June 11, 2025 • 38 mins
Watch Bloomberg Businessweek Daily LIVE every day on YouTube: http://bit.ly/3vTiACF.
President Donald Trump said a trade framework with China has been completed, with Beijing supplying rare earths and magnets “UP FRONT” and the US allowing Chinese students into its colleges and universities.
The US and China will maintain tariffs at their current, lower levels following the two nations’ agreement this week in London, Trump said Wednesday. That number is still higher than before the president took office. Trump said Chinese President Xi Jinping and he must still formally sign off on the agreement.
“OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME,” Trump posted on social media. “WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%. RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT!”
Yet after months of tense back-and-forth between Washington and Beijing, it remained unclear if the latest round of negotiations brought the two sides closer to an ultimate understanding on trade — or if it just amounted to more talk.
“Trump is mentioning the current tariff status, in a misleading way, to show he has the upper hand,” said Neo Wang, lead China macro analyst at Evercore ISI.
Trump’s comments prompted fresh questions about the terms of the pact US and Chinese negotiators reached Tuesday. Markets had a mixed reaction on Wednesday to comments from Trump and his team, with US equity indexes fluctuating throughout the day.
Today's show features:
- Bloomberg Economic Chief Geoeconomics Analyst Jennifer Welch on progress in in US-China trade negotiations
- Alex Grassino, Global Chief Economist for Manulife Investment Management on investment options in the current economic environment
- Julia Coronado, Founder and President of MacroPolicy Perspectives on the US economic outlook, and expectations for US monetary policy
- Bloomberg Businessweek Editor Brad Stone on the LA riots and his feature story on the United States losing its moral authority across the globe
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg business
Weekdaily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay
ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping
today's complex economy, plus global business, finance and tech news
(00:23):
as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with
Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
President Trump posting on truth Social this morning that the
US is deal with China is done, subject to final
approval with President she and me. Trump posting that after
twenty hours twenty hours of negotiations in London between the
US and China, which saw both sides clean up, as
Commerce Secretary of Howard Lutnik put it, the deal that
they reached in Geneva about a month ago. Here's what
(00:54):
Treasury Sectory Scott Best, who was also part of those talks,
had to say about where they stand during testimony this
morning before the Ways and Means Committee.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
China has a singular opportunity to stabilize its economy by
shifting away from excess production towards greater consumption, but the
country needs to be a reliable partner in trade negotiations.
If China will course correct by upholding it's into the
initial trade agreement we outlined in Geneva, and I believe
(01:25):
after our talks in London they will, then the rebalancing
of the world's largest two largest economies is possible.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Jennifer Welch joins us now. She's the Chief CHEO Economics
editor at Bloomberg Economics. She's formerly the director for China
and Taiwan at the National Security Council at the White House.
Pleasure to have her here with us in New York.
Scott bestn't there talking about the possibility, the chance here
that China could course correct, as he put it, by
upholding its end of the initial trade agreement they outlined
in Geneva. Let's start with what you've seen emerge from
(01:53):
these talks in London. How notionally different is that agreement
to what we saw a month ago. So where do
things stay? And here as we look at this kind
of ninety day pause in any progress that might have.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Been made, well notionally, we are back to where we were,
amire we go or we were supposed to be a
month ago in terms of clarity on what China is
going to do with rare earth exports and in particular
rare earth magnets in return for the United States essentially
seeming to walk back many of the export controls and
other restrictions that it put in place after Geneva to
build leverage for these talks. But I do think we're
(02:25):
a little bit far away from what the presidents claiming
in terms of a full deal with China. That remains
very much outstanding. Tariff levels don't appear to have been
adjusted in London, and we're still facing this August deadline
of reaching that larger deal before higher tar freates come
back into place.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
How much friction does there appear to be right now?
Are we moving at all any closer to a point
of consensus?
Speaker 4 (02:47):
I think at the moment tensions have come off the
front boiler, but there's still very much on the back burner,
and they could rise again at any point, particularly if
there continue to be disagreements about what exactly was agreed to,
or we continue to see any sort of disruptions in
terms of critical minerals and other key exports from China.
And then again, the entire looming deadline is really more
(03:09):
about terrorists, which they don't seem to have discussed in London,
and I think that's going to be an even stickier
set of issues to address. China now realizes they have
this major hammer in the form of these critical mineral
export controls that they can leverage, and I think that
really dilutes the US ability to push China towards the
deal that Washington says it once.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I want to ask you a little bit more about that.
I'm going to paraphrase something from our colleague Sean don
And in the dcpro who covers Tray. I'm going to
watch this, but I think the thrust of it was
the longer you go time kind of evaporates the efficacy
of the leverage that you've got. And so yes, there's
this leverage when it comes to the rare earth minerals.
But the longer this gets attenuated, the longer these talks
go on, the closer we get to this deadline for
(03:49):
this ninety day pause. So where does that leave the US?
Where is its leverage as you see it in these
talks and these negotiations.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Certainly never get to disagree with Sean, I will say,
I think that's for everyone. I think the timelines here
is slightly different. The amount of time it would take
the United States to build up independent supply chains for
critical minerals and rare errors is more a question of years,
whereas these negotiations, I think the US would prefer to
wrap up, if not by August, within several months timeframe, right,
(04:18):
So I think in terms of leverage, China's going to
maintain that pain point for at least the near term. Now,
the United States is trying to take steps to diversify
its critical minerals dependencies, but it's been trying to do
that for over a decade at this point, and it
would take some really serious investments in order to accomplish that.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
So, of course we know China is a major trading
partner here with the US, and of course we talked
about some of these rare materials, but what exports in
particular are economists really keeping your eye on. In terms
of broader clarity on tariffs, I.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
Think the key question is going to be with teriffs
now at still very high levels. They brought them back
down from their peak in April, but there's still US
teriff rate is around forty percent on China. Chinese tarif
freed on the US is upwards of twenty percent when
you take into account terraces that existed before Trump came
back into the White House. We think that's going to
take US China trade down by about seventy percent, and
(05:11):
so we're still likely to see some shortages. We're still
likely to see price hikes. The key question is going
to be how does that impact supply chains in terms
of is that price point too hig where you don't
just see higher price tags on the shelves, but you
actually see things missing on the shells because it just
doesn't make it economic sense for people to bring it in.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I'm old enough to remember when a chief, if not
the chief motivator for these talks, this disagreement had to
do with fentanyl and China exporting the ingredients for it
to the US and the wider world. Where does that stand?
I mean, this has grown larger than that in terms
of what the motivations are. But it seems to me,
as I've been reading in since these talks have taken place,
that's not something where we've seen much movement from the Chinese.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
It's a great question, and it wasn't that far back.
It was back in February and March when we felt
much younger then exactly, I think, but those remain US concerns,
but they have very much faded into the backdrop. And
I think that just as the list of complex topics
for all these negotiations, it's trade and economic practices, currency
(06:11):
might be on the table. This was awesome not addressed,
but just last week Treasury released a report on currency
practices where they called out China for what they felt
like was not a full manipulation, but concerning practices. Now
we're adding supply chain risks of the table. And then yes,
they're spentanol, which remains very much an outstanding issue in
the relationship.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
On a broader scope, as we're kind of looking at
where the economy stands right now, Just how fragile are
US consumers and the economy right now, especially as we
factor in what these price hikes could look like if
they do happen.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Great question, especially when you take it in consideration all
the other trade wars that are currently underway. We're less
than a month out from the deadline for other reciprocal
tariffs against every other US trade partner, coming back into
full brunt of what they were on Liberation Day and
Right now, we only have one semi agreement, which is
with the UK, and it's more of a framework to
(07:06):
agree rather than a full agreement in itself. So I
think a key question facing US consumers is are all
of those reciprocal tariffs going to come into play? And
then are we also going to see Chinese tariffs come
back into play about a month later when that August
deadline hits, you're looking at not quite everything on Liberation Day,
but another kind of double whimmy of some serious price hikes.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
I'm going to take advantage of you being here because
I'm going to knon ask Us next week for the
G seven Leaders summit, and the leaders of many of
these nations are going to be there. Who are, as
we understand, in the process for having these talks, these
trade talks with the US. Do you anticipate that that's
a form in which a lot of this stuff is
going to be hashed out? Are you optimistic that we
could see deals, at least in broad strokes announced while
(07:48):
we're there? So how should I think about that gathering
and the importance of trade at that gathering in Canada
next week?
Speaker 4 (07:54):
It's interesting the G seven used to be this major
forum for organizing a global risk response to major crises,
from the outbreak of war to financial shocks, and now
it looks like it's just going to be sort of
the backdrop to President Trump pashing out deals with individual countries.
And certainly trade tensions are going to be a point
(08:15):
on the agenda, even if at an informal point in
terms of really I think, delaying the group's ability to
reach consensus on some of those bigger issues. But yes,
in terms of the trade discussions, we know that, for example,
Japan also India might be looking to announce some sort
of progress towards the deal at the G seven. I
(08:36):
personally don't think that's going to be in the form
of full trade agreement, probably something more like what we
saw with the UK, a sort of framework to agree
or kind of terms that they'll be negotiating over, with
the expectation it'll still take at least weeks, if not months,
to hammer out something more comprehensive.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
And of course tears have really been at the forefront
for multiple weeks now. But what's the job market looking like?
