor
our integrity is for the betting action to move forward. Okay,
(26:15):
So basically pragmatic concern Roger Goodell, this is what he
said in twenty twelve. Roger Goodell, of course the commissioner
of the NFL. Of course, if gambling is permitted freely
on sporting events, normal incidents of the games, such as
bad snaps, drop packs, as turnovers, penalties and play calling
inevitably will fuel speculation, distrust, and accusations of point shaving
(26:38):
or game fixing. So that's what Roger Goodell said in
twenty twelve. But what's crazy is this concern expressed by
Roger Goodell. I mean, it hasn't really come up in football,
but it's happening in other sports, like this thing with baseball.
You know, we talked about it the same thing is
happening in basketball. Randall sent me this amazing, like extremely
(26:58):
nerdy episode of Pablo where he finds out last night
about Malik Beasley, who's another player who's been wrapped up
in speculation around gambling. And you really get the sense
that a lot of fans like this has now become
part of fandom. Is like, not only are you sort
of betting on games, but you're sort of worried if
you see something funny, you're like, oh, maybe there's a
(27:19):
gambling angle to this. Like if our star reliever starts
throwing the ball, you know, four or five feet outside
the strike zone. Every time he starts his you know, outing,
I'm gonna start thinking, wait, is he is he on
the take or whatever? I mean that to me feels very.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Watch the game differently.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Yeah, I mean that feels like a long term risk
to the feeling in some aspect.
Speaker 6 (27:39):
I think it all depends on, you know, how much
is being put up for some of these things, Like
there are some real high rolling gamblers, but it has
to be consistent in order for the books to catch it.
And the biggest thing was show Hey O Tani last.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Year Tani best basically the best current baseball player. He's
the baby of our time. But also about a year
and a half ago, it came out that Shohe Otani
had been at least through a bank account of his
gambling millions of dollars on sports and yeah, illegally. But
Otani's story, which it seems like authorities have accepted, the
(28:18):
league has accepted, is that it is actually his translator
accessing his bank account. But anyway, but it's still at
a time when the league is wholeheartedly embracing gambling. I mean,
it seems problematic, it.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
Looks a certain way, and all of these leagues have
to avoid this. I mean, everybody who covers sports business
in some ways is waiting for the big sports story
to happen in gambling. Everybody thought it was going to
be the show. Hey, Otani, think as you said, it's
since been accepted, and with that in mind, now you're
just waiting on the next one. Now we're looking at
(28:51):
Malik Beasley and how many times is this going to
come up again and again and again, And in large
part because they have embraced the money, and for some
players who even though they make millions of dollars, maybe
the millions aren't enough. Maybe these groups that they are
a part of standing to make more. Or you get
in with the wrong people, you're in debt, which is
what Malik Beasley is somewhat facing. And now it's like, okay,
(29:12):
I have to cover this some way, somehow, and they
lean into this. Now, the sports books are incentivized to
of course catch these people, because if you have high
rolling organizations who are betting on this, then the books
are going to be losing money if a player is
rigging games. So the leagues and the betting organizations are
working together to catch these individuals. But have all of
(29:34):
them been caught? I mean it remains to be seen.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
All right. I think our producer Amy had the under
on keeping this under fifteen minutes. Oh yeah, we better
help her out and wrap here. But before you go, Randal,
stick around. We have one more segment here.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Yeah, Randall, you might want to just like brace yourself. No, okay,
so it is time for our underrated segment and this
story comes from Max, and go for it.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
Max. Yes, you've probably had this sense that Ai, like
I have, is kind of ruining everything.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Right, I don't think it's ruining everything.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Let me just I'll give you a few examples. Seems
like it's kind of ruining the college essay, it's kind
of ruining art. I'm sorry, it kind of is. It's
kind of ruining like social media. There's all this slop.
It's kind of ruining search engines. And I have another
thing that AI is ruining. Are you ready for it? Colonoscopies.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
WHOA, there's nothing to ruin, Like, I don't think there's
anywhere to.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Go but up for a kolonoscopy.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Well, well I told you, all right, So I'm being glib,
but you're probably aware that people doctors and hospitals have
been experimenting with AI for detecting cancer like X rays
and stuff. This is like a big area of opportunity
as far as like software companies and healthcare providers see it.
(31:04):
And we've seen some positive stories. But there was a
study that appeared in a journal called Lancet, gastor, Entrology
and Heptology. Okay, okay, that's an important medical journal where
they basically compared colonoscopies that were done by humans with
colonoscopies that were done.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
The readings or the actual.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
No, no, no, The scope is operated by a doctor,
but the looking at the camera, because the way it
works is they stick a camera inside of you and
they're looking for cancerous precancerous, you know issues, And the idea,
the hope has been that you could sort of have
a software algorithm looking at the feed and sort of
(31:49):
flagging areas of concern to doctors, and which kind of
makes a lot of sense, right, It probably looks pretty
similar every single time. These polyps and so on are
hard to spot. Maybe the software can do for you.
Now when they use the software, according to this study,
essentially the software did a little bit better then In
(32:12):
some cases, the software seemed to basically work, but when
they took the software away, it actually made the doctors worse.
