June 8, 2025 • 28 mins
What kind of US economy will emerge from the policies of Donald Trump? Will it be more or less competitive and resilient than what the president inherited at the start of the year?
Host Stephanie Flanders put that question to an all-star panel at the Milken conference in May. Here's an edited version of the conversation that followed, featuring Gary Cohn, IBM Vice Chairman, former director of the National Economic Council and former chief economic advisor to Trump; Peter Orszag, CEO and Chairman of Lazard and former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Barack Obama; and Kevin McCarthy, 55th Speaker of the US House of Representatives.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
and welcome to a bonus episode of Trumpanomics, the podcast
that looks at the economic world of Donald Trump, how
he's already shaped the global economy and what on earth
is going to happen next. And we thought we would
just throw your way another panel I did at the
twenty eighth annual Milken Institute Global Conference called US Economic
(00:38):
Competitiveness in a Changing World, with guest Gary Cone, vice
chairman of IBM but former senior player in the first
Trump administration, Peter Orsag, CEO and chairman of Blazard, but
also previously budget director for Barack Obama, and Kevin McCarthy,
the former Speaker of the US House of represent Sentives.
(01:02):
My opening question, given the title of the panel, was
what kind of US economy did they think would emerge
from the policies of Donald Trump? Would it be more
or less competitive and resilient than the US economy that
Donald Trump inherited at the start of the inn.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
So, look, we're going to come out of this just fine,
go back and take a reflection on the US economy
let me see. We've lived through depressions, We've lived through recessions,
we've lived through COVID, we've lived through the financial crisis,
and every time when we thought it was really bad,
it got a lot better. If you go ten years forward,
twenty years forward, if you have any duration of time,
(01:43):
this is an unbelievably resilient economy. The United States where
the reserve currency of the world. We're going to stay
the reserve currency of the world. We have huge capital here.
We've got a great corporate system that wants to invest
in this country. Look, we all have short term concerns.
Long term, we should be really excited where.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
We're going with this country, Miss Speaker Kevin mccaffee.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Look, they all talk economics. I think you ought to
get in the brains of the president. He's different this
time than the last time. Trump is a populist, but
there's two things that are principal to him. I always
have been tariffs and drugs cost too much. When he
says he's going to put a ten percent tariff on,
(02:27):
he'll put a ten percent terrify when he says it's
going to be twenty five or higher. That's all about negotiations.
We are in the middle of negotiations. He's also not
a rigid person that will not adapt. He's always negotiating.
So if you take him exactly what he's saying, you're
going crazy. But what's happening is at the end of
the day, he's not going to have the shelves empty.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
He knows he's got about sixty days to do something.
I actually think we're.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Going to be a lot better off, And I would
point to one part of the history for the same
reason we open the three communicates with China when we're
dealing in a cold war. This is going to be
a reset in China. When we get an agreement with
India and Japan and the UK, it's going to be
much more positive for America.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Is their adjustment.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
Is there disruption, yes, but in the long run it
will make us stronger.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Feed site.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
Let's see three four really quick points on resilience. I
think we will be more micro resilient and less macro resilient,
by which I mean certain supply chains in pharma, etc.
Will be more secure, but from a macro perspective in
terms of our ability to project power abroad and our
ability to sustain the fiscal trajectory that we're on and
(03:44):
so on, I think.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
We will be more vulnerable.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
Second, we will have marginally higher manufacturing activity and manufacturing employment,
but nothing like the nineteen fifties shares of either.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
The economy or employment.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
Third, I think we need to be a bit careful
about I saw Simon Johnson in the hallway. The Nobel
Prize in Economics was awarded for the last year for
what drives long term growth?
Speaker 3 (04:15):
And rule of law.