Of course, if we're thinking about price hikes, we have
to think about whether or not that's an affordability concern.
What's the latest on the job market in about thirty
seconds or less.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
You know, I'd be honest.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
I'll defer to my US economic colleagues on this, but
my expectation is that I think all of this is
weighing on certainly US consumers perspective, US businesses, investors. They're
not going to be one to be making major moves
than all these tariff deadlines are looming, and it remains
incredibly unclear what deals are going to be hashed out
and where tear freates are ultimately going to land. And
it seems that uncertainty is going to stick with us
(09:28):
for at least another month, if not longer.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Jenny, great to see you, Thank you very much. That's
Jenny Well. She's the chief geoeconomics editor at Bloomberg Economics,
based in Washington, but joining us here in New York today.
She'd say, the former director for China and Taiwan to
the National Security Council at the White House, and looking
ahead to the G seven next week. I'll be heading
there this week and those talks get underway in earnest
on Monday of next week, two days worth of talks
and President Trump's presence looming large over the agenda at
(09:53):
that summit. This is Bloomberg Business Week on Bloomberg Radio
and YouTube. David Gera and Normal Linda in for Tim
Stanoveek and Carol Masser who are off today. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
You are listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern
Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Alex Parsino joins us now in the studio, the global
chief economists at Manual Life Investment Management, which has as
of June one point six trillion dollars in assets under
management and administration. Alex, great to have you with us.
And I suppose I should start with the economic data
du jour, that is the CPI data, the sense of
the state of inflation here in the US. How do
you see all this playing out? How do you see
(10:37):
are the Fed looking at that panoply of data at
its meeting next week and kind of considering the state
of the economy today? And how are you doing the
very same thing?
Speaker 8 (10:44):
Well, first off, thanks for having me here. It's great
to be here. When I look at the data today,
the way I look at CPI is basically was perhaps
a surprise to a lot of people, but not shocking necessarily,
simply because when you look at all the inventory that
got pulled forward during the first quarter of the year,
there's a good chance you're going to see some of
that have to work its way through before we see
slightly higher inflation prints. So at this stage, I think
(11:06):
basically the message for the FED will be very much
on brand. It's been one of the most reassuring or
perhaps frustratingly depending on how you look at it, and
messages from the government and most consistent, which is weren't
a good spot and we're not going to do anything
about it just yet.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
When you look at all these prints, of course, the
average person, it could be a little bit confusing. It
feels a bit mixed. I mean, you hear a consumer
that's stretched in some senses but still maintains its resilience.
What right now do you think how is the economy
currently standing?
Speaker 8 (11:36):
Sure, I think that's a great question. The way I
look at it is, if you look at GDP, so
the broadest measure of growth there's going to be some
misleading signals out of that. Just like in Q one
we got a weak print because of trade, We're going
to get a bit of snapback in the second quarter,
and then we sort of settle into something during the
second half of the year that we think is going
to be softish growth, probably a little bit cooler than
(11:56):
is strictly speaking comfortable, but generally speaking still not quite
recessionary at that point.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
I'm going to take advantage of the fact that we
have you here from Montreals north of the border. As
this roiling trade war continues. How much are you kind
of looking through it? How big of impact is it
having on your ability to sort of game things out
as you look at the global economy.
Speaker 8 (12:15):
Well, I think one of the things you hear a
lot of economists talk about is scenarios. Now, we are
very loath to give out point estimates at this stage,
and I think that's fair. I think one of the
things that has been ring fence since early April though,
is probably the worst case scenario. So people have a
base case and they figure out out land somewhere between
the two areas. In Canada specifically, there's clearly a lot
(12:35):
of concern given how interlinked we are with US trade.
But there are silver linings if you look at it
from a structural perspective. There's a lot of inefficiencies in
Canada that I think are being looked that closely with
this as the catalyst that perhaps move on from this.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
This is like the interprovincial trade for instance, all that.
Speaker 8 (12:53):
Yes, for some reason there's trade barriers between provinces in Canada.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
So of course is an evolving conversation, evolving negotiations. But
how much of an impact our economy is currently baking
in in terms of the effects of tariffs on the
US economy?
Speaker 8 (13:08):
Sure well. I think one of the things that's interesting
for US is it's almost like running to stand still.
We go through our forecasts about once a quarter, and
about two or three weeks ago we started the process,
so they're coming out in a couple of weeks, and
when we reopened the books and looked at exactly what
our assumptions were after all the escalation and de escalation,
(13:29):
was sort of left with humh, We're actually not that
far off from where we thought we'd be. One thing
that I think is different in the analysis is when
you looked at what was happening at the beginning of
the year, and especially as you looked at it from
the Fed's perspective, the general assumption was it would hurt
the US a little from a growth perspective, move inflation
up a bit, so you sort of created a slightly
(13:50):
more hawkish narrative. But because you're literally tackling every country
in the world at the same time, the dynamics become
a lot closer to places like Canada where you and
a more traditional growth hit. So we think that's probably
changing perceptions a little bit.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Given that, I wonder how you see all of this
ending up. And there was talk certainly on the campaign
trail of there maybe being a kind of ten percent
universal tariff. Is that Do you think where we might
be headed in all of this we've had We've had
all of this talk of negotiations between the US and
other countries one by one by one, but maybe things
kind of land in this more unified kind of general
(14:24):
terif regime. Do do you see things ending up that way
or do you think it's gonna be more finely tailored
narrowly tailored?
Speaker 8 (14:30):
So it depends on the region, And I think it's
a matter of economic importance. So I don't think it
will be a broad ten percent tariff on the bigger regions.
I think there will be a lot more nuance to
the argument, and perhaps for the countries sort of at
the far end of the tails you might see something
similar to that.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Are we approaching a tipping point in US growth?
Speaker 6 (14:52):
Sure?
Speaker 8 (14:52):
So I think one of the interesting things here is
when you look at most forecasts now, the second half
of the year is broadly seen as a period of cooling.
I'm not one hundred percent sure we haven't already started
to see tentative signs of that at this stage. So
just like GDP is a little bit soft last quarter,
as I'd mentioned, it will be a little bit hot
next quarter. You have to look through net trade and
look at things like consumption. When you look at downward
(15:13):
revisions to those, and when you look at things like
retail sales vehicle sales, you get a sense that maybe
you're starting to see that cooling point. It's not enough
to get nervous about, but it is a sled shift
in trajectory that we think maybe signals that we might
be starting to slow at this stage.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Now, I want to get a sense of your pessimism
or maybe lack of optimism. So like we've gotten the
latest forecast from the OECD, you got the World Bank
forecast as well. All seem to be indicated that we're
heading for a pretty dramatic slowdown, not just in the
US but globally. Is that a foregone conclusion as you
see it, Is that kind of tied up in the
uncertainty around the trade negotiations or is it something that
(15:48):
you think is definitely, definitely but very likely to happen.
Speaker 8 (15:51):
Well, we do think that you see a slowdown based
on where trade is going. I think it's pretty unambiguous
that we're going through deglobalization, and we've probably been going
through it for the better part of a decade at
this point. If you look at POSTGFC, you sort of
hit peak trade and you've sort of been grinding down
slowly over time. That trend we expect to persist. The
(16:11):
uncertainty is problematic for more export oriented countries, so we
view it as more domestic. You are perhaps some more diversified,
and your supply chain is the better off you're going
to be.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
So PAL has been receiving a lot of pressure from
the administration and others alike, I mean President Trump. Then
this morning we a JD. Vans also making some comments,
and then of course talks about potential replacement is also ongoing.
Two questions, is the FED behind the curve? And secondly
is there any wiggle room for cuts?
Speaker 8 (16:42):
So I think they are in a good spot. Not
to be too tried about it, but generally when you
look at the data, I sort of think of it
as a tug of war. But instead of having two ropes,
there's three. You have uncertainty pulling one direction, inflation another,
and growth slash labor in the third. Inflation is not
a problem at this stage, so you can give a
(17:04):
little slack there. Uncertainty seems to be receiving a little bit,
but you're not quite there and growth is still holding up,
so you're not really getting much. Ultimately, we think what
does happen though, is growth sort of dominates the narrative
and that's when you start to get cut built in.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Let me just ask you last we got about a
minute left here as what data is most important to
you as we look ahead to the PPI tomorrow at
FED meeting next week, what do you place in the
greatest credence, and when it comes to US economic.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
Data, sure at this stage, I'm really looking at the
month to month data. You want to see where the
sequential prints are going. Retail sales, to me is critically important.
I think the US consumer is the straw that stirs
the drink, and the way i'd view it is, unless
you get a real confidence shock and weakening labor, you
probably have a status quo which might not be overly
(17:50):
hot but not terrible. So we're looking for high frequency
data points consumption, high frequency data points around labor consumption.