Their skills degraded, and so like, when they compared the
doctor's ability to detect problems pre AI with the doctor's
ability to detect problems post AI, it got worse. And
(32:33):
the authors of the study liken it to Google Maps, like,
if you rely on Google Maps all the time, maybe
your ability to navigate like cities degrades, But do you same.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Still need to be able to navigate cities if you
have the technology they can do.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
The problem here, though, also is like it wasn't necessarily
better either, Like basically.
Speaker 7 (32:52):
The doctors are getting worse.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
The doctors are getting worse because of the AI, at
least according to this study. And I think this is,
first of all, like super troubling because it's it just
suggests that, like we might want to just be cautious
as we adopt these new technologies because it could it
could affect our capacity. And what I'm wondering is Stay
(33:15):
is basically already answered this question. But Brandall, does this
give you pause? Do you are you? Do you want
to you worried that AI might be degrading your.
Speaker 7 (33:22):
In this specific aspect? Absolutely?
Speaker 6 (33:25):
Absolutely, the next time or when it is my time
to get this procedure, I will be asking like, hey,
use an AI? All right, well I'm gonna have to
find another clinic.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
You got to ask them have you ever used AI?
Not just now, because if they've used it before.
Speaker 6 (33:41):
And yeah, it's not going to be a thing where
like the doctor walks into obviously like yeah, we're gonna
do this and then they walk out. Now you're gonna
stay here the entire time. I need to see this.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
You read no, I seriously seriously, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
I feel less worried about it.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
I mean, I just see it as like a very
natural evolution of technology, Like we get worse at certain
things because we use technology as a crutch and we
can focus our attentions then on other things.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Like I'll tell you say two things. One is it
is not standard Randall to stay awake during your klnoscopy.
I'm just gonna say it is possible, but not.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
Advisable.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
The other thing I'll say is there are a lot
of instances where computers are very capable, but the like
interface between humans and computers becomes problematic. And I think
that this is like another one of those stories. So
like and it probably like to your point, sa Z,
there's probably a way to like harness this technology in
a useful way. It's just it just seems like this
(34:41):
is a you know, a little bit of a cause.
Speaker 6 (34:43):
I think it's like a question as to me, if
there is a mistake, would you rather the human make
the mistake or would you rather the human with technology
make the mistake. I don't have the right answer to that,
but based on what Max has told me today, I
need a human, a one hundred percent of a human.
I don't need an android or a satellite or whatever
these doctors are using that is causing them to get worse.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
I'll just I feel like the computer's more baseline reliable though,
because the human, yes they could be an amazing someone
comes in and they're hungover and they're distracted, and you
know what.
Speaker 6 (35:15):
That's a completely different issue hungover.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Then those are less reliable than the AI. So, all
things being equal, I would rather.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Have AI listeners, if you would rather have AI and
your colonosky.
Speaker 4 (35:26):
You have people write everybody subject to max chapters. I
don't want to read these emails?
Speaker 7 (35:36):
Could you actually do like that?
Speaker 1 (35:38):
Love?
Speaker 6 (35:39):
I'm Stacy, and I would advise you to go with
the AI option because technology gets better and people get worse.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
This show is.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Produced by Stacy Wong. Magnus Hendrickson is our supervising producer.
Amy Keane is our editor, and Brendan Francis Newnham is
our executive producer. Engineering support from Kelly Gary and Dave Purcell. Factchecks,
Sage Bauman heads Bloomberg Podcasts. Special thanks to Jeff Muscus,
Julia Rubin, and Maria Ling. If you have a minute,
please rate and review the show. It means a lot
(36:12):
to us, and Max has not written a haiku in
several weeks, so if you leave us a review, I
promise that he will do that on a topic of
your choice. And if you have a story that should
be our business, email us at Everybody's at Bloomberg dot net.
That's Everybody's with an s at Bloomberg dot net.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
And if you have reviews of your colonoscopy, send them.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
To Max care of Max Chafkin. He's happy to look
at photo attachments as well. Thank you for listening, and
see you next week.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
This is Everybody's Business from Bloomberg BusinessWeek. I'm Stacey Bannocksmith and.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
I'm Max Chafkin and Stacy, I think this week we're
talking all about meddling.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Yes, We've got President Trump meddling in government data.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Also meddling messing with businesses like some big computer chip makers.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
We've also got gamblers medaling in.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Sports and AI meddling where you really don't want it
to meddle.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
That's true.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
I feel like we've said medal too many times, Stacy,
and I've forgotten what it means. Messing. Stacy. We've been
talking for weeks wondering when we're going to see the
effects of Trump's tariffs show up in the data, and
I think finally we're starting to see it.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yes, we got some inflation numbers out earlier this week,
and they are showing that indeed, the tax unimported goods
is starting to show up on store shelves.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Also, just as we're recording this on Thursday, new producer
price index numbers. These are wholesale prices also coming in
super high.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yeah, and a lot of the higher prices are showing
up in goods from China, which makes sense because the
tariff on China is now more than thirty percent. There's
also a really high tariff on goods from Brazil. It's
about fifty percent right now.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
Yeah, that's the like get Ballsonaro out of legal jeopardy tariff.