Speaker 5 (04:18):
Inclusive rather than extract of approaches to policy making are
all core to long term economic growth. And so we
just need to keep that in mind. And then final
point is, despite all of the discussion about tariffs, as
Nuriel Rabini put it, tech Trump's tariffs, if you look
(04:38):
out over the next three to five years, so what
is happening on the digital payment stack, what is happening
on the AI race, What is happening in quantum that
is going to turn out to be more important than
the next two or three months.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Gary Kahn, whether it's IBM or anywhere else, can you
respond into this changing incentives and support the kind of
investments that the government administration wants to see. When you
have zero clarity about what the twists rates are going
to be and what the future is going to be.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Look, I think all of us who run big companies,
who have run big companies, we have to think long term,
like no one's thinking of like we're thinking about the
next ninety days because we have to. But honestly, we're
making investments for a generational cycle. You know, everyone's talking
about AI today AI. A lot of the investment that
you're seeing in AI today didn't happen the last two,
(05:32):
three or four years. We'll get the quantum. I mean,
the amount of money that IBM and others are putting
in the quantum today is just extraordinary. Quantum will pay
results five years I'll say, five years from now. So
we are making extraordinary investments in this country, in this economy.
The one place I'll caution, because I think we need
to talk about this to some extent, tax policy drives
(05:55):
investment decisions in this country. It's if you want to
boil down to any one major factor that drives decision
making in this country, it is tax policy. When we
changed our taxes in twenty seventeen, we affected corporate policy
more than anything else that's happened in this country in
the last thirty or forty years, when we deemed repatriation
of money back to the United States, we forced a
(06:17):
lot of this money back. When we changed the corporate
tax rate, we became competitive with the OECD. We changed
the way people thought about manufacturing and building businesses in
the United States. When we look at accelerated appreciation, when
we look at R and D credits, all of these
things matter and they will drive policy more than anything
else we're actually talking about. Because at the end of
(06:38):
the day, when you're running big companies, you're a fiduciary
for shareholder. You're trying to maximize the turn over a
long period of time, and taxes will drive a lot
of those decisions. So, look, one of the most important
things that has to happen this year is we have
to at a minimum extend the Trump tax cuts the job.
So that to me is a minimum. If we can
(06:58):
put something additional, they're great. If we can bring back
we have, bringing back the R and D credits, bringing
back to acceler depreciation, those have more impacts than anything
else we're actually talking about here.
Speaker 5 (07:10):
No, Gary won't be Look, I think there's a large
empirical literature on this question, and taxes matter, but it's
not even close to the most important factor. A lot
of things go into the future cash flows and expectations
of future cash flows, part of which is taxes, but
there are lots of other pieces that are arguably more important.
(07:33):
And on that point, I do think we need to
also highlight that a lot of the benefits that we
are we have experienced historically in the United States comes
from being the world leader in technology in particular, that
is where a disproportionate share of the productivity growth has occurred.
That is where, to the extent there are any differences
(07:55):
with Europe.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
That is where the differences have shown up most.
Speaker 5 (08:00):
Prominently, and we need to be cognizant of that because
there is some risk that we will disrupt the apple cart.
I completely understand and empathize with the perspective that our
leading universities went far off Kilture and how they handled
the aftermath of October seventh in particular, But I think
(08:24):
slashing the NIH budget, slashing funding to the leading universities
of the United States, risks exactly what we're already seeing,
which is Europeans and others are saying, come here, we
will invest in science.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
We don't want that, So.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
That is just as important, if not more important, than
tax policy.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
But obviously everything matters.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Since we've got onto AI and technology. What outcomes were
you hoping for from the Chips Act and was it
successful and revitalizing US microchip manufacturing at Sir Georgia's posito,
and also wondering what the next act like that would be.
I think, I mean you a speaker, when the Bipartisan
Chips Act was passed, there's been sort of different signals
(09:07):
around it. But as far as you're concern, was it
successful in doing what it was supposed to do?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Not completely?
Speaker 4 (09:12):
No, I mean the company government invested in the most
I don't know is going to make it all the way.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
AI is going to do.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
One thing for America is going to get our energy
policy right, because we'll never capture AI without getting energy
policy right. You'll do more than any climate change has
ever done to our energy policy. Getting chips made in
America is going to be an agreement with government and Taiwan.