Those are really where we're focused right now.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
Well, thank you so much for a wonderful conversation. Our
things to Alex Christino, Chief Economists at Manual Life Investment Management.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Apple, Corflay
and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can
also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Well, this is David Gerrea with normal Linda filling in
for Carol Mass and Tim Steneveek, who are off today
on a busy Wednesday. We're going to talk a bit
about the economy here in just a moment, going to
check in on Los Angeles as well as protests there continue,
and we've seen a strong response from the governor of
the state of California at Gavin Newsom in recent hours
commenting on the effort by the President of United States
to bring more military to that area. Bradstone, the editor
(18:48):
of Bloomberg BusinessWeek, is going to join us, but I
want to start first with the economy. The data that
we got this morning on the Consumer Price Index from
the Labor Department, Charlie Pellett characterizing it for us here
is benign, surprisingly benign inflation data. And Julia Coronatto joins
us now. She's, of course the president and founder of
Macro Policy Perspectives, and it's with us from Austin, Texas. Julia,
(19:09):
great to speak with you, and I want to get
your read. You can feel free to crib Charlie's line
as I have there about the benignness of these data,
But what do they tell you more broadly about the
state of the economy, the health of the economy. The
CPI data that we got today, well that's.
Speaker 9 (19:23):
Great framing and by the way, happy to join you
as always. Yeah, I think we see a few cross
currents in the data, so there is some initial signs
of tariff passed through in certain areas of goods like
furniture and certain recreation goods. We see that those prices
(19:46):
pushing higher, but there were also some offsets, so we
saw some weakness and areas that could reflect softening demands.
So travel prices have just been persistently weak, airfares hotels
for the last few months. Sporting events saw some weakness
this month, so that could reflect cooling demand and be
(20:08):
you know, an indication that the economy is in fact slowing,
and that dynamic might prohibit firms from passing on prices
or passing on the cost of tariffs through to final
consumer prices to a greater degree.
Speaker 10 (20:23):
But it's very early.
Speaker 9 (20:24):
It's only May data, so it usually takes two to
three months to see any impact.
Speaker 10 (20:29):
Remember, firms have inventories on hand, a.
Speaker 9 (20:32):
Lot of goods, a lot of apparel being sold was
already purchased before the tariffs, so it normally takes several
months to see the full impact of something like a
tariff passing through to final prices.
Speaker 5 (20:45):
Julia, what are you looking to see out of the
data to come? Of course, we have PPI coming up.
Of course we have the FED that's going to be
having its meeting next Wednesday, so we'll hear the decision
then where they're expected to hold read steady. But what
does the FED need to see right now to pivot to.
Speaker 10 (21:01):
Pivot towards cuts.
Speaker 9 (21:02):
I mean, I think they need to see a lot
more than they're seeing. I mean, number one, we know
that there's just going to be some time to see.
Speaker 10 (21:08):
The impact of what's already been put in place. So
the tariffs are real, they're being collected.
Speaker 9 (21:14):
They're either going to go into profits or they're going
to go into final consumer prices.
Speaker 10 (21:17):
Somebody's going to pay for this.
Speaker 9 (21:20):
And it's going to take the entire summer to really
see that impact in the data. So I don't think
the FED has I think they've basically taken the summer
off the table.
Speaker 10 (21:30):
And let's keep in mind too that one of the details.
Speaker 9 (21:32):
In this morning's data, and this you know, this will
depend on the PPI data that we see tomorrow to
some extent. But the gain that we are that is
implied by today's CPI for the Fed's preferred measure of
PCEE still suggest that that annual rate is going to
push higher, maybe even two tents higher. So we're estimating
(21:54):
that it'll round up to two point seven percent year
on year from two point five percent in April. So benign, yes,
But at the same time, that leaves the FED above
their two percent target for four years plus. And that's
why I think we've seen a little bit more hesitation
by the FED to rush towards rate cuts or to
(22:16):
signal any kind of imminent change in policy, because they've
been missing on their inflation target.
Speaker 10 (22:21):
For a long time.
Speaker 9 (22:22):
Meanwhile, unemployment rate is still in their full employment range,
so they're going to have to just keep things balanced
for now, hold their fire, and just gather more data.
As frustrating as that is for market participants, I don't
think we're going to learn a lot from the Fed
next week.
Speaker 11 (22:42):
True.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Let me move away from the Fed to ask you
about what we heard from the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant
this morning. So he downed some coffee on an overnight
flight from London to Washington. He testified before the House
Ways and Means Committee after twenty hours of negotiations over
trade policy with the Chinese, but he was asked about deficits.
He's asked about this legislation that's kind of making its
(23:03):
way through through the Senate right now, And I'd love
to get your sense of the argument that the administration
is making about the potential for growth here visa VI
that legislation, and how you see all of that playing
out in the months ahead.
Speaker 9 (23:15):
I think that there's a lot of spin going on,
and I certainly would characterize that as being what we
heard from the Treasury Secretary. There isn't an economist who
actually puts pen to paper thinking that this will reduce deficits.
And one core driver of thinking about the growth outlook
is the immigration outlook, which is getting even.
Speaker 10 (23:36):
More draconian by the day.
Speaker 9 (23:39):
You're not going to get three percent GDP growth if
you're contracting the labor force and doing mass deportations.
Speaker 10 (23:45):
That simply those numbers just don't add up.
Speaker 9 (23:48):
So growth can save you, but you have to put
in growth friendly policies.
Speaker 10 (23:54):
And what we're seeing is, you.
Speaker 9 (23:56):
Know, they're channeling money away from sort of high multiplier,
high fiscal multiplier categories like social insurance or infrastructure projects,
which actually crowd in investment to tax cuts, you know,
for wealthy individuals, and that those individuals tend to save
(24:18):
a lot of their gains from tax cuts rather than
channel them into the economy. So I don't look at
the overall details of this package and say, number one,
it's definitely not going to reduce the deficit, and number two,
you know it probably isn't going to be. This whole
suite of policies isn't going to deliver three percent growth
anytime soon.
Speaker 5 (24:39):
Julia, Speaking of Scott Besson, he's also being fluted as
a potential FED chair replacement for Jerome Powell. Can you
bring it down a little bit for the viewers. Does
a new FED chair mean quick cuts?
Speaker 10 (24:53):
Not necessarily?
Speaker 9 (24:54):
I mean, I think look, Secretary Besant understands the structure.
Speaker 10 (24:59):
Of the FED as a.
Speaker 9 (25:03):
Decision making body. There's a lot of people he has
to contend with. He can't just come in like a
bull in a china shop, and you know, dictate policy
to a very large committee, and that committee is not
scheduled to turn over very quickly, so he would have
to come in clearly he would probably lean towards policies
(25:26):
like faster rate cuts or larger rate cuts that the
President prefers, but he's going to have to bring the
committee along.
Speaker 10 (25:33):
And he's also a guy that he's a market's guy.
Speaker 9 (25:35):
He's not going to want to take actions that are
going to really spook the bond market.
Speaker 10 (25:39):
So, you know, so I wouldn't expect, you know.
Speaker 9 (25:43):
I think actually the bigger question when we think about
Secretary Besant as a possible replacement for Chair Powell is
who would replace him at Treasury. He's really been seen
by markets as the you know, the cool head in
the room and the guy who understands market and kind
of can talk the President off a ledge at times.
(26:04):
Who would replace him? I think that's a much more salient,
meaningful question for markets.
Speaker 10 (26:09):
In the near term than what he would do.
Speaker 9 (26:11):
As whoever President Trump nominates as Chair Powell's replacement will
probably lean towards more Dubvish policy. Whether that's Kevin Hassett
or Kevin Walsh or Secretary Besson, they're all going to
probably lean in the President's direction, so that we know,
and it will probably they'll probably be somewhat constrained. But
(26:32):
if we lose best in a treasury, Does Howard Lutnik
take the reins? You know who else could step in
and replace him there. I think that's pretty.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Important that parlor game begins anew the one that we
saw after President Trump was elected there for a second term.
Julie Cornetta, thank you very much. It's always great to
catch up with you. Julie Cornett a president and founder
of Macro Policy Perspectives, Clinical Assistant Professor at the Macomb
School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
You are listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast.
Catch us liveday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern.
Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
David Gerrow with Normal, Linda Infrakarrol Master, and Tim Steneviek
on Bloomberg business Week Daily on Bloomberg Radio and YouTube
as well. And a pleasure as always to talk with Bradstone,
the editor of Bloomberg Business Week, about his latest writing.
A pair of pieces here, one of which centers on
what's been happening in the city of Los Angeles, the
other about the United States and a pivot away from
the altruistic state craft, the Marshall Plan what America has
(27:31):
been known for for some time, to something different. I'm
going to cover back both those pieces of writing with
Brad here on Bloomberg business Week. And Brad, let's start
with the goings on in Los Angeles, and your piece
opens in the Business Week newsletter. California today is a tinderbox,
and you draw this contrast between the kind of picture
of radicalism that the Trump administration is trying to portray
(27:52):
here and what's actually happening in California politics. And I'd
love to start there if we could, that contrast, that
dichotomy between the image that's being portrayed by the White
House and sort of where things have actually been trending
when it comes to politics in your state of California.