I believe, yes it is. But it's also a coffee tariff. Effectively,
it is.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
A coffee tariff because we get about a third of
our coffee comes from Brazil, a third. If you add
to that the fact that in this because I happen
to be very fond of coffee, looked specifically at it
in the inflation report earlier this week, fourteen percent more
expensive than it was last year. And this is like
kind of pre all the Brazilian tariffs. So I am worried.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Now, I honestly says, I have been kind of like
willfully blind to this, mostly because I am so concerned,
because I am so.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
You you and your wife are very pen serious cos on
coffee and like fancy coffee, yeah, and like fancy.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
And I don't want to break the bank. We were
just sort of wondering, like looking at these inflation numbers
come out and seeing like real like increases, like is
coffee about to be the new Eggs? Like? Is this
gonna be the thing that everyone is talking about for
years and years and is really frustrating. So our producers
went out to ask people how much they are spending
(02:33):
on coffee and are they willing to accept a massive
price increase if it comes to it. My go to
coffee order is just good old drip with half and half.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
Three sugars half a half and iced oat latte with
extra ice.
Speaker 6 (02:49):
The most so'll pay is like three point fifty, without fully.
Speaker 1 (02:52):
Rolling my eyes, eight or nine, maybe around eight dollars
or so. If it is specialty and it's weekends, I
think nine dollars. What would I replace it with if
the price keept going up, I don't know.
Speaker 5 (03:06):
I would stay home, I would skip Breakfast.
Speaker 7 (03:09):
Is not replaceable no matter what price it is.
Speaker 6 (03:12):
You still got to put gas in your car because
that's what it takes.
Speaker 7 (03:15):
The same thing with me for coffee.
Speaker 2 (03:17):
If it just got to be ridiculous, I would definitely
stop paying for coffee.
Speaker 8 (03:22):
We're in a very specific slice of life because we're
new parents and we don't really go anywhere, so this
is my restaurant this is my bar, this is everything,
this is the movies, everything we do and spend money on.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
You gotta put gas in the tank, Stacy.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
I'm not gas does matter, Max, But like, how much
would you pay for coffee?
Speaker 4 (03:41):
What you're stealing for a cup of coffee?
Speaker 1 (03:43):
Seven thousand dollars, Stacey, that's the point at which I
probably would stop paying.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
So, Max, the Trump administration has been in place for
about seven months, and it has already been making some
pretty major marks on the economy. I mean I would
characterize it, I don't know what you would say.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
I'm kind of like free market out meddling in, Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
I mean meddler a little a lot of meddling. I mean,
at least meddling with I guess what are conventional ideas
about maybe our closed minded ideas, that's right, free market
ideas conciss of You know, last week, listeners, remember we
had Erica Goshin, former head of the BLS, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, on the show. We were talking about
(04:33):
all the kind of weirdly politicized changes at the agency
which continue this week.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Oh yes, the new BLS air apparent. This man named
ej Antoni told Fox that he actually thinks the job
numbers should not come out every month but rather quarterly,
which I'm on social media with a lot of economists,
and this was basically like a bomb going off. I mean,
it was like for the rest of us, maybe not,
but I understand no one seems to be as emotional
(05:02):
as I am about this particular topic. But yeah, so,
I mean, those are potentially huge changes. But it's not
just government data and the government, it's also private industry.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, and we wanted to bring in Bradstone, our colleague
Bloomberg BusinessWeek editor, to talk about this. You know, BusinessWeek
just published this big cover story about Scott Besson with
a big interview Keith an interview with Scott Beston. It
gets into a lot of these issues anyway, and Brad
is here now, Hey Brad, hi, guys.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
So before we jump in, Bloomberg talked with Scott Beston,
Treasury Secretary, and he talked about a lot of a
lot of issues around the economy, starting with data from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here he is talking about
the data.
Speaker 3 (05:45):
First of all, what if the BLS data had been
the higher quality and we've had those numbers. Jonathan so
if we've seen those numbers in May in June, I
suspect we could have had rate cuts in June and July.
Speaker 2 (06:02):
So this is very interesting for several reasons. One, he
does seem to criticize the government data a little bit,
which is in lockstep with the Trump administration, but pretty
radical for before then. Also, he is talking about cutting
interest rates, which would help juice the economy potentially worse
inflation rad What are your thoughts about what Besson had
(06:25):
to say to Bloomberg and BusinessWeek about his stance on
the economy and kind of how he views things.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
Well, let me address two things. First, on the labor statistics, Stacey,
you know, I learned a lot from Everybody's Business last
week and our interview with Erica Grosshen, the former BLS commissioner,
about how they gather that data. And it is necessarily
an imperfect process. Their surveys of businesses and entrepreneurs, and
(06:52):
the data does change because the surveys come in at
different times and they have to continue to revise the data.
So you're almost like talking about just physics here. And
so when the Treasury Secretary says, you know, the data
was wrong, the commissioner of previous commissioner deserved to be fired.
I think they're being a little disingenuous. And this is
(07:14):
part of the campaign to pressure the Fed to lower
interest rates. And now why is the Trump administration so,
you know, so impatient to lower interest rates? And I
think reading this month's Business Week cover story is like
a great clue. I mean, part of the Secretary's plan
is accelerating economic growth to three percent and then lowering
(07:35):
the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP. And you know,
when you think of the impact of the one big
beautiful Bill and the massive deficit impact that the Congressional
Budget Office projects, accelerating that economic growth is really key.
