December 14, 2023 • 35 mins
Taylor Swift's Eras Tour confronts the climate crisis - what can she and others do to take action. We discuss that story, science reliability, trust in government, and the fiscal apocalypse. Columnists Lara Williams, Faye Flam, Clive Crook, and Kathryn Edwards join. Amy Morris hosts.
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 (00:01):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at
one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I Amy Morris. This week it's
a matter of trust, trust in science and in scientists.
We'll talk with Bloomberg's Faith Lamb, and we'll explore the
erosion of trust in politics in our country's institutions and
where that might lead the country in an alarmingly short time.
(00:36):
But we begin with Taylor Swift and her Era's tour
that took her through Brazil. The Grammy winner returned to
the stage in Rio de Janeiro. Here she is performing
Bigger Than the Whole Sky. It's one of her surprise
(00:57):
songs in that tour. It happened a day after she
had to postpone her ERR's tour because of the extreme
temperatures at the time. This also appeared to be something
of a tribute to a fan who died reportedly in
connection with that triple digit heat. The heat index reached
fifty nine point seven degrees celsius at one point, that's
nearly one hundred and forty degrees fahrenheit. Let's talk about
(01:20):
this with Bloomberg Opinion colonist Lara Williams. She covers climate change. Lara,
those temperatures are insane. I had to double check those numbers.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Yeah, they're ads the importantly, so that's the heat indebt.
So it combines the actual heat, which was around forty
degrees celsius one hundred and two fahrenheit, with the humidity,
and that that's what really was made in The temperature
is so dangerous. Just the heat humidity combination can be
really really.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Bad, and a fan actually passed away. Swift had trouble breathing.
The tour had to be postponed. And as you point
out in your column, this is not the first perform
means to be impacted by the effects of climate change.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
No, so Billboard has been keeping tally of major concerts
around the world that have been impacted by extreme weather,
and I think the count, not including the tailor concerts,
actually was above above thirty. And you know, so that's
you know, evacuations, cancelations, postponements, and it's you know, everything
(02:25):
from you know, people being directly impacted by extreme rain,
extreme heat. To Pearl Jam had to cancel three concerts
because their lead singer got throat damage from performing in
an outdoor concert in Paris and got affected by the
heat and dust and wildlife smoke. So there are all
these kind of not on effects from climate change that
(02:46):
aren't even direct. It can be indirect as well.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
And you say thirty, at least thirty performances, and that's
just this year, just.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
This year, and that's just major ones that Billboard have
picked up. So I'm sure there's been plenty of smaller
gibs and you know, up and coming musicians that have
been affected.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
To I completely forgot about the wildfires too, that's crazy.
So would this then help drive the message of climate
change home? Or is any when listening or people just
annoyed that their favorite show is being postponed.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
I'm sure lots of people were annoyed that their favorite
show is being postponed. I know some people didn't make it.
Saturday Night Dot postponed to Monday, and some people weren't
going to be in Rio on Monday, so that was
annoying for them. But I think kind of longer term,
it really makes the point that we need to be
(03:38):
able to adapt and have plans in place so that,
you know, concerts can go on without pausing. Danger to
life disasters happen when these extreme events hit preexisting vulnerabilities.
And the important thing is that the tailor concert, probably
(03:59):
the gig shd's have gone ahead. But also funds weren't
allowed to bring their own personal water bottles into the show.
There was reports of in azituit distribution of the free water.
You know, funds complained that it was too crowded, and
so those things together really combined, you know, and potentially
(04:21):
led to the death of one fan.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
We are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lara Williams about
how climate change is impacting live tours and performances and shows,
and you were talking about the adaptation that we're all
going to have to see, and we're specifically targeting, of course,
these live shows and these tours and these concerts in
this particular interview. Venues are going to have to change
(04:44):
those rules, like you said, allowing people to bring in
their own water bottles, maybe even putting a disclaimer on
the ticket about a climate change impact type of thing
where you may or may not be allowed to get
your money back, or trading your ticket for something else.
That kind of thing are we going to see more of.
Are you hearing any chatter or any hubbub about changing
(05:05):
how the venues are able to do business based on
the impact of climate change? And even as I say that,
that sounds really remarkable.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Yeah, I think I'm not hearing it. I've not heard
anything specific to the music industry, but I think, you know,
people are starting to pay attention and adaptation has been
one of those forgotten you know, aspects of the kind
of climate era. You know, Historically, adaptation was almost looked
down upon because people saw it as a controversial thing
(05:37):
that was taking money and attention away from the you know,
we need to reduce emissions, which is obviously still you know,
really important, but we need to remember that climate impacts
are already here and so we need to be able
to adapt. And so, you know, you'd hope that stuff
like this and high profile events being affected does make
(05:59):
you know, venues pay attention and start putting together proper
heat you know, and governments as well. This obviously has
to turn from governments. Governments are also not very good
at planning for you know, the physical risks of climate change,
and either are companies. So I think the more we
talk about it, the more people are going to start
building this into their kind of operations and you know,
(06:22):
into laws. The Brazilian government actually reacted with emergency rules,
you know, to to ensure that venues have to provide
water and have to allow personal water bottles into venues. So,
you know, it's a shame that it took such a
(06:43):
tragedy to kind of spark that, but to be fair,
Brazil did respond very quickly over the weekend.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Have we seen this before? Is this quite unusual?
Speaker 3 (06:53):
That's a good question. I mean we've seen lots, you know,
as the billboard list shows that, you know, we've seen
lots of uh, you know, climate impacts. We're burning, man,
they all aren't rained in sure.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Let me just clarify. That's for for this year, and
they've they've started doing a tally for this year. But
we haven't seen tallies for years before, have we. I mean,
the idea that concerts and venues are having to change
how they do business because of the impact of climate
change seems really fresh and new.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Yes, that's that's a good point. We haven't been paying
attention to this before, and so in that way, and
you know, to be fair, we've we've seen you know,
the physical risks of climate change really comes to the
fall in the last couple of years. We are we're
now in an El Nino year, which is you know,
raising global temperatures and potentially you know, itsascerbating the the
(07:48):
you know, the the heat risk and extreme weather risks.
And I think, yeah, people's new that people are paying
so much attention to adaptation.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Can we expect to see more of this then, not
just with concerts and live entertainment, but other organizations, companies,
venues having to adapt.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Yes, exactly. For you know, the SMP Global Corporate Sustainability
Assessment is a kind of survey of thousands of companies
around the world, and only one in five companies have
an adaptation plan to you know, adapt their supply chains
and operations to the physical risks of climate change. And
so we'll probably see a lot more companies. You know,
(08:33):
there's there's basically a lot of lots of companies need
to touch up to the you know, the current climate
and current climate change risks, and so we'll probably see
that happen in the next year or so, and then.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
The flip side of this coin, it's actually quite true.