Speaker 6 (28:07):
Sure, thanks for having me on, David.
Speaker 11 (28:08):
Yeah, this is not just a battle over ice enforcement
in California or law and order in Los Angeles. This
is really a battle over the heart and soul of
the Democratic Party in California, a blue state that has
consistently opposed President Trump and his agenda. You mentioned President
Trump is painting his political opponents as radical left lunatics.
(28:33):
His words, but it is really not what's happening in California.
This is a party that has moved to the middle.
It's evident everywhere. Governor Gavin Newsom recently taking aim at
things like healthcare for illegal immigrants, signaling the return of
budget austerity to the state, speaking out against trans girls
(28:55):
in sports, participants in sports. And you know Rick Cruso,
the billionaire real estate developer who lost the mayor's race
in La his stars kind of ascendant since the wildfires.
And then in San Francisco where I am Mayor Daniel Lurie,
who I interviewed last week at the Bloomberg Tech Summit,
(29:17):
very much taking a page from.
Speaker 6 (29:20):
The abundance agenda of the.
Speaker 11 (29:22):
Democratic Party, talking about bringing business people in to start
rebuilding the city, addressing homelessness, and profligate drug use. So
it's really a party that's been moving to the middle.
Maybe liberal by a lot of the standards elsewhere in
the country, but very much a moderating party. And I
think President Trump really wants to, you know, attach the
(29:43):
party to some of these images of protesters wearing masks
on top of Waimo's waving the Mexican flag.
Speaker 6 (29:50):
That is politically useful for him.
Speaker 5 (29:52):
And I'm looking at the photograph right now in your story.
It's a really striking photograph in terms of them waving
a Mescan flag on the waymos. What does all this
say about the division in our nation right now regarding
the topic of immigration. I'm seeing that these anti ice
protests are spreading to New York City and Chicago in
other areas as well, right.
Speaker 6 (30:12):
Yeah, thanks, Nora.
Speaker 11 (30:13):
I mean it's look, these are sharp divisions on display.
I think that there are major urban areas that have
identified primarily with the Democratic Party, that are protective of
their own that consider themselves sanctuary cities, and consider this
enhanced ICE enforcement and the rounding up of immigrants, some
(30:35):
here illegally, some here on temporary work visas, at their
places of worship, at their places of work, and they
see this ICE enforcement as really an incursion into local sovereignty,
into their own communities. And I think what has started
in LA is really, faithfully I think, destined to grow
(30:56):
in other cities. I think San Francisco is probably on
the verge of following because of this protectiveness and the
opposition to the Trump agenda. And so what does it
say about the divisions on our society.
Speaker 6 (31:08):
That they're deeper and starker than ever.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Let me return to San Francisco, where of course you're based,
and go back to the conversation that you had with
Daniel Lurie, and maybe you could give us some sense
here of who he is and what he's trying to
engineer or do in that job as mayor of San Francisco.
So he kind of representing that new brand of kind
of centrist politics. How's he approaching the job. He's somebody
(31:31):
who comes from great familial wealth. His relatives were founders
of the Levi Strauss company. What are his ambitions and
what in roads is he making and kind of changing
the city or I would won't say writing the politics,
but changing the politics of San Francisco.
Speaker 11 (31:44):
Yeah, you're right, David, that who he is almost has
as much about the Democratic Party as what he's doing.
He is an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune. His
stepfather was a member of the Haas family that founded
Levi Strauss. He was its ranked choice voting for the
mayor's race in San Francisco, but he won enough votes
(32:09):
to elevate himself over former Mayor London breed. He has
a much more moderate board of supervisor. So it's only
been a few months. It's way too early to make
any judgments about his tenure, but I would say he
has maybe presided over the first glimpse of optimism in
the city since our miserable run during the pandemic. And
(32:30):
you can kind of see it in the commitments made
by the business community to come in and help with
law enforcement. A cryptobillionaire recently donated some money to the
SFPD to help him build a kind of high tech
hub outside the really dilapidated police headquarters. Things like just
the you know, the public drug use and the homeless encampments.
(32:53):
I think Loriie has finally started to make some progress
on cleaning that up. We've got a long way to go,
I mean, there's still no construction cranes in the city,
but he is riding a wave of tremendous enthusiasm about
AI and from the tech community, and I think that
this is a new.
Speaker 6 (33:09):
Kind of California Democrat who is.
Speaker 11 (33:13):
Combining maybe some of the old liberal ideas with the
business community and finding a middle ground.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
So he's talking about Rick Crusoe, but approval ratings for
Mayor Karen Bass, who of course is left leaning, have
sunk since January's wildfires.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
How much of her.
Speaker 5 (33:30):
Legacy is writing on this moment right now in regards
to all the protests going on, or have her constituents
pretty much cemented their sentiments.
Speaker 11 (33:39):
And Nora, that's a great question, And being from the
far away city of San Francisco, I can't say, I know.
I mean, she did take a beating during the wildfires
when she was not in the city when they broke out.
Just unfortunate timing for her. This is probably a moment
for her to show her leadership now. I don't know
if Governor Gavin Newsom is building any of the spotlight
(34:01):
or oxygen to other politicians in the state. He has
really cemented himself as the chief adversary to President Trump,
and of course that plays into Governor Newsom's hands when.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
It comes to twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 11 (34:12):
But look, I mean, LA is a tinderbox right now,
and I think that Mayor Bass probably does have an
opportunity to make up some of the grounds she lost
during the wildfires.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Brad, I want to turn to the other piece that
you've written recently that's going to be a feature in
the latest issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine, and it focuses
on the kind of unraveling of the Marshall Plan and
again this kind of move away from altruistic state craft.
And so the US for so long now, for many decades,
has had this perspective that it can do well by
doing good in other parts of the world, that by
(34:42):
investing in disease eradication and education, all manner of other
social programs, that's going to help the US's position in
the world by helping other places around the world. You
say that how other branches of the American government, countries
and multinational companies respond in the months and years ahead
will be the defining question of at least the rest
of our lives. So you've been watching as we all
have these these changes unfold over the last six or
(35:04):
so months. Picking up on your question, which you you
asked rhetorically, there are we seeing other other folks pick
up the mantle here. How worrisome is it the situation
that the US find itself in visavi the rest of
the world.
Speaker 11 (35:16):
Right Well, David, this was this is the opening essay
for our July issue.
Speaker 6 (35:20):
And you know the challenge.
Speaker 11 (35:21):
Here I get to like put on my historian's hat
and stroke my non existent beard. And the point I
was making here is that, you know, going back to
John Winthrop, the City on the Hill, and you know,
George Washington and Lincoln and this historic belief that the
US was a sort of mo set of moral example
for the rest of the world. And of course we
didn't always meet the standard. In fact, we often fell
(35:44):
short of it. But the Marshall Plan after the war,
len Ley's during World War Two, which Churchill called the
most unsorted act in history. You know, we we helped
our allies, and not because we thought we would be repaid,
but because we thought it was the right thing to
do and that America would benefit from peacefulness and the
spread of democracy. And you know, the current administration has
(36:07):
really broke with that. If it's you know, canceling USAID,
which really was the Marshall Plan for the developing world,
or pulling back on pepfar, the program that addressed AIDS
and HIV, pulling out of public health agencies and climate
enforcement agencies. There is a big vacuum right now, and
I think Europe has showed some inclination of picking up
(36:27):
that slack, particularly when it comes to climate change or
corruption enforcement in business, but otherwise it's really left a vacuum.
Speaker 5 (36:36):
And you mentioned a lot of these different things that
have been changed under the new administration. Of course, cutting
for an aid, what's wrowing from international agreements. As you're
really following all these different things closely and speaking with people,
do you expect any meaningful shift in this dynamic.
Speaker 6 (36:53):
Nora, I don't see where it would come from. I mean,
you know, I'm talking.
Speaker 11 (36:56):
About a strain in American history of you know, collaboration
and multinationalism, free trade setting a mortal example. But the
president has seized upon a tradition that is, you know,
is maybe over the last century certainly maybe if not
as strong, it certainly co exists, which is isolationism, nativism
(37:18):
American first, and that is just completely central to the
Trumpet administration and to who the president is. And so
there's certainly no inclination that he is creeping back, you know,
from that edge. And so the only question is is
there anyone else in the world to take up the slack?
And now I do mention this IPSOS poll, which is
really interesting. You know, forty six countries around the world
(37:41):
looking at sentiments about different countries.
Speaker 6 (37:45):
The sentiment that America would is going.
Speaker 11 (37:47):
To be better for the world has fallen dramatically, and
the sentiments around China now exceeds the positive sentiment around America.
So there's at least some hope that China picks up
some of the slack.