Taiwan is never going to give the full fobs here
(09:43):
unless they get an agreement that they're going to get
some type of support and that's actually happening now.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
So I believe there is enough capital out there.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
It's more a government view that in the Senate if
they just throw money at Chips. I think there's a
lot of capital in the market to get money for Chips.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
I don't think government needed to make that investment.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
This isn't normal. I tell my friends in Congress, China
has a congress too. No one knows who they are.
All the power has usurped to the White House. Trump
has one term. You can tell them, oh, if you
went really smooth. None of that's going to matter to him.
He's got one term to get something done. He has
his ten thousand hours that he knows how to do
(10:25):
the job. He picked the cabinet that he wants that
will follow what he wants to do. I believe investment
is important, but under Republicans we increased in IH. But
I don't think any of these colleges have been audited.
Did you really think taxpayer money should give Harvard nine
billion dollars? What are they doing with it? I actually
believe coming after him will make every single college to
(10:50):
start auditing.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
What are we doing with this money?
Speaker 4 (10:53):
And it will drive more towards research and development than prior.
I firmly believe in the tax and it will get done,
but it won't get done perfectly on the timeline that
Congress does right now, but it's too much pain that
they not do it. But Trump will cut regulation he
(11:14):
did last time, even faster than Reagan. That combination will
help energy more and AI will drive energy to do
it more than anything of it.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (11:26):
Look, I think there is a very positive agenda here
that has to do with expanding the supply, not only
of energy, where honestly, the myth of the immaculate transition
has dominated for too long, and I'm glad, I am
glad we are past that in housing, which admittedly is
mostly local, but is a huge impediment to the upward
(11:48):
mobility of many families. By the way, people have not realized,
but the mobility rates in the United States have been
declining over the past two to three decades.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
And you know part of that is is.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
The rock and effects and the difficulty of finding housing
and wherever you want to move to.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
This is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
And you can go down the list of expanding supply
as a I mean EZRA client and Derek Thompson just
wrote a book called Abundance, which is fundamentally about let's
stop subsidizing demand and let's really focus on expanding supply.
That is an agenda that you know, I'm one hundred
percent behind.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
I just wanted to want to shift a little bit
of that follows on from that, if you have a
supply side approach to the economy. One of the things
that investors and others were very were excited about in
looking at this incoming administration was around deregulation and that
whole agenda. But we also saw in the previous administration
quite an aggressive approach to corporate power, which actually was
(12:51):
also associated with an analysis of what was reducing labor moability,
non compete clauses. You know, the corporate concentration was itself
imped being economic competitiveness. So I just wonder how would
you judge where the administration is on that and whether
it's right to kind of be more relaxed about corporate
concentration if that's if that's the case.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
The frustration I've had in past administrations, if one administration
did something, the other one has to be opposed to it,
which I didn't think good.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Was when it comes to China.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Maybe China has united everybody, and this isn't about preparing
for war. We've become too dependent. This is about making
sure we don't go to war and pure dependency. And
it's the most bipartisan committee. And when the President of
Taiwan came to see me, I held the meeting at
the Reagan Library simply for the symbolism of defeating communists
without going to war. And when we sat and had
(13:46):
a press conference together with the Berlin Wall behind us,
Andrew Mitchell gave the first question and she said, I cried,
and I was with Reagan. We said, tear down this wall.
And I feel just emotional as today that you are
so united without Paul.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
And I think it's been one of the most positive things.
And dependency.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Just like they control ninety percent of the critical minerals,
but ninety five percent of the processing, and that really
comes down to Congress. Are they going to allow us
if we have our own resources to be able to
do that? And I think this is a place, this
is where the TikTok band came from. This is going
to be a very positive situation.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Well happn't to that, but I did actually distract you
from Kary Kayan? Do you want or do you want
to take on the Batsy trust question.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Look, I'm always troubled by this topic to some of
the great because, look, we clearly want our companies to
play within the rules. We don't want anyone to have
an unfair advantage. So that's that's a given. On the
flip side, you know, we sit here and we talk
about we have to compete against China, which we do,
and we have to win the battle. China's trying to
build the largest companies in the.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
World to take over the world.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
We're trying to break up the larger companies they're successful
in the United States. I think we got to decide
which side this equation we want to come out on.