Swifties are really a force of their own. If they
can't recruit more gen z ors to the climate change fight,
if not Taylor Swift, then who I mean. It seems
like this is well, it's an awful tragedy and it's
a very difficult thing to face. At the same time,
enormous amounts of attention are being paid to it now.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Yes, no, exactly. I think one thing that could make
it even more impactful is if you know Taylor herself,
we've talked about climate change, and you know, obviously it's
very early on. She's in the middle of a global tour.
I'm sure the events on Friday and you know, over
the weekend have really affected her personally, and so I'm
(09:31):
not surprised that we haven't heard her speak out about
it yet. But if Swifties and you know, Taylor Swift
should talk about climate change and raise awareness, and that
could be really powerful.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
You know, it almost seems like an opportunity for like
a live aid, a band aid, some sort of concert
or gathering to help raise awareness for the for the issue.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
Yeah, for sure. I think I have I have heard that,
you know, people involved with Live Aid did want to
do a clime at one and I think last year
Billie Eilish, I think did there was a bid. There
was a bid festival in maybe Paris or somewhere like
that for you know, to raise money and awareness about
climate change. But we can't. Yeah, we're just that.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Momentum needs to continue.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
We need to keep the momentum going and so hopefully
you know, something good will come out of this, and
that's you know, more awareness well the needs for adaptation
plans and also more awareness someone gen Z about climate
change and the very real risk that climate change poses
not only to you know, people in abstract time periods
(10:41):
and countries, but you know, to their enjoyment of their
own lives.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Really, Lara, thank you for taking the time with this
on this today.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lara Williams covers a climate change and
coming up. Science and trust in scientists is taking a
hit in the United States. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast count US Saturdays
at one and seven pm. Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I may me more as
science and trust in scientists is taking a hit in
the United States, A new Pew Research Center poll finds
that Americans trust and scientists continues to decline. Among both
Democrats and Republicans, trust in scientists is now lower than
it was before the pandemic. Similarly, the positive views of
(11:46):
science and belief in its positive effect on society continues
to dip. Now, this is not a new phenomenon. During
the pandemic, In Texas, pediatrician Christina Props made an appeal
to the public to continue to take precautions to avoid
getting and spreading COVID, even after the state reopened businesses
and lifted mask mandates.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
We are doing our part, and so it is really
a painful experience to feel that our elected officials don't
trust us, don't trust our expertise, and are not listening
to the science.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
But this is not all about the pandemic necessarily. Bloomberg
Opinion columnist Faith Lamb joins me now Fay Cover Science
and his host of the follow of the Science podcast,
they where's this coming from, this distrust of science and scientists.
Speaker 6 (12:35):
Well, I think that there is a connection with the pandemic.
The Pew Research Foundation just came up with some new
numbers where the public trust in science did take quite
a dip from twenty nineteen to now. And you know
what else, what else seems likely to have changed. We've
(12:56):
had this pandemic, We've had scientists telling people what to
think and what to do. And I don't think it
has anything to do with astronomers or physicists or other scientists.
I think it has to do with medical science primarily,
and public health and some of the missteps that public
health made during the pandemic.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
But this also crosses party lines, which is not something
we saw during the pandemic. In fact, quite the opposite.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
Yeah, I think maybe over time it does. Republicans are
less likely to trust scientists than Democrats, But I think overall,
there have been some flaws in the way the pandemic
was handled that the general public is more likely to
be concerned about right now.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Is this also a reflection of the muddying of the
message during the Trump administration, which was a very intentional thing.
Or is there something else happening that has caused the
public to continue to distrust science. Is this this a
lingering after effect or is there more to it?
Speaker 6 (14:00):
I think there is more to it. In fact, one
of the things I'm going to be writing about in
this column is a book that I really like. It's
called Within Reason, and it's written by Sandra Galia, who's
dean of public health at Boston University. And this book
is just a really nice, sort of honest reckoning with
what public health got wrong during the pandemic and why
(14:24):
they got it wrong. And I had a very nice
talk with him, and I think he has the humility
to recognize that this might not be completely something wrong
with the public. It might also be something wrong with
the way scientists handled things. I think that there's been
there have been a few editorials by scientists saying, well,
what we've got to fix the general public so they
(14:44):
trust us again. But I think that there is a
real place for self reflection. And I think one of
the things that went wrong during the pandemic was what
I call false false certainty. You know, when people were
saying things when they did I didn't really know and
would say, no, we definitely know, you should do this
or do that, and now you know in retrospect when
(15:05):
they got things wrong, they said we didn't know. But
then my question to them is, well you didn't know,
why didn't you say you didn't know? And I saw
that happened early in the pandemic. It wasn't just a
flip flop on masks. There was a flip flop on
how to think about the pandemic. So in January and February,
there was actually a lot of evidence building out that
the problem in China was incredibly disruptive and that the
(15:27):
disease was spreading and that we could face a real problem.
But I was seeing editorials running in the paper saying
seasonal flu is a bigger threat, you know, don't worry
about this, And there was there should have been a
huge effort at that time to prepare hospitals, to get
ppe for all of the workers, to prepare the general
(15:51):
public for a possible disruption, to give businesses in private
citizens time to prepare for these lockdowns. But instead, even
though the science didn't make a U turn, the science
was evidence was building up, but the scientists did take
a big u turn from don't worry to stay in
your house. And yes, some of the restrictions they made
(16:12):
also were counter to what scientific evidence was was building up.
That there was already fairly early on and understanding that
outdoors were safer than indoors. And yet we saw you know,
playgrounds being taped up, and people, you know, police chasing
people out of parks, and skateboard parks being filled in
with sand, you know, stuff that was not following the science.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion colonist Faith Lamb
about this new pole regarding trust in science and why
that trust is waning on a general level. Fay is
trust in short supply across the board in the United
States anyway, just not it is in science.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
It is.
Speaker 6 (16:51):
In fact, scientists were still more trusted than almost everybody else,
including journalists. So what people really need isn't trust in
individual scientists, but trust in the process of science and
the methods of science. Things like clinical trials. Double blind
clinical trials are actually designed as sort of an anadote
to human fallibility in human bias. And the reason that
(17:13):
science produces reliable knowledge for us all is the methods
of science and the way this sort of group project
of science keeps adding to that knowledge. But individual scientists
are fallible and it's very hard to If we do
develop trust in science, then our trust in individual scientists.
How do people know which scientists are the right scientists?