The tariff revenue is not going to make it up,
even though we just heard from the Treasury Department yesterday
terraf for seats grew to like thirty billion in July alone,
(07:57):
but it doesn't cover the entire shortfall. Really do need
to accelerate growth, and that's why they want to see
interest rates come down very quickly.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I think there's kind of a boiling the frog thing
here where like replacing the head of the BLS or
like making some comments that are perceived to be you know,
an attempt to bully the FED to like lower interest rates. Like,
none of this stuff is that bad in itself. There
is a case for maybe a different approach at the BLS,
(08:26):
not necessarily a politicized case, but like there are real
challenges in terms of collecting data today and same thing,
Like you could make a case for lowering interest rates here,
but the risk is that if it's perceived to be politicized,
which it clearly is, like Brad is saying, like this
is all political, that that over time will start to
(08:47):
erode things and put you in a position where businesses
and other central banks and so on that have hitherto
been like really confident in the US government essentially being
a straight shooter on issues of the economy not being
that confident, And that seems kind of like low key,
very very bad.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Well, first of all, hitherto does not come up enough
in casual conversation. But I think you're absolutely right, And
I was very surprised to read the best in interview
just because it seems like he's quite on board with this.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
I mean, to me, like one of the most interesting
parts of the interview is just Besson has sort of
figured out that to survive in the Trump administration, you
got to be deferential, and he's you know, his whole
thing is like, I'm not doing this like Wall Street, you.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Got to drink kool aid, you got to terrify.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Yeah. Yeah. Wall Street is like trusts me to like
save them from the kind of protectionist or whatever impulses
of Donald Trump. But Besson is saying, no, no, no, no,
this is all Trump. Like I'm not I'm not some
kind of like counterweight to Donald Trump. I'm just giving him.
I'm just helping him along. I think he's sort of
learned from some of these other Trump world figures, including
Elon Musk, who kind of flamed out by taking like
(10:02):
too much credit.
Speaker 5 (10:03):
He is a great salesman and that does come through
in the cover story. I mean when it comes to
this unorthodox steward chip of the economy, tariffs on friends
and foes, asking American tech companies to pay a percentage
of their sales to products sold in China, I mean,
there's just no one better.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Brad just hit on something that we should talk about next,
which is like it's one thing to kind of like
meddle with government data. Like I think you could make
a really strong argument that that like that is the
prerogative of the chief executive, right, like.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
This is this is okay, hard disagree, okay, but just
hard hard disagree, but okay.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Like being able to appoint people who lead various federal agencies. Obviously,
that is part of what the president does. Now, what
Trump has also been doing, and we want to talk
to Brad about this, is he's been essentially trying to
like fire CEOs of private companies via truth.
Speaker 2 (10:59):
Social Yes, Goldman Zachs, David Solomon, he was just like
he tried to fire him.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
I didn't try to fire him exactly, Stacy. What he
did is suggest that maybe David Solomon, the CEO of
Goldman Sachs, should focus on his DJ career. That's right.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
He did say that he would go back to DJ,
he should fire as a DJ, which is yeah.
Speaker 1 (11:21):
Trump said that Solomon should fire his economist and maybe
consider firing himself in lieu of DJing. He also, and
I sort of think this was more significant. He basically
told the board of Intel, which is the giant chip
maker at times, you know, at various times in recent history,
has been one of the most valuable companies in the world.
One of the most important manufacturing companies in the United States,
(11:45):
if not the world, basically said Intel's CEO, Lip Bhutan
is like too conflicted, is too close to China and
should be fired. And there's been this very strange backup.
Speaker 2 (11:58):
He definitely did at Yeah, then he met with him
and said he's great, and then also now said in
fact that companies can sell chips to China there was
a big security concern potentially things like that as long
as the US government gets a fifteen percent cut, I guess,
which is so interesting to me because this is like
a tariff coming and going. I mean, the US businesses
(12:21):
are already under so much stress paying these tariffs for
all of their raw materials and products that they're selling.
They're paying that tax. It's the whatever importer of record
who pays the tax. But now they're potentially also having
to pay a tax on exports, which is.
Speaker 4 (12:36):
Very interesting to me.
Speaker 5 (12:38):
Well, look, in one way, Trump is consistent, right, he
thinks that companies should pay for access to big, promising markets,
and that's the rationale, part of the rationale behind tariffs.
Speaker 7 (12:51):
To the US.
Speaker 5 (12:52):
But you kind of lose some of the logic in
the tax on the chip companies selling into China. I mean,
what is industrial policy. It's not general economic management, it's
like specific action to promote or protect certain industries. Well,
these industries don't really need any more promotion, they don't
need any more protection. And Video is the largest company
(13:15):
in the world by market cap. So it's really just
it's almost like clarifying about Trump's thinking. This is just
a viig It is just like somebody said on the
New York Times, it's costan noster capitalism, right. He just
wants business to run through the White House to be
seen as making a deal. And look, I mean I
(13:35):
think it's sent a really dangerous precedent.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
I mean, it's just there's something somewhat incoherent. Like back
in April, the Trump administration essentially banned the export of
these chips. These are H twenty in the case of
Nvidia chips. These are like kind of scaled down, like
a crappier version of the high end AI chips that
are sold around the world and that are essentially powering
(14:01):
you know, the Great AI Revolution. When you read about
open Ai, you know, developing these next generation large language
models are using in media chips AI chips, and this
is like a version of those, they're not quite as good.