Speaker 5 (37:58):
Well, thank you so much for a wonderful conversation. If
you all haven't checked out his stories, check out his
stories on the Bloomberg Terminal, LA violence endangers democrats, moderation,
and America casts itself as the world's moral leader. But
not anymore. Of course, we are seeing him in San
Francisco commenting on those li riots that are going on,
but definitely check out his future stories on the US
losing its moral authority across the globe.
Speaker 7 (38:20):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday
afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App.
You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube
(38:41):
and always on the Bloomberg Terminal
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. This is Bloomberg business
Weekdaily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay
ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping
today's complex economy, plus global business, finance and tech news
(00:23):
as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with
Carol Masser and Tim Steneveek on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
President Trump posting on truth Social this morning that the
US is deal with China is done, subject to final
approval with President she and me. Trump posting that after
twenty hours twenty hours of negotiations in London between the
US and China, which saw both sides clean up, as
Commerce Secretary of Howard Lutnik put it, the deal that
they reached in Geneva about a month ago. Here's what
(00:54):
Treasury Sectory Scott Best, who was also part of those talks,
had to say about where they stand during testimony this
morning before the Ways and Means Committee.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
China has a singular opportunity to stabilize its economy by
shifting away from excess production towards greater consumption, but the
country needs to be a reliable partner in trade negotiations.
If China will course correct by upholding it's into the
initial trade agreement we outlined in Geneva, and I believe
(01:25):
after our talks in London they will, then the rebalancing
of the world's largest two largest economies is possible.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Jennifer Welch joins us now. She's the Chief CHEO Economics
editor at Bloomberg Economics. She's formerly the director for China
and Taiwan at the National Security Council at the White House.
Pleasure to have her here with us in New York.
Scott bestn't there talking about the possibility, the chance here
that China could course correct, as he put it, by
upholding its end of the initial trade agreement they outlined
in Geneva. Let's start with what you've seen emerge from
(01:53):
these talks in London. How notionally different is that agreement
to what we saw a month ago. So where do
things stay? And here as we look at this kind
of ninety day pause in any progress that might have.
Speaker 4 (02:03):
Been made, well notionally, we are back to where we were,
amire we go or we were supposed to be a
month ago in terms of clarity on what China is
going to do with rare earth exports and in particular
rare earth magnets in return for the United States essentially
seeming to walk back many of the export controls and
other restrictions that it put in place after Geneva to
build leverage for these talks. But I do think we're
(02:25):
a little bit far away from what the presidents claiming
in terms of a full deal with China. That remains
very much outstanding. Tariff levels don't appear to have been
adjusted in London, and we're still facing this August deadline
of reaching that larger deal before higher tar freates come
back into place.
Speaker 5 (02:41):
How much friction does there appear to be right now?
Are we moving at all any closer to a point
of consensus?
Speaker 4 (02:47):
I think at the moment tensions have come off the
front boiler, but there's still very much on the back burner,
and they could rise again at any point, particularly if
there continue to be disagreements about what exactly was agreed to,
or we continue to see any sort of disruptions in
terms of critical minerals and other key exports from China.
And then again, the entire looming deadline is really more
(03:09):
about terrorists, which they don't seem to have discussed in London,
and I think that's going to be an even stickier
set of issues to address. China now realizes they have
this major hammer in the form of these critical mineral
export controls that they can leverage, and I think that
really dilutes the US ability to push China towards the
deal that Washington says it once.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
I want to ask you a little bit more about that.
I'm going to paraphrase something from our colleague Sean don
And in the dcpro who covers Tray. I'm going to
watch this, but I think the thrust of it was
the longer you go time kind of evaporates the efficacy
of the leverage that you've got. And so yes, there's
this leverage when it comes to the rare earth minerals.
But the longer this gets attenuated, the longer these talks
go on, the closer we get to this deadline for
(03:49):
this ninety day pause. So where does that leave the US?
Where is its leverage as you see it in these
talks and these negotiations.
Speaker 4 (03:56):
Certainly never get to disagree with Sean, I will say,
I think that's for everyone. I think the timelines here
is slightly different. The amount of time it would take
the United States to build up independent supply chains for
critical minerals and rare errors is more a question of years,
whereas these negotiations, I think the US would prefer to
wrap up, if not by August, within several months timeframe, right,
(04:18):
So I think in terms of leverage, China's going to
maintain that pain point for at least the near term. Now,
the United States is trying to take steps to diversify
its critical minerals dependencies, but it's been trying to do
that for over a decade at this point, and it
would take some really serious investments in order to accomplish that.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
So, of course we know China is a major trading
partner here with the US, and of course we talked
about some of these rare materials, but what exports in
particular are economists really keeping your eye on. In terms
of broader clarity on tariffs, I.
Speaker 4 (04:49):
Think the key question is going to be with teriffs
now at still very high levels. They brought them back
down from their peak in April, but there's still US
teriff rate is around forty percent on China. Chinese tarif
freed on the US is upwards of twenty percent when
you take into account terraces that existed before Trump came
back into the White House. We think that's going to
take US China trade down by about seventy percent, and
(05:11):
so we're still likely to see some shortages. We're still
likely to see price hikes. The key question is going
to be how does that impact supply chains in terms
of is that price point too hig where you don't
just see higher price tags on the shelves, but you
actually see things missing on the shells because it just
doesn't make it economic sense for people to bring it in.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
I'm old enough to remember when a chief, if not
the chief motivator for these talks, this disagreement had to
do with fentanyl and China exporting the ingredients for it
to the US and the wider world. Where does that stand?
I mean, this has grown larger than that in terms
of what the motivations are. But it seems to me,
as I've been reading in since these talks have taken place,
that's not something where we've seen much movement from the Chinese.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
It's a great question, and it wasn't that far back.
It was back in February and March when we felt
much younger then exactly, I think, but those remain US concerns,
but they have very much faded into the backdrop. And
I think that just as the list of complex topics
for all these negotiations, it's trade and economic practices, currency
(06:11):
might be on the table. This was awesome not addressed,
but just last week Treasury released a report on currency
practices where they called out China for what they felt
like was not a full manipulation, but concerning practices. Now
we're adding supply chain risks of the table. And then yes,
they're spentanol, which remains very much an outstanding issue in
the relationship.
Speaker 5 (06:32):
On a broader scope, as we're kind of looking at
where the economy stands right now, Just how fragile are
US consumers and the economy right now, especially as we
factor in what these price hikes could look like if
they do happen.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Great question, especially when you take it in consideration all
the other trade wars that are currently underway. We're less
than a month out from the deadline for other reciprocal
tariffs against every other US trade partner, coming back into
full brunt of what they were on Liberation Day and
Right now, we only have one semi agreement, which is
with the UK, and it's more of a framework to
(07:06):
agree rather than a full agreement in itself. So I
think a key question facing US consumers is are all
of those reciprocal tariffs going to come into play? And
then are we also going to see Chinese tariffs come
back into play about a month later when that August
deadline hits, you're looking at not quite everything on Liberation Day,
but another kind of double whimmy of some serious price hikes.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
I'm going to take advantage of you being here because
I'm going to knon ask Us next week for the
G seven Leaders summit, and the leaders of many of
these nations are going to be there. Who are, as
we understand, in the process for having these talks, these
trade talks with the US. Do you anticipate that that's
a form in which a lot of this stuff is
going to be hashed out? Are you optimistic that we
could see deals, at least in broad strokes announced while
(07:48):
we're there? So how should I think about that gathering
and the importance of trade at that gathering in Canada
next week?
Speaker 4 (07:54):
It's interesting the G seven used to be this major
forum for organizing a global risk response to major crises,
from the outbreak of war to financial shocks, and now
it looks like it's just going to be sort of
the backdrop to President Trump pashing out deals with individual countries.
And certainly trade tensions are going to be a point
(08:15):
on the agenda, even if at an informal point in
terms of really I think, delaying the group's ability to
reach consensus on some of those bigger issues. But yes,
in terms of the trade discussions, we know that, for example,
Japan also India might be looking to announce some sort
of progress towards the deal at the G seven. I
(08:36):
personally don't think that's going to be in the form
of full trade agreement, probably something more like what we
saw with the UK, a sort of framework to agree
or kind of terms that they'll be negotiating over, with
the expectation it'll still take at least weeks, if not months,
to hammer out something more comprehensive.
Speaker 5 (08:52):
And of course tears have really been at the forefront
for multiple weeks now. But what's the job market looking like?
Of course, if we're thinking about price hikes, we have
to think about whether or not that's an affordability concern.
What's the latest on the job market in about thirty
seconds or less.
Speaker 6 (09:05):
You know, I'd be honest.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
I'll defer to my US economic colleagues on this, but
my expectation is that I think all of this is
weighing on certainly US consumers perspective, US businesses, investors. They're
not going to be one to be making major moves
than all these tariff deadlines are looming, and it remains
incredibly unclear what deals are going to be hashed out
and where tear freates are ultimately going to land. And
it seems that uncertainty is going to stick with us
(09:28):
for at least another month, if not longer.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
Jenny, great to see you, Thank you very much. That's
Jenny Well. She's the chief geoeconomics editor at Bloomberg Economics,
based in Washington, but joining us here in New York today.