(17:36):
There are plenty of people that are considered outliers and
even hucksters who have PhDs and mds behind their name,
and so there's also a problem with fringe scientists. So
I think understanding, you know, trust in the big picture
science can help people recognize when scientists who are trustworthy.
(18:00):
Scientists who are trustworthy will point to the wider body
of knowledge that is science, not try to say, oh,
all of those scientists everybody else is wrong. I'm right,
that's a red flag.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
So then the onus would be on the general public
right to know the difference between science and pseudoscience and
just outright fraud.
Speaker 7 (18:19):
Yeah, yeah, but they do know that evidence that you
should come with evidence, you know, and if you're a scientist,
you better have some really strong evidence evidence, and that
there is a sort of connection between things we know,
things that we've built.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
Up, knowledge we've known from the past. It's why those
vaccines worked so as well as they did because they
were built on years of biological experiments, and then they
also had to go through clinical trials that were designed
to flag problems and you know, make sure that they
(18:55):
really worked the way they thought they worked.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
This isn't just distrust of scientists though this Paul also
shows that Americans are questioning the positive role that science
has on society. Did that surprise you a little.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Bit, Yeah, because that seems like, you know, we have
we're surrounded by so many things that are that are
made possible by our advancing scientific knowledge. But I think
the pandemic may have left people so bitter that they
may be reacting to that. You know, polls are it's
sometimes it's hard to know without more detail where that's
(19:28):
coming from.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
What can the scientific community do to win people back.
It almost sounds like they need a pr campaign, But
that just seems wrong.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
You know.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
I think that one of the things I really liked
about this book Within Reason was the idea that science
has to sort of rise above all of the politics
and has to be self reflective, has to be honest
about where they might have gotten things wrong and where
some of the policies during the pandemic weren't completely science based,
(20:00):
and that with that kind of reckoning and radical honesty,
that that is where trust I think could be re earned.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Thank you, Faith. Faith Lem is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist
who covers science and his host of the Follow the
Science podcast coming up. Trust in politics, It's not a
pipe dream. There is a measure of trust in our
political system that is eroding to a perilous end. This
is Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
You're listening to The Bloomberg Opinion podcast catches Saturdays at
one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I Maymy Morris. There is a
difference between the twenty twenty four election season and the
election of twenty sixteen, now eight years ago. The race
for the White House was won by a candidate who
had categorized himself as an outsider, a businessman, someone different
who would serve as a disruptor. But this election season,
voters know who Donald Trump is and he's promising to
(21:15):
build camps for migrants, purge the vermin from obstructing his endgame.
He has praise for dictators, all while he's facing numerous
indictments and legal entanglements that don't seem to slow him
down at all. And the disconnect here might very well
be a matter of trust. Bloomberg opinion columnist Clive Crook
is a member of the editorial board covering economics, and
(21:36):
he joins me now, and Clive, you have this really
great column on the Bloomberg terminal. Your view is that
Donald Trump could never really have gotten this far actually
without Democrats unwitting assistants, in part because of their refusal
to recognize the collapsing trust in this country. Can you
expand on that?
Speaker 8 (21:55):
Yeah, I mean I think that made sense actually those
time around, you know, when Trump was first elected, I
think just as you say, you know, he campaigns an outsider,
as something of a wreckor you know, someone who wouldn't
about out to the rules, that would just you know,
fix what needed fixing.
Speaker 9 (22:17):
And the fact that he succeeded before, you know, shows
that people didn't really trust politics as usual. So I
think that fact was already in play. But this time around,
I think it's vastly more serious. I mean, to be
honest with you, I wasn't that worried about Trump first
(22:37):
time around. Perhaps I should have been, but I wasn't.
I thought he'd betained by the system, you know, controlled
somewhat by the system, and I think to a large
degree he was. But I think it would be a
big mistake to suppose he won't be any more dangerous
next time. I think he's out for revenge for the
(22:58):
way he's been treated by the system. And the astonishing
factor is that he commends very wide support in the
country and the people who are telling posters. But therefore Trump,
having seen what's happened and having listened to what he
said lately, they're basically expressing a complete lack of confidence
(23:21):
in the system as usual. So I think as it
were going into another Trump administration, it would be a
much more destabilizing, much more dangerous prospect than it was
last time around. And that is saying something.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Do you believe that the electorate from the beginning didn't
really have a lot of healthy trust in the system,
And that's how Donald Trump was able to make those
gains in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen. He was able
to capitalize on that and now it has turned into
its own, It's taken on a life of its own,
if you will.
Speaker 9 (23:56):
Yeah, well I do. I think there were sort of
compounding factors in twenty sixteen, and in my view, Hillary
Clinton was wont you know, she basically expressed disdain for
a good part of the population in that campaign. You remember,
you know, the notorious remark about deplorables that was really
like an instruction to people that told them, you know,
(24:20):
she has no interest in their views, and you know
that can get lost. I mean, what an extraordinary position
for a politician seeking election to take. So I think
that was, as it were, a compounding factor last time.
But you know, as I say, this time, it's going
to be much worse because we've seen so many dimensions
(24:41):
of trust break down more radically than before. I mean,
I can you know on things of several examples, I mean,
Biden and his officials are refusing to listen and take
seriously people's complaints about what's happened to prices. You know,
the Biden administration's position is Bidenomics is a work of genius.
(25:03):
You know, we're transforming the economy, and people who are
worried about high prices and what's happened to their real incomes,
just failing to understand the statistics, and if only they
would listen to the experts, their concerns would go away. Well,
this is nonsense. I mean, many people are in a
state of genuine financial insecurity. The averages on this are
(25:27):
very misleading. You've got to look at people who are
struggling because of this spiking prices, and Biden administrations basically said,
you know, we're not interested this is this is misinformation,
so we're not going to address it. I want to
think of other dimensions of this.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
I mean.
Speaker 9 (25:47):
Trust and experts has formed because of what happened during
the pandemic, the school closures, all the back and forth
over whether you need mess whether they work, whether they're essential,
and all that I think sort of roaded trust. And
now we have this extraordinary sort of weaponization of the
justice system to put Trump in jail by any means necessary.
(26:12):
Now I do think Trump, I should make it clear.
I mean, I'm Trump scares me. I mean I do
think he has authoritarian appetites and it dismays me that,
you know, the prospect that he could win an election
just both amazes me. And asmaze me. But look at
it from the point of view of his supporters. What
they see is politically active prosecutors going after him from
(26:38):
all these different directions. Unfortunately, the US has a highly
politicized criminal justice system. The prosecutors in many cases are
political actors with political ambitions, and so they can't take
it for granted that people will assume that what they're
doing is in the public interest. That always the suspicion
(27:01):
of advancing a political agenda. Now have they restrained themselves
given that is the case, I would say no, they
have not. Quite the opposite. They're doubling down. What it's
done is it's told people we were right not to
trust the criminal justice system. And that is a terrifying
thing that I.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Think we're seeing that we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion
colonist Clive Crook about the degradation of trust in the
United States and politics, government institutions and where that might
lead us. How did we get here, Clive.