I think we want to be able to compete globally.
And if some of our companies are really successful, it
happen to be very large, it's okay. It's probably good
for us in this country, and they probably bring home
a lot of tax revu and they probably employ a
(15:16):
lot of people. As long as they're not prohibiting other
people from competing in the space. I don't think we
as Americans to that problems with it. We should actually
be very prideful in the fact that we can build
these companies from nothing. And the companies we're talking about,
and I know we're smiling, a lot of these companies
didn't exist thirty years ago, forty years fifty years ago,
none existed. So you think about the creativity and this
(15:39):
is why I started out being so bullish on this economy.
You think of the creativity and the entrepreneurial spirit that
exists in this country. We've built some of the largest
companies in the last twenty years. Let's allow them to
continue to thrive as long as they're playing within the laws.
That's why we have loss in this country.
Speaker 5 (15:56):
So the biggest divergence that the biggest bad crowd had
was because it's easy to kind of just say it's
across the board, it's really quite specifically with regard to
vertical integration. So that is a firm that is buying
something that's a supplier or a distributor as opposed to
(16:17):
merging horizontally. And there I think, honestly, there was a
lot of rhetoric, often without a lot of evidence, and
you're going to find that's where the differences will be.
The most significant is a little bit of backing off
from the all vertical integration is bad.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
And let me just.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Highlight one area where this tension is paramount.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
I saw doctor Oz yesterday. He's here.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
I believe that CMS under doctor Oz will push very
hard on value based care and healthcare, which is fantastic.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
We should pay for value and not for quantity.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
But as you do that, you're creating incentives for insurance
companies and providers to act as one because that's effectively
what most of the incentive undervalue based care does.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
And we have evidence.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
We're here in California, Kiser Pernaminity is a good example
of fully vertically integrated healthcare players that perform better than others.
So if you go after vertical integration, but you also
want value based healthcare, which, by the way, the administration,
the prior administration was saying simultaneously you have massive cognitive dissonance.
(17:25):
One arm of the government saying don't do this, in
the other arm saying do it. I think that will
be better going forward.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
I'm going to change the subject, but I did mention
the start. I mean, one of the things that economists
had been quote unquote concerned about given how much it
had been part of the growth model in the last
few years. Was the much tougher stance towards immigration of
this administration. Now, obviously the focus has been illegal administration
immigration and companies don't tend to kind of stand up
(17:55):
for the right to have loads of illegal immigrants working
for them, and really want to get past that and
just to a sort of core of what has been
a source of economic strength for the US over the
last few years, which is to be a very opening.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Environment for legal immigrations.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
So foreign citizens, no, But if we have people who
are now being we have foreign if foreign students who
are studying here, maybe contributing potentially to entrepreneurship and inventions
in the US and down the road, are being intimidated.
If people are worried about I mean, we will know
people here who have been told actually, if you don't
need to come to the US, don't come, or do
(18:33):
just take a burner phone. I mean, all of this
is I'm sure exaggerated, but just about the sort of
atmosphere that it creates for a country that's trying to
attract foreign talent. I mean, Peter, do do you worry
about it? It's not about these specific cases.
Speaker 5 (18:46):
There is I agree that we need to have secure borders,
and I agree that you know no one can or
should be in favor of a legal immigration. So let
me just say that, However, even if the burner phone
finalmon is anecdotal, anecdotes can become the telephone game and
(19:07):
affect our ability to attract top talent. The number of
foreign CEOs with whom I've spoken who say that they
are going to be bringing a burner fund to the
US is much higher than it should be.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
So I very much hope.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
That whatever's causing that changes because that is not good
for our economy.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Misspeaking, do you think do you just worry about the again,
the tone of what's happened over the last few months,
and maybe the overreach by some people in individual bits
of homeland security, which then contributes to these stories.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
Look, I think the greatest strength of America is not
our aircraft carri is the idea of America. Okay, But
President Trump got elected on two main factors, the border
and the economy, and I think eighty percent of America
believes the border was out of control. So just like
everything else, you have to actually make this statement to
(20:01):
stop the illegal from coming. We're the most generous nation
in the world. More than a million people go. Now
you're going to get a gold cart, so you're going
to get a whole other set. I think this is
a small part. I think it'll make people rethink. I'm
more concerned the relationship with Canada and Mexico because I
believe that's a great deal of strength, and I think
(20:24):
that has to be we have an agreement with them.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
We need to work through it.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Because if you can't work with your neighbors that you
have in agreement with, it's hard to make agreements with
other people.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Okay, and I want to go back to we started
right at the beginning. You mentioned about debt, and you
also about the importance of making the tax cuts permanent.