But anyway, a few months ago, the White House was
saying essentially that these are too good to let into China,
that if we allowed China or Chinese companies to have
(14:24):
access to these chips, we would be sort of seating
an important strategic technology to a geopolitical rival. And now
we're kind of saying the opposite, or we're saying something
that's like, well, I guess we're okay with letting them
have them as long as we get paid a fifteen percent,
you know, Viig like Brad is saying. And that kind
(14:44):
of raises the question, well, which is it. Are these
strategically important? Are these so strategically important that like letting
another geopolitical rival have them is going to put us
at a huge disadvantage or are we just is this
just a cash grab? And I don't think we know.
I mean, I guess I think.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
We know a little because Besson came when BESM was
talking to Bloomberg. They asked him about this and he said, quote,
I think we could see this in a lot of
industries over time. But now we have a model and
the beta test, so why not expand it? And that
would indicate a little bit of the Kosa nostra capitalism
where it's like, Okay, well, yeah, you can export if
(15:23):
it's an important industry, but like we need we're gonna
need a taste.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
You know. And the other thing what is so disconcerting
here is that if you've been following sort of the
trajectory of AI, you know that China has been doing
really well, like deep Seek the chat japt competitor obviously
one example. We've also seen lots of signs that like
Chinese chip makers are getting closer and closer and closer
(15:48):
to like catching up with the US essentially, and they're
probably not there yet. These you know, Nvidia chips are
very valuable, but like if the US really is in
this race, like I'm not sure sure that like dickering
over what happens to the Age twenty is really the
best bet you you really want is like making sure
that American tech companies are continuing to innovate. And that's
(16:11):
part of why, like the Intel thing is so strange.
Like on one hand, you have Trump saying, you know, here,
like sell these Age twenty chips as long as we
get fifteen percent and then on the other hand, kind
of pushing around this already beleaguered chip company that you know,
during the Biden administration was seen as a national champion
and now is just like, you know, another pawn in
(16:34):
what feels like some kind of weird I don't know,
like political show.
Speaker 5 (16:38):
Can I add one bit of context? And I saw
this in the Financial Times they reported that deep Seek
had delayed its latest model because it had failed to
train the language model on Huawei chips. And so that
does suggest that China still is at a bit of
a disadvantage, and that the argument made most prominently by
Dario amodevn Thropic that you know that this is really
(17:02):
a foot race and a national security concern and companies
like Nvidia should not and amb should not be selling
their chips to China.
Speaker 7 (17:11):
That it is a national security issue.
Speaker 5 (17:13):
And you know that, and like it's funny, we've the
Trump administration has been so inconsistent on that point. But
it does suggest that this economic advantage of the fifteen
percent tax has Trump pun intended a real national security issue.
This administration has to decide what is more important, is
it ai primacy and national security or is it economic
(17:35):
deal making and the benefit the political benefits of an
appearance of a Trump deal making win. And I think
the administration has been very inconsistent on that point.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
All right, well, Bradstone, thank you so much for joining us,
And I think maybe we should let David Solomon DJs out.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Stacy. We've talked about this before, but sports right now,
the business of sports booming.
Speaker 2 (18:06):
Yes, it's like the only part of live television anybody
watches anymore.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
Yeah, totally, although maybe not for long because it's all
moving to streaming. But in any case, we've had we
talked about this on an earlier episode, but the price
of teams are skyrocketing, private equity getting in on the act.
There have been these massive payments for streaming rights, which
we actually saw come up last week. Disney and ESPN
struck a deal paramount paying eight billion dollars for the UFC.
(18:31):
And a big part Stacy of all this is gambling.
Speaker 4 (18:36):
Oh yes, yes, and not just we're everywhere.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
And in particular a specific kind of bet Stacy, the
prop bet. This is a bet on a part of
a game, So you're betting on a player's performance. It
doesn't usually doesn't have anything to do with the ultimate.
Speaker 4 (18:53):
It's like a little detail in the game.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yes, exactly. And these are a huge part of what
has made gambling a big businesssiness. They're also super controversial.
They're controversies and a bunch of sports around alleged manipulation.
And to unpack this, we got Randall Williams. He is
a sports reporter, BusinessWeek contributor, Everybody's Business regular. How are
(19:15):
you doing, Randall?
Speaker 7 (19:16):
I'm doing all right.
Speaker 6 (19:17):
I don't know if I like the intro, You're like, oh,
you know, we're doing this gambling thing.
Speaker 7 (19:20):
Here's a gambler.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
You don't gamble on sports.
Speaker 7 (19:23):
I can confirm it did not.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I feel like, Randall, you can you explain what a
prop that is?
Speaker 6 (19:29):
Yeah, So let's look at this app and I'll just
tuck you through it a little bitp This is FanDuel.
We'll look at baseball specifically. So if you wanted to
go to picture props right here, it has how many
strikeouts this picture is going. Essentially, if you are betting,
you could put together what they call a parlay and
let's just say this is for eight strikeouts for Max Schrezer. Uh,
(19:52):
and then you would go to batter props and you
could do let's say someone's going to hit a home
run and you would put that there.
Speaker 7 (19:58):
And now you have to put.