Speaker 9 (27:34):
Well, it's the key question. And I do hold Biden
somewhat responsible for this because he won his election on
a promise to be the moderay to the unified. That
was his whole shtick. You know, there was this battle
(27:54):
going on within the Democratic Party between you know, woke
progressives and more mainstream Democratic politicians, and Biden was regarded
as a mainstream guy, a deal maker. He has a
history of you know, striking compromises in Congress, and I'm
finding kind of middle way through. In fact, many of
his past positions are an embarrassment for him within the party,
(28:18):
and I think that is what many voters wanted. They
wanted that kind of moderate centrics. Now has he governed
as that, I would say no, he has not. He
basically has gone all in on a sort of hard
left progressive economic and political agenda, and so people feel
(28:39):
that he broke his word, and so they don't trust
him now. I think if, of course, Biden has many
other issues as well. To put it mildly, people don't
trust trust a man of his age and evidently declining
faculties to do a good job. If the Democrats could
(29:00):
find it within themselves to listen to those complaints about
Buide and find that that's a candidate, and the party
has plenty of good candidates that I think, you know,
Trump could be beaten.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
When we're talking about this, we are specifically talking about
the re election of Donald Trump. But I'm curious about
what may follow after Donald Trump. Is there a concern
that a door has been opened to allow similar minded
candidates a shot at national office?
Speaker 9 (29:32):
I would say so, actually, I mean that is a
that is a concern and a certainly concerned of mine.
I don't think we're taking it sufficiently seriously. But why
do people suppose that if only Trump can be beaten,
this problem goes away Once trust in our core institutions
collapses and I think it might perhaps that it hasn't collapsed,
(29:55):
but it's seriously damaged. Once that happens, then an avenue
open for this kind of aggressive populist candidate to come through,
someone who you know is going to say, you know,
forget the rules. There are no rules. You know, these
people will keep us out of office by any means necessary,
(30:17):
and we're done with that. I mean, why should that
stop at Trump? This is why the crucial thing is
to restore trust. And it depresses me no end that
the Democrats aren't a tune to this challenge. They have
to restore trust.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of
the editorial board covering economics. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
I'm Amy Morris. Have you heard about America's impending fiscal doom?
It is said to be a moment in the not
too distant future when there will be too many elderly
people for younger generations to support, and that would leave
the federal government unable to fulfill its financial obligations. Want
(30:56):
to talk about this with Bloomberg Opinion columnist and labor
economist Catherine Edwards. Okay, Catherine, First of all, would this
be a foregone conclusion? Is this a fiscal apocalypse that
we can't avoid?
Speaker 4 (31:08):
No, of course not. It's a It certainly a reflects
a flair for the dramatic, if nothing else. But there's
nothing faded about either our economic or fiscal future that
policy can't change.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
All right, let's talk about policy. What can the government
do right now to avoid this fiscal doom?
Speaker 4 (31:28):
What the government is worried about is the obligations that
are going to go fund the income and the healthcare
of the baby boomer population. And they're not wrong, and
that there is going to be an incredible number of
elderly Americans in the near future. The youngest baby boomer
is currently fifty nine. But you know, I think they're
(31:50):
a little bit focused on the old. The cost drivers
of the elderly is that there's a lot of them
and they live a long time. I mean, those are
two things that you basically can't change. So if that's
going to be expensive to the federal government, then they
need to make sure that the programs that support the
elderly are in tip top shape, which means that they'd
have to reform Social Security, which they haven't done since
(32:12):
well before I was born. And then they're going to
have to bolster the finances of the young. If we
are going to afford an aging population, it is going
to be young people that pay for it.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Let's talk about that. How can we bet on the young?
How can we ensure that the young people will be
able to pay for it?
Speaker 4 (32:30):
Yeah, because either way they will. Right, Let's say Congress
passes a benefit cut to Social Security and Medicare. Who
do you think is going to make up the difference?
The same young workers who would be financing the program.
I mean, it's young families who are going to pay
for their elders no matter what. You know, the way
to make the health less expensive is to radically alter
our health insurance system so that it's high cost aligns
(32:50):
with better outcomes. I mean, we're in the worst of
both worlds because we have some of the worst outcomes
for the highest prices. But there doesn't seem to be
an appetite in policy worlds to fix health care or
to change it in any dramatic way. And I can
understand that. I mean, that's moving miles from where we are.
(33:11):
Whereas the labor supply policy that could increase the number
of workers who are young, I mean that's moving inches right.
Let's have mandatory paid sick days. Let's have adjustments to
the Fair Libor Standards Act, so you're required to accommodate
workers who want to work part time, who need to
have flexible arrangements a few days a week. You know
your tenured staff says they're going to work from home
two days a week. You're probably increasing the number of
(33:32):
workers by a couple million in the long run. We
also need a paid family leave system. I mean, that's
just kindness. If we know that there are going to
be roughly eighty million people over sixty five, those children
are going to have some hard moment where their parents
are sick and they need to take care of them,
and we don't really offer them a way to do
so that doesn't almost always require them losing or leaving
their job. There's some easy gains like sick days, accommodation policy,
(33:56):
pay family leave. I mean, then there's some investments that
we just need to make, something like paying for childcare,
something like having a decent long term unemployment system that
helps retain workers whose jobs are automated. None of these
things are that radical in general. They only seem radical
in the US because we're the only country that doesn't
have them. But I you know, it's all tenable, it's
(34:18):
all possible. I think what is the true challenge is
to make healthcare less expensive. And so I kind of
put this as like, hey man, we can go with
the easy option first. The easy option is let's work
on workers and then the healthcare fight, you know, the
healthcare debacle, whatever you want to call it. I think
that one's more of the apocalypse. Nothing about aging in
(34:38):
the workforce. We can we can afford old people. It's
I don't think it's I don't think we should frame
it as that. And I don't think we should spur
any type of intergenerational who is getting the resources. You
don't have to have that fight if you don't position
the economy as a zero sum game.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Catherine Edwards is a labor economist and
independent policy consultant. And that does it for this this
week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by Eric Mullow, and
you can find all of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal.
We're also available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or
your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us. Today's top stories
and global business headlines are just ahead. I'm Amy Morris.
(35:16):
This is Bloomberg
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at
one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I Amy Morris. This week it's
a matter of trust, trust in science and in scientists.