You know, that is one of the things that if
you're again just doing a sort of classic economic health
check of the US, you'd say, that's the kind of
scariest bit of the scariest chart is what happens to
debt under any reasonable assumptions. So do you see a
(20:59):
path given the relatively modest gains of DOGE, given the
kind of cuts that are on the table in Congress,
do you see a path to meaningfully flattening the US trajectory.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
There's always a path. Do we want to take the path?
We're going to have no choice. I think we're going
to have to get to the point where we take
the path. So if you look at what DOE is
trying to do in like waste frauden abuse, as the
Governor said, as the Speaker said, there's waste broaden abuse everywhere,
it's hard to go in and find those pieces. I
(21:37):
actually think we'd be better off to take a step
back and figure out what can we actually eliminate. It's
a lot more cost effective to start eliminating things. So
I'll go back to my former former former life. You know,
when you look at the banking sector in the United States,
I think we have eight to eleven regulators in the
banking sector in the United States. If you look at
(21:59):
the UK, you look at Hong Kong, you look at Japan,
you look at Singapore, you'd say, all they have pretty
good markets, pretty good banking systems. They have a maximum
of three regulators in each of those countries. They don't
have an SEC, they don't have a CFTC, they don't
have an OCC. I could keep naming names of things
they don't have. They have a potential regulator and a
(22:19):
market in a central bank, and they have a regulator
that protects the public. We could do that really efficiently
in this country, and we could cut out real, real
spending long term. Now, look, it will take my friend
over here and his colleagues in the Capitol to get
rid of a bunch.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Of these agencies.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
But these agencies in many respects I think have probably
outlived their needs, outlived their services. So if we're gonna
get serious about taking money out and keeping it out,
because the dose money, I hate to say it, in
the next administration could come back in the way to
keep it out. Take it out is the remove part
of the organization that actually doesn't need to be there today.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I guess you only find out if you needed it
once you get rid of it.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
But Pisa, Look if I told all of you that
there was a country running seven percent of GDP deficits,
as far as I can see, that the debt to
GDP of that country was one hundred percent, that the
political system was deeply polarized, that the country was arguably
(23:25):
alienating a third of its investor class, and that that
country was also toying with the idea of whether the
central bank should remain fully independent or not. That would
not be a combination of factors that would be confidence inspiring.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
So I agree with Gary this is in my opinion.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
Now there was a decade and now I will say
even I, as a former CBO director and a former
budget director, sort of had just tuned out all the
chicken little kind of the sky is falling fiscal stuff
because all of the dire predictions were not happening, and
it kind of got a little tiresome to keep hearing them.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
But if you.
Speaker 5 (24:05):
Compare where we are now to where we were a
decade ago, it's a lot different. The deficits twice as
high interest rates are dramatically higher. I am particularly pleased
that Secretary of Bison has cleaned up the question of
whether the administration is doubting whether it being the reserve
currency is a benefit or not. I think there were
(24:25):
statements from other administration officials which were not helpful. That
is a very dangerous thing to be doing, given the
combination of facts that I had. So this is I
think it's time to worry again about this trajectory and
I do hope that we get serious about what we're
going to do, because you don't want to be in
a situation where it gets away from you. And I
think the risk that it gets away from us are
(24:48):
higher now than it was over the past decade.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Mister speakers, as Gary said, it's all down to your colleagues, Well.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Then I'd be really worried. Structure dictates behavior. There is
not one person who gets elected that they're going to
go in and cut It doesn't show up on any poll. Now.