Speaker 2 (19:59):
Together like a little mixture of things where you're like,
I think there's going to be a home run and
I think this picture is going to walk three people
and that kind of thing. Yep, I understand like betting
on a game that makes sense to me, or even
betting on how a player will do, or the spread
as they call it.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
But why is there.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Demand for I mean as a person who can either
confirm nor deny they're betting habits, Like, what is the
appeal of these properties?
Speaker 6 (20:26):
Well, I think that you're a fan of the team,
then yeah, you might want to bet on a daily basis.
But however, you might want to track a player's performance
versus someone. So in the NFL, you would track let's
say Justin Jefferson has had five catches in seven straight
games and another receiver has had four catches in.
Speaker 7 (20:42):
Three straight games.
Speaker 6 (20:43):
Now, that's not going to wield you a lot of money,
But if you put a lot of money up, Let's
say you put three hundred dollars up, that might yield
you a return of let's say three hundred figures, say like,
I think.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
He'll run X number of yards or I think he'll Okay,
these are.
Speaker 1 (20:56):
And the reason we're talking about this, we're kind of
bearing the lead. These bets have become controversial over the
last couple of years. They're they're both really popular. This
is like when somebody says they're betting on sports. Your
friend is like furtively opening the fan duel app at work.
This is kind of what they're doing. But it's also
been sort of wrapped up in all these scandals. So
(21:16):
most recently, Emmanuel Colasse, who's one of the best pitchers
in baseball. He's a closer for the Cleveland Guardians. He
was placed on you know, non disciplinary leads administrative leave
in connection with a gambling investigation. There's also another pitcher
on the team that was.
Speaker 4 (21:36):
Wait, what is he doing?
Speaker 1 (21:37):
Rand?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
What is the I mean?
Speaker 6 (21:39):
The basis of the investigation is that they found that
he would throw a ball on just about every first pitch.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
The suggestion is he's pitching deliberately poorly on his first.
Speaker 7 (21:51):
Pitch, it's not even coming close.
Speaker 1 (21:53):
In order to please the gamblers. Now we should say not,
this is not this is like an allegation that I
think think has not been confirmed. I don't even know
that there's been an accused.
Speaker 7 (22:05):
He could very well.
Speaker 6 (22:06):
The investigation could come up in conclusive. He could be
playing in the next couple of weeks. He could also
never play again. It's one of those things where the
investigation has to conclude and then we'll find out what
the result of his career.
Speaker 7 (22:17):
Is going to be.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Now, this has also come up in the NBA Johntay Porter,
kind of little known basketball player who was banned.
Speaker 6 (22:23):
Am I wrong, DW No, No, he I think Johntay
Porter is a funny example of this. And essentially what
happened with Johntay Porter was he was part of what
I would consider a betting group slash organization, and he
was getting a little playing time and he would basically
check into the game and then within five or six
minutes he would suffer an injury and I put two
fingers up there because it obviously was not an injury,
(22:45):
and he would check out. Therefore, all of his betting
group would hit on whatever the bet.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Was they were betting on. They were taking the under,
which means they're betting that he would get less than
a line on things like number of points, number of rebounds.
So essentially he would like take himself out of the game.
And because of this he's been banned. I mean, he's
banned from basketball.
Speaker 6 (23:05):
In journalism terms, it's like if someone was betting on
you know, Stacy, You're gonna do three stories today, and
you walk in here and you trip on you know,
the elevator, and then you go home. Well, everybody that
bet on you too doing three stories is now lost money.
But the people that you inside are traded.
Speaker 7 (23:21):
We will won it.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
These prop bets focus on they're so granular. It's not
like throwing a whole game or something. It's not so
it's like one person can can.
Speaker 7 (23:29):
Actually control this in some aspect, yes, and.
Speaker 4 (23:32):
Get paid off.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
Presumably the league's concerns with this is the integrity of
the game portion. You don't want people and the sportsbooks
obviously don't want to lose money. The reason John tay
Porter was was flagged was because people put up an
absurd amount of money. If it's small time money and
it's not regular better.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Like, no one even knows who this guy is exactly exactly.
Speaker 7 (23:51):
It's insane.
Speaker 6 (23:52):
The fact that you know someone to put up whatever
the amount of money that it was, but the sports
book is essentially like, Okay, that is not normal, we
need to look into that, and eventually he was banned
from the entire NBA for the rest of his life.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Now, Renald, I feel like I'm old enough to remember,
and I think most people listening to this podcast will
be old enough to remember that sports leagues generally opposed gambling,
and so what happened here is just it's just money.
Speaker 7 (24:18):
Basically, money started talking.
Speaker 6 (24:19):
I think as the rules and laws changed, you had
leagues and organizations who were the first to embrace this.
But over time it was like are we going to
get into this money or are we not? And you know,
I think some of the thinking is that if you
don't embrace this, then you run the risk of.
Speaker 7 (24:36):
People doing it illegally.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
And so the leagues have jumped all in, and some
leagues have dealt with some serious crisis. Obviously, we've seen
it in the NBA and MLB. The NFL has also
suspended players for different things as well, but nothing outright
to the level that we're seeing from the MLB and
the NBA.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Wait, but you just said, okay, it was coming. People
are doing it, so that's obviously part of it. Isn't
another part of it that the league started to feel
like this was a good way to get fans engaged
like this.