We'll talk with Bloomberg's Faith Lamb, and we'll explore the
erosion of trust in politics in our country's institutions and
where that might lead the country in an alarmingly short time.
(00:36):
But we begin with Taylor Swift and her Era's tour
that took her through Brazil. The Grammy winner returned to
the stage in Rio de Janeiro. Here she is performing
Bigger Than the Whole Sky. It's one of her surprise
(00:57):
songs in that tour. It happened a day after she
had to postpone her ERR's tour because of the extreme
temperatures at the time. This also appeared to be something
of a tribute to a fan who died reportedly in
connection with that triple digit heat. The heat index reached
fifty nine point seven degrees celsius at one point, that's
nearly one hundred and forty degrees fahrenheit. Let's talk about
(01:20):
this with Bloomberg Opinion colonist Lara Williams. She covers climate change. Lara,
those temperatures are insane. I had to double check those numbers.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Yeah, they're ads the importantly, so that's the heat indebt.
So it combines the actual heat, which was around forty
degrees celsius one hundred and two fahrenheit, with the humidity,
and that that's what really was made in The temperature
is so dangerous. Just the heat humidity combination can be
really really.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Bad, and a fan actually passed away. Swift had trouble breathing.
The tour had to be postponed. And as you point
out in your column, this is not the first perform
means to be impacted by the effects of climate change.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
No, so Billboard has been keeping tally of major concerts
around the world that have been impacted by extreme weather,
and I think the count, not including the tailor concerts,
actually was above above thirty. And you know, so that's
you know, evacuations, cancelations, postponements, and it's you know, everything
(02:25):
from you know, people being directly impacted by extreme rain,
extreme heat. To Pearl Jam had to cancel three concerts
because their lead singer got throat damage from performing in
an outdoor concert in Paris and got affected by the
heat and dust and wildlife smoke. So there are all
these kind of not on effects from climate change that
(02:46):
aren't even direct. It can be indirect as well.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
And you say thirty, at least thirty performances, and that's
just this year, just.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
This year, and that's just major ones that Billboard have
picked up. So I'm sure there's been plenty of smaller
gibs and you know, up and coming musicians that have
been affected.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
To I completely forgot about the wildfires too, that's crazy.
So would this then help drive the message of climate
change home? Or is any when listening or people just
annoyed that their favorite show is being postponed.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
I'm sure lots of people were annoyed that their favorite
show is being postponed. I know some people didn't make it.
Saturday Night Dot postponed to Monday, and some people weren't
going to be in Rio on Monday, so that was
annoying for them. But I think kind of longer term,
it really makes the point that we need to be
(03:38):
able to adapt and have plans in place so that,
you know, concerts can go on without pausing. Danger to
life disasters happen when these extreme events hit preexisting vulnerabilities.
And the important thing is that the tailor concert, probably
(03:59):
the gig shd's have gone ahead. But also funds weren't
allowed to bring their own personal water bottles into the show.
There was reports of in azituit distribution of the free water.
You know, funds complained that it was too crowded, and
so those things together really combined, you know, and potentially
(04:21):
led to the death of one fan.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
We are talking with Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lara Williams about
how climate change is impacting live tours and performances and shows,
and you were talking about the adaptation that we're all
going to have to see, and we're specifically targeting, of course,
these live shows and these tours and these concerts in
this particular interview. Venues are going to have to change
(04:44):
those rules, like you said, allowing people to bring in
their own water bottles, maybe even putting a disclaimer on
the ticket about a climate change impact type of thing
where you may or may not be allowed to get
your money back, or trading your ticket for something else.
That kind of thing are we going to see more of.
Are you hearing any chatter or any hubbub about changing
(05:05):
how the venues are able to do business based on
the impact of climate change? And even as I say that,
that sounds really remarkable.
Speaker 3 (05:14):
Yeah, I think I'm not hearing it. I've not heard
anything specific to the music industry, but I think, you know,
people are starting to pay attention and adaptation has been
one of those forgotten you know, aspects of the kind
of climate era. You know, Historically, adaptation was almost looked
down upon because people saw it as a controversial thing
(05:37):
that was taking money and attention away from the you know,
we need to reduce emissions, which is obviously still you know,
really important, but we need to remember that climate impacts
are already here and so we need to be able
to adapt. And so, you know, you'd hope that stuff
like this and high profile events being affected does make
(05:59):
you know, venues pay attention and start putting together proper
heat you know, and governments as well. This obviously has
to turn from governments. Governments are also not very good
at planning for you know, the physical risks of climate change,
and either are companies. So I think the more we
talk about it, the more people are going to start
building this into their kind of operations and you know,
(06:22):
into laws. The Brazilian government actually reacted with emergency rules,
you know, to to ensure that venues have to provide
water and have to allow personal water bottles into venues. So,
you know, it's a shame that it took such a
(06:43):
tragedy to kind of spark that, but to be fair,
Brazil did respond very quickly over the weekend.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Have we seen this before? Is this quite unusual?
Speaker 3 (06:53):
That's a good question. I mean we've seen lots, you know,
as the billboard list shows that, you know, we've seen
lots of uh, you know, climate impacts. We're burning, man,
they all aren't rained in sure.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Let me just clarify. That's for for this year, and
they've they've started doing a tally for this year. But
we haven't seen tallies for years before, have we. I mean,
the idea that concerts and venues are having to change
how they do business because of the impact of climate
change seems really fresh and new.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Yes, that's that's a good point. We haven't been paying
attention to this before, and so in that way, and
you know, to be fair, we've we've seen you know,
the physical risks of climate change really comes to the
fall in the last couple of years. We are we're
now in an El Nino year, which is you know,
raising global temperatures and potentially you know, itsascerbating the the
(07:48):
you know, the the heat risk and extreme weather risks.
And I think, yeah, people's new that people are paying
so much attention to adaptation.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Can we expect to see more of this then, not
just with concerts and live entertainment, but other organizations, companies,
venues having to adapt.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
Yes, exactly. For you know, the SMP Global Corporate Sustainability
Assessment is a kind of survey of thousands of companies
around the world, and only one in five companies have
an adaptation plan to you know, adapt their supply chains
and operations to the physical risks of climate change. And
so we'll probably see a lot more companies. You know,
(08:33):
there's there's basically a lot of lots of companies need
to touch up to the you know, the current climate
and current climate change risks, and so we'll probably see
that happen in the next year or so, and then.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
The flip side of this coin, it's actually quite true.