We had this exact same problem in nineteen ninety with
the collapse of the Soviet Union, and there's not one
(25:16):
member of Congress who's going to raise their hand that
we've spent the last forty years developing a military to
fight the Soviet Union. Who's going to raise their hand
and said close my base. So they know the structure
wouldn't work. So what did they do. They created bract
base re Alignment Enclosure, so every leader got to appoint
to it. If they came up with the plan, this
is all they were promised. They'd get a vote on
(25:38):
the floor in the House and no amendments.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
You know what happened.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
It would pass and it would be bipartisan, because then
you're boxed in. I actually made this offer to Biden
during the debt ceiling. I said, let's do it and
let's vote after the election. You got the tax bill,
and you've got some provision in some Obamacare coming due.
So technically, in the tax bill, if you took some revenue,
(26:04):
you're not raising taxes because they're all going up automatically.
You're actually decreasing them. In Obamacare, some of them are
going to go. Provisions were leaving, So if you reform
that from a Democrat, you weren't destroying Obamacare. And if
you did it after the election, you got a little
aim duck. The greatest strength any politician has is the
(26:25):
first day they're elected, and it goes down each day
to the next election, then it goes back up. So
and if you did it together, no one will lose
their job over it. Now you can eliminate things in
government that's not going to do anything for you. The
drivers today are the government programs, and if you do
nothing eight years and nine years, they'll automatically be double
(26:48):
digit cuts to them and few options. It's the greatest
threat we have.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Okay, but help me out here because when you look
at the only serious cut in a non discretionary that's
on the table that is actually gaining some momentum in
Congress never been not medicaid. But the President has said
multiple times he doesn't want to see cuts the many
without that number. Without that cut, it's very hard to see, say,
how you start to pay for the tax cuts. So
(27:15):
I'm just wondering, how do you've given your history, your experience,
how do you think that's going to be resolved?
Speaker 4 (27:20):
Okay, my experience in the dead saying I got two
trillion dollars and I lost my job over it. Even
in this reconciliation, they're not coming anywhere near that. And
it's a Republican White House or Republican Senate, Republican House.
So that's why I say I don't put my trust
in them. Getting it's kinna becomes such a big problem
that no longer anybody can ignore it. But you have
(27:40):
to change the structure otherwise the members will just the
minority will fight who's ever in the majority. Take it
out of the argument, and bring it back in one vote,
and that's the way you have to get it done.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Thank you very much, thank you, Thanks for listening to
Trumpnomics from Bloomberg. It was hosted by Me, Stephanie Flanders
(28:13):
and I was joined by Gary Cohne, Peter Orsac, and
Kevin McCarthy. Trumponomics is produced by Samasadi and Moses and
Them with help from Chris Martlou and Amy Keen. Sound
design is by Blake Maples and Brendan Francis Newnham is
our executive producer. Please help other people find the show.
Just rate it very highly and review it wherever you
listen to your podcast
Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
I'm Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
and welcome to a bonus episode of Trumpanomics, the podcast
that looks at the economic world of Donald Trump, how
he's already shaped the global economy and what on earth
is going to happen next. And we thought we would
just throw your way another panel I did at the
twenty eighth annual Milken Institute Global Conference called US Economic
(00:38):
Competitiveness in a Changing World, with guest Gary Cone, vice
chairman of IBM but former senior player in the first
Trump administration, Peter Orsag, CEO and chairman of Blazard, but
also previously budget director for Barack Obama, and Kevin McCarthy,
the former Speaker of the US House of represent Sentives.
(01:02):
My opening question, given the title of the panel, was
what kind of US economy did they think would emerge
from the policies of Donald Trump? Would it be more
or less competitive and resilient than the US economy that
Donald Trump inherited at the start of the inn.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
So, look, we're going to come out of this just fine,
go back and take a reflection on the US economy
let me see. We've lived through depressions, We've lived through recessions,
we've lived through COVID, we've lived through the financial crisis,
and every time when we thought it was really bad,
it got a lot better. If you go ten years forward,
twenty years forward, if you have any duration of time,
(01:43):
this is an unbelievably resilient economy. The United States where
the reserve currency of the world. We're going to stay
the reserve currency of the world. We have huge capital here.