Speaker 6 (25:05):
Different communities, like fantasy football has been one of the
biggest community builders in some ways. Fantasy basketball as well,
and there are some people who play fantasy baseball too,
but let's focus on fantasy football really quickly. Fantasy football
is a community builder. Well, if you have betting, well,
now that you can do betting instead of doing fantasy football.
You can have a group of twenty five guys. Let's
say they all subscribe to one person's twenty five dollars
(25:27):
a month package. That person then sends out betting and
now you're hitting as a community. Now you could also
be losing money as a community, but it's just a
different way that I think sports leagues are looking at
this as fandom well.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
And people are going to really be wanting to watch
these games live. If they have money riding on it,
they're going to care a lot. They're going to be
I mean, you're kind of locking in really dedicated fans,
even if they love the team to start with, they
are going to super be super super invested, you know.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
And it's funny because Randall, you you pointed this out
to me. But twenty seventeen, Adam Silver, he was asked
about this, he said, one of my concerns is that
I will be portrayed as pro sports betting. I view
myself as pro transparency and someone who's a realist in
the business. The best way for the league to monitor
our integrity is for the betting action to move forward. Okay,
(26:15):
So basically pragmatic concern Roger Goodell, this is what he
said in twenty twelve. Roger Goodell, of course the commissioner
of the NFL. Of course, if gambling is permitted freely
on sporting events, normal incidents of the games, such as
bad snaps, drop packs, as turnovers, penalties and play calling
inevitably will fuel speculation, distrust, and accusations of point shaving
(26:38):
or game fixing. So that's what Roger Goodell said in
twenty twelve. But what's crazy is this concern expressed by
Roger Goodell. I mean, it hasn't really come up in football,
but it's happening in other sports, like this thing with baseball.
You know, we talked about it the same thing is
happening in basketball. Randall sent me this amazing, like extremely
(26:58):
nerdy episode of Pablo where he finds out last night
about Malik Beasley, who's another player who's been wrapped up
in speculation around gambling. And you really get the sense
that a lot of fans like this has now become
part of fandom. Is like, not only are you sort
of betting on games, but you're sort of worried if
you see something funny, you're like, oh, maybe there's a
(27:19):
gambling angle to this. Like if our star reliever starts
throwing the ball, you know, four or five feet outside
the strike zone. Every time he starts his you know, outing,
I'm gonna start thinking, wait, is he is he on
the take or whatever? I mean that to me feels very.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Watch the game differently.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Yeah, I mean that feels like a long term risk
to the feeling in some aspect.
Speaker 6 (27:39):
I think it all depends on, you know, how much
is being put up for some of these things, Like
there are some real high rolling gamblers, but it has
to be consistent in order for the books to catch it.
And the biggest thing was show Hey O Tani last.
Speaker 1 (27:54):
Year Tani best basically the best current baseball player. He's
the baby of our time. But also about a year
and a half ago, it came out that Shohe Otani
had been at least through a bank account of his
gambling millions of dollars on sports and yeah, illegally. But
Otani's story, which it seems like authorities have accepted, the
(28:18):
league has accepted, is that it is actually his translator
accessing his bank account. But anyway, but it's still at
a time when the league is wholeheartedly embracing gambling. I mean,
it seems problematic, it.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
Looks a certain way, and all of these leagues have
to avoid this. I mean, everybody who covers sports business
in some ways is waiting for the big sports story
to happen in gambling. Everybody thought it was going to
be the show. Hey, Otani, think as you said, it's
since been accepted, and with that in mind, now you're
just waiting on the next one. Now we're looking at
(28:51):
Malik Beasley and how many times is this going to
come up again and again and again, And in large
part because they have embraced the money, and for some
players who even though they make millions of dollars, maybe
the millions aren't enough. Maybe these groups that they are
a part of standing to make more. Or you get
in with the wrong people, you're in debt, which is
what Malik Beasley is somewhat facing. And now it's like, okay,
(29:12):
I have to cover this some way, somehow, and they
lean into this. Now, the sports books are incentivized to
of course catch these people, because if you have high
rolling organizations who are betting on this, then the books
are going to be losing money if a player is
rigging games. So the leagues and the betting organizations are
working together to catch these individuals. But have all of
(29:34):
them been caught? I mean it remains to be seen.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
All right. I think our producer Amy had the under
on keeping this under fifteen minutes. Oh yeah, we better
help her out and wrap here. But before you go, Randal,
stick around. We have one more segment here.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Yeah, Randall, you might want to just like brace yourself. No, okay,
so it is time for our underrated segment and this
story comes from Max, and go for it.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
Max. Yes, you've probably had this sense that Ai, like
I have, is kind of ruining everything.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
Right, I don't think it's ruining everything.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Let me just I'll give you a few examples. Seems
like it's kind of ruining the college essay, it's kind
of ruining art. I'm sorry, it kind of is. It's
kind of ruining like social media. There's all this slop.
It's kind of ruining search engines. And I have another
thing that AI is ruining. Are you ready for it? Colonoscopies.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
WHOA, there's nothing to ruin, Like, I don't think there's
anywhere to.