Swifties are really a force of their own. If they
can't recruit more gen z ors to the climate change fight,
if not Taylor Swift, then who I mean. It seems
like this is well, it's an awful tragedy and it's
a very difficult thing to face. At the same time,
enormous amounts of attention are being paid to it now.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Yes, no, exactly. I think one thing that could make
it even more impactful is if you know Taylor herself,
we've talked about climate change, and you know, obviously it's
very early on. She's in the middle of a global tour.
I'm sure the events on Friday and you know, over
the weekend have really affected her personally, and so I'm
(09:31):
not surprised that we haven't heard her speak out about
it yet. But if Swifties and you know, Taylor Swift
should talk about climate change and raise awareness, and that
could be really powerful.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
You know, it almost seems like an opportunity for like
a live aid, a band aid, some sort of concert
or gathering to help raise awareness for the for the issue.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
Yeah, for sure. I think I have I have heard that,
you know, people involved with Live Aid did want to
do a clime at one and I think last year
Billie Eilish, I think did there was a bid. There
was a bid festival in maybe Paris or somewhere like
that for you know, to raise money and awareness about
climate change. But we can't. Yeah, we're just that.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Momentum needs to continue.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
We need to keep the momentum going and so hopefully
you know, something good will come out of this, and
that's you know, more awareness well the needs for adaptation
plans and also more awareness someone gen Z about climate
change and the very real risk that climate change poses
not only to you know, people in abstract time periods
(10:41):
and countries, but you know, to their enjoyment of their
own lives.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Really, Lara, thank you for taking the time with this
on this today.
Speaker 3 (10:49):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lara Williams covers a climate change and
coming up. Science and trust in scientists is taking a
hit in the United States. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast count US Saturdays
at one and seven pm. Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen
on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I may me more as
science and trust in scientists is taking a hit in
the United States, A new Pew Research Center poll finds
that Americans trust and scientists continues to decline. Among both
Democrats and Republicans, trust in scientists is now lower than
it was before the pandemic. Similarly, the positive views of
(11:46):
science and belief in its positive effect on society continues
to dip. Now, this is not a new phenomenon. During
the pandemic, In Texas, pediatrician Christina Props made an appeal
to the public to continue to take precautions to avoid
getting and spreading COVID, even after the state reopened businesses
and lifted mask mandates.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
We are doing our part, and so it is really
a painful experience to feel that our elected officials don't
trust us, don't trust our expertise, and are not listening
to the science.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
But this is not all about the pandemic necessarily. Bloomberg
Opinion columnist Faith Lamb joins me now Fay Cover Science
and his host of the follow of the Science podcast,
they where's this coming from, this distrust of science and scientists.
Speaker 6 (12:35):
Well, I think that there is a connection with the pandemic.
The Pew Research Foundation just came up with some new
numbers where the public trust in science did take quite
a dip from twenty nineteen to now. And you know
what else, what else seems likely to have changed. We've
(12:56):
had this pandemic, We've had scientists telling people what to
think and what to do. And I don't think it
has anything to do with astronomers or physicists or other scientists.
I think it has to do with medical science primarily,
and public health and some of the missteps that public
health made during the pandemic.
Speaker 2 (13:15):
But this also crosses party lines, which is not something
we saw during the pandemic. In fact, quite the opposite.
Speaker 6 (13:22):
Yeah, I think maybe over time it does. Republicans are
less likely to trust scientists than Democrats, But I think overall,
there have been some flaws in the way the pandemic
was handled that the general public is more likely to
be concerned about right now.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Is this also a reflection of the muddying of the
message during the Trump administration, which was a very intentional thing.
Or is there something else happening that has caused the
public to continue to distrust science. Is this this a
lingering after effect or is there more to it?
Speaker 6 (14:00):
I think there is more to it. In fact, one
of the things I'm going to be writing about in
this column is a book that I really like. It's
called Within Reason, and it's written by Sandra Galia, who's
dean of public health at Boston University. And this book
is just a really nice, sort of honest reckoning with
what public health got wrong during the pandemic and why
(14:24):
they got it wrong. And I had a very nice
talk with him, and I think he has the humility
to recognize that this might not be completely something wrong
with the public. It might also be something wrong with
the way scientists handled things. I think that there's been
there have been a few editorials by scientists saying, well,
what we've got to fix the general public so they
(14:44):
trust us again. But I think that there is a
real place for self reflection. And I think one of
the things that went wrong during the pandemic was what
I call false false certainty. You know, when people were
saying things when they did I didn't really know and
would say, no, we definitely know, you should do this
or do that, and now you know in retrospect when
(15:05):
they got things wrong, they said we didn't know. But
then my question to them is, well you didn't know,
why didn't you say you didn't know? And I saw
that happened early in the pandemic. It wasn't just a
flip flop on masks. There was a flip flop on
how to think about the pandemic. So in January and February,
there was actually a lot of evidence building out that
the problem in China was incredibly disruptive and that the
(15:27):
disease was spreading and that we could face a real problem.
But I was seeing editorials running in the paper saying
seasonal flu is a bigger threat, you know, don't worry
about this, And there was there should have been a
huge effort at that time to prepare hospitals, to get
ppe for all of the workers, to prepare the general
(15:51):
public for a possible disruption, to give businesses in private
citizens time to prepare for these lockdowns. But instead, even
though the science didn't make a U turn, the science
was evidence was building up, but the scientists did take
a big u turn from don't worry to stay in
your house. And yes, some of the restrictions they made
(16:12):
also were counter to what scientific evidence was was building up.
That there was already fairly early on and understanding that
outdoors were safer than indoors. And yet we saw you know,
playgrounds being taped up, and people, you know, police chasing
people out of parks, and skateboard parks being filled in
with sand, you know, stuff that was not following the science.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
And we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion colonist Faith Lamb
about this new pole regarding trust in science and why
that trust is waning on a general level. Fay is
trust in short supply across the board in the United
States anyway, just not it is in science.
Speaker 4 (16:50):
It is.
Speaker 6 (16:51):
In fact, scientists were still more trusted than almost everybody else,
including journalists. So what people really need isn't trust in
individual scientists, but trust in the process of science and
the methods of science. Things like clinical trials. Double blind
clinical trials are actually designed as sort of an anadote
to human fallibility in human bias. And the reason that
(17:13):
science produces reliable knowledge for us all is the methods
of science and the way this sort of group project
of science keeps adding to that knowledge. But individual scientists
are fallible and it's very hard to If we do
develop trust in science, then our trust in individual scientists.
How do people know which scientists are the right scientists?
(17:36):
There are plenty of people that are considered outliers and
even hucksters who have PhDs and mds behind their name,
and so there's also a problem with fringe scientists. So
I think understanding, you know, trust in the big picture
science can help people recognize when scientists who are trustworthy.