She'd say, the former director for China and Taiwan to
the National Security Council at the White House, and looking
ahead to the G seven next week. I'll be heading
there this week and those talks get underway in earnest
on Monday of next week, two days worth of talks
and President Trump's presence looming large over the agenda at
(09:53):
that summit. This is Bloomberg Business Week on Bloomberg Radio
and YouTube. David Gera and Normal Linda in for Tim
Stanoveek and Carol Masser who are off today. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 7 (10:02):
You are listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily podcast. Catch
us live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern
Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Alex Parsino joins us now in the studio, the global
chief economists at Manual Life Investment Management, which has as
of June one point six trillion dollars in assets under
management and administration. Alex, great to have you with us.
And I suppose I should start with the economic data
du jour, that is the CPI data, the sense of
the state of inflation here in the US. How do
you see all this playing out? How do you see
(10:37):
are the Fed looking at that panoply of data at
its meeting next week and kind of considering the state
of the economy today? And how are you doing the
very same thing?
Speaker 8 (10:44):
Well, first off, thanks for having me here. It's great
to be here. When I look at the data today,
the way I look at CPI is basically was perhaps
a surprise to a lot of people, but not shocking necessarily,
simply because when you look at all the inventory that
got pulled forward during the first quarter of the year,
there's a good chance you're going to see some of
that have to work its way through before we see
slightly higher inflation prints. So at this stage, I think
(11:06):
basically the message for the FED will be very much
on brand. It's been one of the most reassuring or
perhaps frustratingly depending on how you look at it, and
messages from the government and most consistent, which is weren't
a good spot and we're not going to do anything
about it just yet.
Speaker 5 (11:21):
When you look at all these prints, of course, the
average person, it could be a little bit confusing. It
feels a bit mixed. I mean, you hear a consumer
that's stretched in some senses but still maintains its resilience.
What right now do you think how is the economy
currently standing?
Speaker 8 (11:36):
Sure, I think that's a great question. The way I
look at it is, if you look at GDP, so
the broadest measure of growth there's going to be some
misleading signals out of that. Just like in Q one
we got a weak print because of trade, We're going
to get a bit of snapback in the second quarter,
and then we sort of settle into something during the
second half of the year that we think is going
to be softish growth, probably a little bit cooler than
(11:56):
is strictly speaking comfortable, but generally speaking still not quite
recessionary at that point.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
I'm going to take advantage of the fact that we
have you here from Montreals north of the border. As
this roiling trade war continues. How much are you kind
of looking through it? How big of impact is it
having on your ability to sort of game things out
as you look at the global economy.
Speaker 8 (12:15):
Well, I think one of the things you hear a
lot of economists talk about is scenarios. Now, we are
very loath to give out point estimates at this stage,
and I think that's fair. I think one of the
things that has been ring fence since early April though,
is probably the worst case scenario. So people have a
base case and they figure out out land somewhere between
the two areas. In Canada specifically, there's clearly a lot
(12:35):
of concern given how interlinked we are with US trade.
But there are silver linings if you look at it
from a structural perspective. There's a lot of inefficiencies in
Canada that I think are being looked that closely with
this as the catalyst that perhaps move on from this.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
This is like the interprovincial trade for instance, all that.
Speaker 8 (12:53):
Yes, for some reason there's trade barriers between provinces in Canada.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
So of course is an evolving conversation, evolving negotiations. But
how much of an impact our economy is currently baking
in in terms of the effects of tariffs on the
US economy?
Speaker 8 (13:08):
Sure well. I think one of the things that's interesting
for US is it's almost like running to stand still.
We go through our forecasts about once a quarter, and
about two or three weeks ago we started the process,
so they're coming out in a couple of weeks, and
when we reopened the books and looked at exactly what
our assumptions were after all the escalation and de escalation,
(13:29):
was sort of left with humh, We're actually not that
far off from where we thought we'd be. One thing
that I think is different in the analysis is when
you looked at what was happening at the beginning of
the year, and especially as you looked at it from
the Fed's perspective, the general assumption was it would hurt
the US a little from a growth perspective, move inflation
up a bit, so you sort of created a slightly
(13:50):
more hawkish narrative. But because you're literally tackling every country
in the world at the same time, the dynamics become
a lot closer to places like Canada where you and
a more traditional growth hit. So we think that's probably
changing perceptions a little bit.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
Given that, I wonder how you see all of this
ending up. And there was talk certainly on the campaign
trail of there maybe being a kind of ten percent
universal tariff. Is that Do you think where we might
be headed in all of this we've had We've had
all of this talk of negotiations between the US and
other countries one by one by one, but maybe things
kind of land in this more unified kind of general
(14:24):
terif regime. Do do you see things ending up that way
or do you think it's gonna be more finely tailored
narrowly tailored?
Speaker 8 (14:30):
So it depends on the region, And I think it's
a matter of economic importance. So I don't think it
will be a broad ten percent tariff on the bigger regions.
I think there will be a lot more nuance to
the argument, and perhaps for the countries sort of at
the far end of the tails you might see something
similar to that.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
Are we approaching a tipping point in US growth?
Speaker 6 (14:52):
Sure?
Speaker 8 (14:52):
So I think one of the interesting things here is
when you look at most forecasts now, the second half
of the year is broadly seen as a period of cooling.
I'm not one hundred percent sure we haven't already started
to see tentative signs of that at this stage. So
just like GDP is a little bit soft last quarter,
as I'd mentioned, it will be a little bit hot
next quarter. You have to look through net trade and
look at things like consumption. When you look at downward
(15:13):
revisions to those, and when you look at things like
retail sales vehicle sales, you get a sense that maybe
you're starting to see that cooling point. It's not enough
to get nervous about, but it is a sled shift
in trajectory that we think maybe signals that we might
be starting to slow at this stage.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Now, I want to get a sense of your pessimism
or maybe lack of optimism. So like we've gotten the
latest forecast from the OECD, you got the World Bank
forecast as well. All seem to be indicated that we're
heading for a pretty dramatic slowdown, not just in the
US but globally. Is that a foregone conclusion as you
see it, Is that kind of tied up in the
uncertainty around the trade negotiations or is it something that
(15:48):
you think is definitely, definitely but very likely to happen.
Speaker 8 (15:51):
Well, we do think that you see a slowdown based
on where trade is going. I think it's pretty unambiguous
that we're going through deglobalization, and we've probably been going
through it for the better part of a decade at
this point. If you look at POSTGFC, you sort of
hit peak trade and you've sort of been grinding down
slowly over time. That trend we expect to persist. The
(16:11):
uncertainty is problematic for more export oriented countries, so we
view it as more domestic. You are perhaps some more diversified,
and your supply chain is the better off you're going
to be.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
So PAL has been receiving a lot of pressure from
the administration and others alike, I mean President Trump. Then
this morning we a JD. Vans also making some comments,
and then of course talks about potential replacement is also ongoing.
Two questions, is the FED behind the curve? And secondly
is there any wiggle room for cuts?
Speaker 8 (16:42):
So I think they are in a good spot. Not
to be too tried about it, but generally when you
look at the data, I sort of think of it
as a tug of war. But instead of having two ropes,
there's three. You have uncertainty pulling one direction, inflation another,
and growth slash labor in the third. Inflation is not
a problem at this stage, so you can give a
(17:04):
little slack there. Uncertainty seems to be receiving a little bit,
but you're not quite there and growth is still holding up,
so you're not really getting much. Ultimately, we think what
does happen though, is growth sort of dominates the narrative
and that's when you start to get cut built in.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
Let me just ask you last we got about a
minute left here as what data is most important to
you as we look ahead to the PPI tomorrow at
FED meeting next week, what do you place in the
greatest credence, and when it comes to US economic.
Speaker 8 (17:29):
Data, sure at this stage, I'm really looking at the
month to month data. You want to see where the
sequential prints are going. Retail sales, to me is critically important.
I think the US consumer is the straw that stirs
the drink, and the way i'd view it is, unless
you get a real confidence shock and weakening labor, you
probably have a status quo which might not be overly
(17:50):
hot but not terrible. So we're looking for high frequency
data points consumption, high frequency data points around labor consumption.
Those are really where we're focused right now.
Speaker 5 (18:00):
Well, thank you so much for a wonderful conversation. Our
things to Alex Christino, Chief Economists at Manual Life Investment Management.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live
each weekday starting at two pm Eastern on Apple, Corflay
and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. You can
also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
York station, Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Well, this is David Gerrea with normal Linda filling in
for Carol Mass and Tim Steneveek, who are off today
on a busy Wednesday. We're going to talk a bit
about the economy here in just a moment, going to
check in on Los Angeles as well as protests there continue,
and we've seen a strong response from the governor of
the state of California at Gavin Newsom in recent hours
commenting on the effort by the President of United States
to bring more military to that area. Bradstone, the editor
(18:48):
of Bloomberg BusinessWeek, is going to join us, but I
want to start first with the economy. The data that
we got this morning on the Consumer Price Index from
the Labor Department, Charlie Pellett characterizing it for us here
is benign, surprisingly benign inflation data. And Julia Coronatto joins
us now. She's, of course the president and founder of
Macro Policy Perspectives, and it's with us from Austin, Texas. Julia,
(19:09):
great to speak with you, and I want to get
your read. You can feel free to crib Charlie's line
as I have there about the benignness of these data,
But what do they tell you more broadly about the
state of the economy, the health of the economy. The
CPI data that we got today, well that's.