Speaker 4 (30:40):
Go but up for a kolonoscopy.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Well, well I told you, all right, So I'm being glib,
but you're probably aware that people doctors and hospitals have
been experimenting with AI for detecting cancer like X rays
and stuff. This is like a big area of opportunity
as far as like software companies and healthcare providers see it.
(31:04):
And we've seen some positive stories. But there was a
study that appeared in a journal called Lancet, gastor, Entrology
and Heptology. Okay, okay, that's an important medical journal where
they basically compared colonoscopies that were done by humans with
colonoscopies that were done.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
The readings or the actual.
Speaker 1 (31:27):
No, no, no, The scope is operated by a doctor,
but the looking at the camera, because the way it
works is they stick a camera inside of you and
they're looking for cancerous precancerous, you know issues, And the idea,
the hope has been that you could sort of have
a software algorithm looking at the feed and sort of
(31:49):
flagging areas of concern to doctors, and which kind of
makes a lot of sense, right, It probably looks pretty
similar every single time. These polyps and so on are
hard to spot. Maybe the software can do for you.
Now when they use the software, according to this study,
essentially the software did a little bit better then In
(32:12):
some cases, the software seemed to basically work, but when
they took the software away, it actually made the doctors worse.
Their skills degraded, and so like, when they compared the
doctor's ability to detect problems pre AI with the doctor's
ability to detect problems post AI, it got worse. And
(32:33):
the authors of the study liken it to Google Maps, like,
if you rely on Google Maps all the time, maybe
your ability to navigate like cities degrades, But do you same.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Still need to be able to navigate cities if you
have the technology they can do.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
The problem here, though, also is like it wasn't necessarily
better either, Like basically.
Speaker 7 (32:52):
The doctors are getting worse.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
The doctors are getting worse because of the AI, at
least according to this study. And I think this is,
first of all, like super troubling because it's it just
suggests that, like we might want to just be cautious
as we adopt these new technologies because it could it
could affect our capacity. And what I'm wondering is Stay
(33:15):
is basically already answered this question. But Brandall, does this
give you pause? Do you are you? Do you want
to you worried that AI might be degrading your.
Speaker 7 (33:22):
In this specific aspect? Absolutely?
Speaker 6 (33:25):
Absolutely, the next time or when it is my time
to get this procedure, I will be asking like, hey,
use an AI? All right, well I'm gonna have to
find another clinic.
Speaker 1 (33:35):
You got to ask them have you ever used AI?
Not just now, because if they've used it before.
Speaker 6 (33:41):
And yeah, it's not going to be a thing where
like the doctor walks into obviously like yeah, we're gonna
do this and then they walk out. Now you're gonna
stay here the entire time. I need to see this.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
You read no, I seriously seriously, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
I feel less worried about it.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
I mean, I just see it as like a very
natural evolution of technology, Like we get worse at certain
things because we use technology as a crutch and we
can focus our attentions then on other things.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
Like I'll tell you say two things. One is it
is not standard Randall to stay awake during your klnoscopy.
I'm just gonna say it is possible, but not.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
Advisable.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
The other thing I'll say is there are a lot
of instances where computers are very capable, but the like
interface between humans and computers becomes problematic. And I think
that this is like another one of those stories. So
like and it probably like to your point, sa Z,
there's probably a way to like harness this technology in
a useful way. It's just it just seems like this
(34:41):
is a you know, a little bit of a cause.
Speaker 6 (34:43):
I think it's like a question as to me, if
there is a mistake, would you rather the human make
the mistake or would you rather the human with technology
make the mistake. I don't have the right answer to that,
but based on what Max has told me today, I
need a human, a one hundred percent of a human.
I don't need an android or a satellite or whatever
these doctors are using that is causing them to get worse.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
I'll just I feel like the computer's more baseline reliable though,
because the human, yes they could be an amazing someone
comes in and they're hungover and they're distracted, and you
know what.
Speaker 6 (35:15):
That's a completely different issue hungover.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Then those are less reliable than the AI. So, all
things being equal, I would rather.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
Have AI listeners, if you would rather have AI and
your colonosky.
Speaker 4 (35:26):
You have people write everybody subject to max chapters. I
don't want to read these emails?
Speaker 7 (35:36):
Could you actually do like that?
Speaker 1 (35:38):
Love?
Speaker 6 (35:39):
I'm Stacy, and I would advise you to go with
the AI option because technology gets better and people get worse.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
This show is.
Speaker 2 (35:51):
Produced by Stacy Wong. Magnus Hendrickson is our supervising producer.
Amy Keane is our editor, and Brendan Francis Newnham is
our executive producer. Engineering support from Kelly Gary and Dave Purcell. Factchecks,
Sage Bauman heads Bloomberg Podcasts. Special thanks to Jeff Muscus,
Julia Rubin, and Maria Ling. If you have a minute,
please rate and review the show. It means a lot
(36:12):
to us, and Max has not written a haiku in
several weeks, so if you leave us a review, I
promise that he will do that on a topic of
your choice. And if you have a story that should
be our business, email us at Everybody's at Bloomberg dot net.
That's Everybody's with an s at Bloomberg dot net.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
And if you have reviews of your colonoscopy, send them.
Speaker 2 (36:32):
To Max care of Max Chafkin. He's happy to look
at photo attachments as well. Thank you for listening, and
see you next week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.