(18:00):
Scientists who are trustworthy will point to the wider body
of knowledge that is science, not try to say, oh,
all of those scientists everybody else is wrong. I'm right,
that's a red flag.
Speaker 2 (18:12):
So then the onus would be on the general public
right to know the difference between science and pseudoscience and
just outright fraud.
Speaker 7 (18:19):
Yeah, yeah, but they do know that evidence that you
should come with evidence, you know, and if you're a scientist,
you better have some really strong evidence evidence, and that
there is a sort of connection between things we know,
things that we've built.
Speaker 6 (18:35):
Up, knowledge we've known from the past. It's why those
vaccines worked so as well as they did because they
were built on years of biological experiments, and then they
also had to go through clinical trials that were designed
to flag problems and you know, make sure that they
(18:55):
really worked the way they thought they worked.
Speaker 2 (18:57):
This isn't just distrust of scientists though this Paul also
shows that Americans are questioning the positive role that science
has on society. Did that surprise you a little.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Bit, Yeah, because that seems like, you know, we have
we're surrounded by so many things that are that are
made possible by our advancing scientific knowledge. But I think
the pandemic may have left people so bitter that they
may be reacting to that. You know, polls are it's
sometimes it's hard to know without more detail where that's
(19:28):
coming from.
Speaker 2 (19:29):
What can the scientific community do to win people back.
It almost sounds like they need a pr campaign, But
that just seems wrong.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
You know.
Speaker 6 (19:38):
I think that one of the things I really liked
about this book Within Reason was the idea that science
has to sort of rise above all of the politics
and has to be self reflective, has to be honest
about where they might have gotten things wrong and where
some of the policies during the pandemic weren't completely science based,
(20:00):
and that with that kind of reckoning and radical honesty,
that that is where trust I think could be re earned.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Thank you, Faith. Faith Lem is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist
who covers science and his host of the Follow the
Science podcast coming up. Trust in politics, It's not a
pipe dream. There is a measure of trust in our
political system that is eroding to a perilous end. This
is Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
You're listening to The Bloomberg Opinion podcast catches Saturdays at
one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the
iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on
demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I Maymy Morris. There is a
difference between the twenty twenty four election season and the
election of twenty sixteen, now eight years ago. The race
for the White House was won by a candidate who
had categorized himself as an outsider, a businessman, someone different
who would serve as a disruptor. But this election season,
voters know who Donald Trump is and he's promising to
(21:15):
build camps for migrants, purge the vermin from obstructing his endgame.
He has praise for dictators, all while he's facing numerous
indictments and legal entanglements that don't seem to slow him
down at all. And the disconnect here might very well
be a matter of trust. Bloomberg opinion columnist Clive Crook
is a member of the editorial board covering economics, and
(21:36):
he joins me now, and Clive, you have this really
great column on the Bloomberg terminal. Your view is that
Donald Trump could never really have gotten this far actually
without Democrats unwitting assistants, in part because of their refusal
to recognize the collapsing trust in this country. Can you
expand on that?
Speaker 8 (21:55):
Yeah, I mean I think that made sense actually those
time around, you know, when Trump was first elected, I
think just as you say, you know, he campaigns an outsider,
as something of a wreckor you know, someone who wouldn't
about out to the rules, that would just you know,
fix what needed fixing.
Speaker 9 (22:17):
And the fact that he succeeded before, you know, shows
that people didn't really trust politics as usual. So I
think that fact was already in play. But this time around,
I think it's vastly more serious. I mean, to be
honest with you, I wasn't that worried about Trump first
(22:37):
time around. Perhaps I should have been, but I wasn't.
I thought he'd betained by the system, you know, controlled
somewhat by the system, and I think to a large
degree he was. But I think it would be a
big mistake to suppose he won't be any more dangerous
next time. I think he's out for revenge for the
(22:58):
way he's been treated by the system. And the astonishing
factor is that he commends very wide support in the
country and the people who are telling posters. But therefore Trump,
having seen what's happened and having listened to what he
said lately, they're basically expressing a complete lack of confidence
(23:21):
in the system as usual. So I think as it
were going into another Trump administration, it would be a
much more destabilizing, much more dangerous prospect than it was
last time around. And that is saying something.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Do you believe that the electorate from the beginning didn't
really have a lot of healthy trust in the system,
And that's how Donald Trump was able to make those
gains in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen. He was able
to capitalize on that and now it has turned into
its own, It's taken on a life of its own,
if you will.
Speaker 9 (23:56):
Yeah, well I do. I think there were sort of
compounding factors in twenty sixteen, and in my view, Hillary
Clinton was wont you know, she basically expressed disdain for
a good part of the population in that campaign. You remember,
you know, the notorious remark about deplorables that was really
like an instruction to people that told them, you know,
(24:20):
she has no interest in their views, and you know
that can get lost. I mean, what an extraordinary position
for a politician seeking election to take. So I think
that was, as it were, a compounding factor last time.
But you know, as I say, this time, it's going
to be much worse because we've seen so many dimensions
(24:41):
of trust break down more radically than before. I mean,
I can you know on things of several examples, I mean,
Biden and his officials are refusing to listen and take
seriously people's complaints about what's happened to prices. You know,
the Biden administration's position is Bidenomics is a work of genius.
(25:03):
You know, we're transforming the economy, and people who are
worried about high prices and what's happened to their real incomes,
just failing to understand the statistics, and if only they
would listen to the experts, their concerns would go away. Well,
this is nonsense. I mean, many people are in a
state of genuine financial insecurity. The averages on this are
(25:27):
very misleading. You've got to look at people who are
struggling because of this spiking prices, and Biden administrations basically said,
you know, we're not interested this is this is misinformation,
so we're not going to address it. I want to
think of other dimensions of this.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
I mean.
Speaker 9 (25:47):
Trust and experts has formed because of what happened during
the pandemic, the school closures, all the back and forth
over whether you need mess whether they work, whether they're essential,
and all that I think sort of roaded trust. And
now we have this extraordinary sort of weaponization of the
justice system to put Trump in jail by any means necessary.
(26:12):
Now I do think Trump, I should make it clear.
I mean, I'm Trump scares me. I mean I do
think he has authoritarian appetites and it dismays me that,
you know, the prospect that he could win an election
just both amazes me. And asmaze me. But look at
it from the point of view of his supporters. What
they see is politically active prosecutors going after him from
(26:38):
all these different directions. Unfortunately, the US has a highly
politicized criminal justice system. The prosecutors in many cases are
political actors with political ambitions, and so they can't take
it for granted that people will assume that what they're
doing is in the public interest. That always the suspicion
(27:01):
of advancing a political agenda. Now have they restrained themselves
given that is the case, I would say no, they
have not. Quite the opposite. They're doubling down. What it's
done is it's told people we were right not to
trust the criminal justice system. And that is a terrifying
thing that I.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Think we're seeing that we are talking with Bloomberg Opinion
colonist Clive Crook about the degradation of trust in the
United States and politics, government institutions and where that might
lead us. How did we get here, Clive.