Speaker 9 (19:23):
Great framing and by the way, happy to join you
as always. Yeah, I think we see a few cross
currents in the data, so there is some initial signs
of tariff passed through in certain areas of goods like
furniture and certain recreation goods. We see that those prices
(19:46):
pushing higher, but there were also some offsets, so we
saw some weakness and areas that could reflect softening demands.
So travel prices have just been persistently weak, airfares hotels
for the last few months. Sporting events saw some weakness
this month, so that could reflect cooling demand and be
(20:08):
you know, an indication that the economy is in fact slowing,
and that dynamic might prohibit firms from passing on prices
or passing on the cost of tariffs through to final
consumer prices to a greater degree.
Speaker 10 (20:23):
But it's very early.
Speaker 9 (20:24):
It's only May data, so it usually takes two to
three months to see any impact.
Speaker 10 (20:29):
Remember, firms have inventories on hand, a.
Speaker 9 (20:32):
Lot of goods, a lot of apparel being sold was
already purchased before the tariffs, so it normally takes several
months to see the full impact of something like a
tariff passing through to final prices.
Speaker 5 (20:45):
Julia, what are you looking to see out of the
data to come? Of course, we have PPI coming up.
Of course we have the FED that's going to be
having its meeting next Wednesday, so we'll hear the decision
then where they're expected to hold read steady. But what
does the FED need to see right now to pivot to.
Speaker 10 (21:01):
Pivot towards cuts.
Speaker 9 (21:02):
I mean, I think they need to see a lot
more than they're seeing. I mean, number one, we know
that there's just going to be some time to see.
Speaker 10 (21:08):
The impact of what's already been put in place. So
the tariffs are real, they're being collected.
Speaker 9 (21:14):
They're either going to go into profits or they're going
to go into final consumer prices.
Speaker 10 (21:17):
Somebody's going to pay for this.
Speaker 9 (21:20):
And it's going to take the entire summer to really
see that impact in the data. So I don't think
the FED has I think they've basically taken the summer
off the table.
Speaker 10 (21:30):
And let's keep in mind too that one of the details.
Speaker 9 (21:32):
In this morning's data, and this you know, this will
depend on the PPI data that we see tomorrow to
some extent. But the gain that we are that is
implied by today's CPI for the Fed's preferred measure of
PCEE still suggest that that annual rate is going to
push higher, maybe even two tents higher. So we're estimating
(21:54):
that it'll round up to two point seven percent year
on year from two point five percent in April. So benign, yes,
But at the same time, that leaves the FED above
their two percent target for four years plus. And that's
why I think we've seen a little bit more hesitation
by the FED to rush towards rate cuts or to
(22:16):
signal any kind of imminent change in policy, because they've
been missing on their inflation target.
Speaker 10 (22:21):
For a long time.
Speaker 9 (22:22):
Meanwhile, unemployment rate is still in their full employment range,
so they're going to have to just keep things balanced
for now, hold their fire, and just gather more data.
As frustrating as that is for market participants, I don't
think we're going to learn a lot from the Fed
next week.
Speaker 11 (22:42):
True.
Speaker 2 (22:42):
Let me move away from the Fed to ask you
about what we heard from the Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant
this morning. So he downed some coffee on an overnight
flight from London to Washington. He testified before the House
Ways and Means Committee after twenty hours of negotiations over
trade policy with the Chinese, but he was asked about deficits.
He's asked about this legislation that's kind of making its
(23:03):
way through through the Senate right now, And I'd love
to get your sense of the argument that the administration
is making about the potential for growth here visa VI
that legislation, and how you see all of that playing
out in the months ahead.
Speaker 9 (23:15):
I think that there's a lot of spin going on,
and I certainly would characterize that as being what we
heard from the Treasury Secretary. There isn't an economist who
actually puts pen to paper thinking that this will reduce deficits.
And one core driver of thinking about the growth outlook
is the immigration outlook, which is getting even.
Speaker 10 (23:36):
More draconian by the day.
Speaker 9 (23:39):
You're not going to get three percent GDP growth if
you're contracting the labor force and doing mass deportations.
Speaker 10 (23:45):
That simply those numbers just don't add up.
Speaker 9 (23:48):
So growth can save you, but you have to put
in growth friendly policies.
Speaker 10 (23:54):
And what we're seeing is, you.
Speaker 9 (23:56):
Know, they're channeling money away from sort of high multiplier,
high fiscal multiplier categories like social insurance or infrastructure projects,
which actually crowd in investment to tax cuts, you know,
for wealthy individuals, and that those individuals tend to save
(24:18):
a lot of their gains from tax cuts rather than
channel them into the economy. So I don't look at
the overall details of this package and say, number one,
it's definitely not going to reduce the deficit, and number two,
you know it probably isn't going to be. This whole
suite of policies isn't going to deliver three percent growth
anytime soon.
Speaker 5 (24:39):
Julia, Speaking of Scott Besson, he's also being fluted as
a potential FED chair replacement for Jerome Powell. Can you
bring it down a little bit for the viewers. Does
a new FED chair mean quick cuts?
Speaker 10 (24:53):
Not necessarily?
Speaker 9 (24:54):
I mean, I think look, Secretary Besant understands the structure.
Speaker 10 (24:59):
Of the FED as a.
Speaker 9 (25:03):
Decision making body. There's a lot of people he has
to contend with. He can't just come in like a
bull in a china shop, and you know, dictate policy
to a very large committee, and that committee is not
scheduled to turn over very quickly, so he would have
to come in clearly he would probably lean towards policies
(25:26):
like faster rate cuts or larger rate cuts that the
President prefers, but he's going to have to bring the
committee along.
Speaker 10 (25:33):
And he's also a guy that he's a market's guy.
Speaker 9 (25:35):
He's not going to want to take actions that are
going to really spook the bond market.
Speaker 10 (25:39):
So, you know, so I wouldn't expect, you know.
Speaker 9 (25:43):
I think actually the bigger question when we think about
Secretary Besant as a possible replacement for Chair Powell is
who would replace him at Treasury. He's really been seen
by markets as the you know, the cool head in
the room and the guy who understands market and kind
of can talk the President off a ledge at times.
(26:04):
Who would replace him? I think that's a much more salient,
meaningful question for markets.
Speaker 10 (26:09):
In the near term than what he would do.
Speaker 9 (26:11):
As whoever President Trump nominates as Chair Powell's replacement will
probably lean towards more Dubvish policy. Whether that's Kevin Hassett
or Kevin Walsh or Secretary Besson, they're all going to
probably lean in the President's direction, so that we know,
and it will probably they'll probably be somewhat constrained. But
(26:32):
if we lose best in a treasury, Does Howard Lutnik
take the reins? You know who else could step in
and replace him there. I think that's pretty.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
Important that parlor game begins anew the one that we
saw after President Trump was elected there for a second term.
Julie Cornetta, thank you very much. It's always great to
catch up with you. Julie Cornett a president and founder
of Macro Policy Perspectives, Clinical Assistant Professor at the Macomb
School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
You are listening to the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast.
Catch us liveday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern.
Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg
Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2 (27:10):
David Gerrow with Normal, Linda Infrakarrol Master, and Tim Steneviek
on Bloomberg business Week Daily on Bloomberg Radio and YouTube
as well. And a pleasure as always to talk with Bradstone,
the editor of Bloomberg Business Week, about his latest writing.
A pair of pieces here, one of which centers on
what's been happening in the city of Los Angeles, the
other about the United States and a pivot away from
the altruistic state craft, the Marshall Plan what America has
(27:31):
been known for for some time, to something different. I'm
going to cover back both those pieces of writing with
Brad here on Bloomberg business Week. And Brad, let's start
with the goings on in Los Angeles, and your piece
opens in the Business Week newsletter. California today is a tinderbox,
and you draw this contrast between the kind of picture
of radicalism that the Trump administration is trying to portray
(27:52):
here and what's actually happening in California politics. And I'd
love to start there if we could, that contrast, that
dichotomy between the image that's being portrayed by the White
House and sort of where things have actually been trending
when it comes to politics in your state of California.
Speaker 6 (28:07):
Sure, thanks for having me on, David.
Speaker 11 (28:08):
Yeah, this is not just a battle over ice enforcement
in California or law and order in Los Angeles. This
is really a battle over the heart and soul of
the Democratic Party in California, a blue state that has
consistently opposed President Trump and his agenda. You mentioned President
Trump is painting his political opponents as radical left lunatics.