Speaker 9 (27:34):
Well, it's the key question. And I do hold Biden
somewhat responsible for this because he won his election on
a promise to be the moderay to the unified. That
was his whole shtick. You know, there was this battle
(27:54):
going on within the Democratic Party between you know, woke
progressives and more mainstream Democratic politicians, and Biden was regarded
as a mainstream guy, a deal maker. He has a
history of you know, striking compromises in Congress, and I'm
finding kind of middle way through. In fact, many of
his past positions are an embarrassment for him within the party,
(28:18):
and I think that is what many voters wanted. They
wanted that kind of moderate centrics. Now has he governed
as that, I would say no, he has not. He
basically has gone all in on a sort of hard
left progressive economic and political agenda, and so people feel
(28:39):
that he broke his word, and so they don't trust
him now. I think if, of course, Biden has many
other issues as well. To put it mildly, people don't
trust trust a man of his age and evidently declining
faculties to do a good job. If the Democrats could
(29:00):
find it within themselves to listen to those complaints about
Buide and find that that's a candidate, and the party
has plenty of good candidates that I think, you know,
Trump could be beaten.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
When we're talking about this, we are specifically talking about
the re election of Donald Trump. But I'm curious about
what may follow after Donald Trump. Is there a concern
that a door has been opened to allow similar minded
candidates a shot at national office?
Speaker 9 (29:32):
I would say so, actually, I mean that is a
that is a concern and a certainly concerned of mine.
I don't think we're taking it sufficiently seriously. But why
do people suppose that if only Trump can be beaten,
this problem goes away Once trust in our core institutions
collapses and I think it might perhaps that it hasn't collapsed,
(29:55):
but it's seriously damaged. Once that happens, then an avenue
open for this kind of aggressive populist candidate to come through,
someone who you know is going to say, you know,
forget the rules. There are no rules. You know, these
people will keep us out of office by any means necessary,
(30:17):
and we're done with that. I mean, why should that
stop at Trump? This is why the crucial thing is
to restore trust. And it depresses me no end that
the Democrats aren't a tune to this challenge. They have
to restore trust.
Speaker 2 (30:33):
Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of
the editorial board covering economics. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
I'm Amy Morris. Have you heard about America's impending fiscal doom?
It is said to be a moment in the not
too distant future when there will be too many elderly
people for younger generations to support, and that would leave
the federal government unable to fulfill its financial obligations. Want
(30:56):
to talk about this with Bloomberg Opinion columnist and labor
economist Catherine Edwards. Okay, Catherine, First of all, would this
be a foregone conclusion? Is this a fiscal apocalypse that
we can't avoid?
Speaker 4 (31:08):
No, of course not. It's a It certainly a reflects
a flair for the dramatic, if nothing else. But there's
nothing faded about either our economic or fiscal future that
policy can't change.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
All right, let's talk about policy. What can the government
do right now to avoid this fiscal doom?
Speaker 4 (31:28):
What the government is worried about is the obligations that
are going to go fund the income and the healthcare
of the baby boomer population. And they're not wrong, and
that there is going to be an incredible number of
elderly Americans in the near future. The youngest baby boomer
is currently fifty nine. But you know, I think they're
(31:50):
a little bit focused on the old. The cost drivers
of the elderly is that there's a lot of them
and they live a long time. I mean, those are
two things that you basically can't change. So if that's
going to be expensive to the federal government, then they
need to make sure that the programs that support the
elderly are in tip top shape, which means that they'd
have to reform Social Security, which they haven't done since
(32:12):
well before I was born. And then they're going to
have to bolster the finances of the young. If we
are going to afford an aging population, it is going
to be young people that pay for it.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
Let's talk about that. How can we bet on the young?
How can we ensure that the young people will be
able to pay for it?
Speaker 4 (32:30):
Yeah, because either way they will. Right, Let's say Congress
passes a benefit cut to Social Security and Medicare. Who
do you think is going to make up the difference?
The same young workers who would be financing the program.
I mean, it's young families who are going to pay
for their elders no matter what. You know, the way
to make the health less expensive is to radically alter
our health insurance system so that it's high cost aligns
(32:50):
with better outcomes. I mean, we're in the worst of
both worlds because we have some of the worst outcomes
for the highest prices. But there doesn't seem to be
an appetite in policy worlds to fix health care or
to change it in any dramatic way. And I can
understand that. I mean, that's moving miles from where we are.
(33:11):
Whereas the labor supply policy that could increase the number
of workers who are young, I mean that's moving inches right.
Let's have mandatory paid sick days. Let's have adjustments to
the Fair Libor Standards Act, so you're required to accommodate
workers who want to work part time, who need to
have flexible arrangements a few days a week. You know
your tenured staff says they're going to work from home
two days a week. You're probably increasing the number of
(33:32):
workers by a couple million in the long run. We
also need a paid family leave system. I mean, that's
just kindness. If we know that there are going to
be roughly eighty million people over sixty five, those children
are going to have some hard moment where their parents
are sick and they need to take care of them,
and we don't really offer them a way to do
so that doesn't almost always require them losing or leaving
their job. There's some easy gains like sick days, accommodation policy,
(33:56):
pay family leave. I mean, then there's some investments that
we just need to make, something like paying for childcare,
something like having a decent long term unemployment system that
helps retain workers whose jobs are automated. None of these
things are that radical in general. They only seem radical
in the US because we're the only country that doesn't
have them. But I you know, it's all tenable, it's
(34:18):
all possible. I think what is the true challenge is
to make healthcare less expensive. And so I kind of
put this as like, hey man, we can go with
the easy option first. The easy option is let's work
on workers and then the healthcare fight, you know, the
healthcare debacle, whatever you want to call it. I think
that one's more of the apocalypse. Nothing about aging in
(34:38):
the workforce. We can we can afford old people. It's
I don't think it's I don't think we should frame
it as that. And I don't think we should spur
any type of intergenerational who is getting the resources. You
don't have to have that fight if you don't position
the economy as a zero sum game.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Catherine Edwards is a labor economist and
independent policy consultant. And that does it for this this
week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by Eric Mullow, and
you can find all of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal.
We're also available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or
your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us. Today's top stories
and global business headlines are just ahead. I'm Amy Morris.
(35:16):
This is Bloomberg
Host
Vonnie Quinn
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com