(28:33):
His words, but it is really not what's happening in California.
This is a party that has moved to the middle.
It's evident everywhere. Governor Gavin Newsom recently taking aim at
things like healthcare for illegal immigrants, signaling the return of
budget austerity to the state, speaking out against trans girls
(28:55):
in sports, participants in sports. And you know Rick Cruso,
the billionaire real estate developer who lost the mayor's race
in La his stars kind of ascendant since the wildfires.
And then in San Francisco where I am Mayor Daniel Lurie,
who I interviewed last week at the Bloomberg Tech Summit,
(29:17):
very much taking a page from.
Speaker 6 (29:20):
The abundance agenda of the.
Speaker 11 (29:22):
Democratic Party, talking about bringing business people in to start
rebuilding the city, addressing homelessness, and profligate drug use. So
it's really a party that's been moving to the middle.
Maybe liberal by a lot of the standards elsewhere in
the country, but very much a moderating party. And I
think President Trump really wants to, you know, attach the
(29:43):
party to some of these images of protesters wearing masks
on top of Waimo's waving the Mexican flag.
Speaker 6 (29:50):
That is politically useful for him.
Speaker 5 (29:52):
And I'm looking at the photograph right now in your story.
It's a really striking photograph in terms of them waving
a Mescan flag on the waymos. What does all this
say about the division in our nation right now regarding
the topic of immigration. I'm seeing that these anti ice
protests are spreading to New York City and Chicago in
other areas as well, right.
Speaker 6 (30:12):
Yeah, thanks, Nora.
Speaker 11 (30:13):
I mean it's look, these are sharp divisions on display.
I think that there are major urban areas that have
identified primarily with the Democratic Party, that are protective of
their own that consider themselves sanctuary cities, and consider this
enhanced ICE enforcement and the rounding up of immigrants, some
(30:35):
here illegally, some here on temporary work visas, at their
places of worship, at their places of work, and they
see this ICE enforcement as really an incursion into local sovereignty,
into their own communities. And I think what has started
in LA is really, faithfully I think, destined to grow
(30:56):
in other cities. I think San Francisco is probably on
the verge of following because of this protectiveness and the
opposition to the Trump agenda. And so what does it
say about the divisions on our society.
Speaker 6 (31:08):
That they're deeper and starker than ever.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Let me return to San Francisco, where of course you're based,
and go back to the conversation that you had with
Daniel Lurie, and maybe you could give us some sense
here of who he is and what he's trying to
engineer or do in that job as mayor of San Francisco.
So he kind of representing that new brand of kind
of centrist politics. How's he approaching the job. He's somebody
(31:31):
who comes from great familial wealth. His relatives were founders
of the Levi Strauss company. What are his ambitions and
what in roads is he making and kind of changing
the city or I would won't say writing the politics,
but changing the politics of San Francisco.
Speaker 11 (31:44):
Yeah, you're right, David, that who he is almost has
as much about the Democratic Party as what he's doing.
He is an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune. His
stepfather was a member of the Haas family that founded
Levi Strauss. He was its ranked choice voting for the
mayor's race in San Francisco, but he won enough votes
(32:09):
to elevate himself over former Mayor London breed. He has
a much more moderate board of supervisor. So it's only
been a few months. It's way too early to make
any judgments about his tenure, but I would say he
has maybe presided over the first glimpse of optimism in
the city since our miserable run during the pandemic. And
(32:30):
you can kind of see it in the commitments made
by the business community to come in and help with
law enforcement. A cryptobillionaire recently donated some money to the
SFPD to help him build a kind of high tech
hub outside the really dilapidated police headquarters. Things like just
the you know, the public drug use and the homeless encampments.
(32:53):
I think Loriie has finally started to make some progress
on cleaning that up. We've got a long way to go,
I mean, there's still no construction cranes in the city,
but he is riding a wave of tremendous enthusiasm about
AI and from the tech community, and I think that
this is a new.
Speaker 6 (33:09):
Kind of California Democrat who is.
Speaker 11 (33:13):
Combining maybe some of the old liberal ideas with the
business community and finding a middle ground.
Speaker 5 (33:20):
So he's talking about Rick Crusoe, but approval ratings for
Mayor Karen Bass, who of course is left leaning, have
sunk since January's wildfires.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
How much of her.
Speaker 5 (33:30):
Legacy is writing on this moment right now in regards
to all the protests going on, or have her constituents
pretty much cemented their sentiments.
Speaker 11 (33:39):
And Nora, that's a great question, And being from the
far away city of San Francisco, I can't say, I know.
I mean, she did take a beating during the wildfires
when she was not in the city when they broke out.
Just unfortunate timing for her. This is probably a moment
for her to show her leadership now. I don't know
if Governor Gavin Newsom is building any of the spotlight
(34:01):
or oxygen to other politicians in the state. He has
really cemented himself as the chief adversary to President Trump,
and of course that plays into Governor Newsom's hands when.
Speaker 6 (34:10):
It comes to twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 11 (34:12):
But look, I mean, LA is a tinderbox right now,
and I think that Mayor Bass probably does have an
opportunity to make up some of the grounds she lost
during the wildfires.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
Brad, I want to turn to the other piece that
you've written recently that's going to be a feature in
the latest issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine, and it focuses
on the kind of unraveling of the Marshall Plan and
again this kind of move away from altruistic state craft.
And so the US for so long now, for many decades,
has had this perspective that it can do well by
doing good in other parts of the world, that by
(34:42):
investing in disease eradication and education, all manner of other
social programs, that's going to help the US's position in
the world by helping other places around the world. You
say that how other branches of the American government, countries
and multinational companies respond in the months and years ahead
will be the defining question of at least the rest
of our lives. So you've been watching as we all
have these these changes unfold over the last six or
(35:04):
so months. Picking up on your question, which you you
asked rhetorically, there are we seeing other other folks pick
up the mantle here. How worrisome is it the situation
that the US find itself in visavi the rest of
the world.
Speaker 11 (35:16):
Right Well, David, this was this is the opening essay
for our July issue.
Speaker 6 (35:20):
And you know the challenge.
Speaker 11 (35:21):
Here I get to like put on my historian's hat
and stroke my non existent beard. And the point I
was making here is that, you know, going back to
John Winthrop, the City on the Hill, and you know,
George Washington and Lincoln and this historic belief that the
US was a sort of mo set of moral example
for the rest of the world. And of course we
didn't always meet the standard. In fact, we often fell
(35:44):
short of it. But the Marshall Plan after the war,
len Ley's during World War Two, which Churchill called the
most unsorted act in history. You know, we we helped
our allies, and not because we thought we would be repaid,
but because we thought it was the right thing to
do and that America would benefit from peacefulness and the
spread of democracy. And you know, the current administration has
(36:07):
really broke with that. If it's you know, canceling USAID,
which really was the Marshall Plan for the developing world,
or pulling back on pepfar, the program that addressed AIDS
and HIV, pulling out of public health agencies and climate
enforcement agencies. There is a big vacuum right now, and
I think Europe has showed some inclination of picking up
(36:27):
that slack, particularly when it comes to climate change or
corruption enforcement in business, but otherwise it's really left a vacuum.
Speaker 5 (36:36):
And you mentioned a lot of these different things that
have been changed under the new administration. Of course, cutting
for an aid, what's wrowing from international agreements. As you're
really following all these different things closely and speaking with people,
do you expect any meaningful shift in this dynamic.
Speaker 6 (36:53):
Nora, I don't see where it would come from. I mean,
you know, I'm talking.
Speaker 11 (36:56):
About a strain in American history of you know, collaboration
and multinationalism, free trade setting a mortal example. But the
president has seized upon a tradition that is, you know,
is maybe over the last century certainly maybe if not
as strong, it certainly co exists, which is isolationism, nativism
(37:18):
American first, and that is just completely central to the
Trumpet administration and to who the president is. And so
there's certainly no inclination that he is creeping back, you know,
from that edge. And so the only question is is
there anyone else in the world to take up the slack?
And now I do mention this IPSOS poll, which is
really interesting. You know, forty six countries around the world
(37:41):
looking at sentiments about different countries.
Speaker 6 (37:45):
The sentiment that America would is going.
Speaker 11 (37:47):
To be better for the world has fallen dramatically, and
the sentiments around China now exceeds the positive sentiment around America.
So there's at least some hope that China picks up
some of the slack.
Speaker 5 (37:58):
Well, thank you so much for a wonderful conversation. If
you all haven't checked out his stories, check out his
stories on the Bloomberg Terminal, LA violence endangers democrats, moderation,
and America casts itself as the world's moral leader. But
not anymore. Of course, we are seeing him in San
Francisco commenting on those li riots that are going on,
but definitely check out his future stories on the US
losing its moral authority across the globe.
Speaker 7 (38:20):
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday
afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App.
You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube
(38:41):
and always on the Bloomberg Terminal
Hosts And Creators
Tim Stenovec
Carol Massar
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
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.