We've got a great corporate system that wants to invest
in this country. Look, we all have short term concerns.
Long term, we should be really excited where.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
We're going with this country, Miss Speaker Kevin mccaffee.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
Look, they all talk economics. I think you ought to
get in the brains of the president. He's different this
time than the last time. Trump is a populist, but
there's two things that are principal to him. I always
have been tariffs and drugs cost too much. When he
says he's going to put a ten percent tariff on,
(02:27):
he'll put a ten percent terrify when he says it's
going to be twenty five or higher. That's all about negotiations.
We are in the middle of negotiations. He's also not
a rigid person that will not adapt. He's always negotiating.
So if you take him exactly what he's saying, you're
going crazy. But what's happening is at the end of
the day, he's not going to have the shelves empty.
Speaker 3 (02:50):
He knows he's got about sixty days to do something.
I actually think we're.
Speaker 4 (02:53):
Going to be a lot better off, And I would
point to one part of the history for the same
reason we open the three communicates with China when we're
dealing in a cold war. This is going to be
a reset in China. When we get an agreement with
India and Japan and the UK, it's going to be
much more positive for America.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
Is their adjustment.
Speaker 4 (03:14):
Is there disruption, yes, but in the long run it
will make us stronger.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
Feed site.
Speaker 5 (03:22):
Let's see three four really quick points on resilience. I
think we will be more micro resilient and less macro resilient,
by which I mean certain supply chains in pharma, etc.
Will be more secure, but from a macro perspective in
terms of our ability to project power abroad and our
ability to sustain the fiscal trajectory that we're on and
(03:44):
so on, I think.
Speaker 3 (03:45):
We will be more vulnerable.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
Second, we will have marginally higher manufacturing activity and manufacturing employment,
but nothing like the nineteen fifties shares of either.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
The economy or employment.
Speaker 5 (04:00):
Third, I think we need to be a bit careful
about I saw Simon Johnson in the hallway. The Nobel
Prize in Economics was awarded for the last year for
what drives long term growth?
Speaker 3 (04:15):
And rule of law.
Speaker 5 (04:18):
Inclusive rather than extract of approaches to policy making are
all core to long term economic growth. And so we
just need to keep that in mind. And then final
point is, despite all of the discussion about tariffs, as
Nuriel Rabini put it, tech Trump's tariffs, if you look
(04:38):
out over the next three to five years, so what
is happening on the digital payment stack, what is happening
on the AI race, What is happening in quantum that
is going to turn out to be more important than
the next two or three months.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Gary Kahn, whether it's IBM or anywhere else, can you
respond into this changing incentives and support the kind of
investments that the government administration wants to see. When you
have zero clarity about what the twists rates are going
to be and what the future is going to be.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Look, I think all of us who run big companies,
who have run big companies, we have to think long term,
like no one's thinking of like we're thinking about the
next ninety days because we have to. But honestly, we're
making investments for a generational cycle. You know, everyone's talking
about AI today AI. A lot of the investment that
you're seeing in AI today didn't happen the last two,
(05:32):
three or four years. We'll get the quantum. I mean,
the amount of money that IBM and others are putting
in the quantum today is just extraordinary. Quantum will pay
results five years I'll say, five years from now. So
we are making extraordinary investments in this country, in this economy.
The one place I'll caution, because I think we need
to talk about this to some extent, tax policy drives
(05:55):
investment decisions in this country. It's if you want to
boil down to any one major factor that drives decision
making in this country, it is tax policy. When we
changed our taxes in twenty seventeen, we affected corporate policy
more than anything else that's happened in this country in
the last thirty or forty years, when we deemed repatriation
of money back to the United States, we forced a
(06:17):
lot of this money back. When we changed the corporate
tax rate, we became competitive with the OECD. We changed
the way people thought about manufacturing and building businesses in
the United States. When we look at accelerated appreciation, when
we look at R and D credits, all of these
things matter and they will drive policy more than anything
else we're actually talking about. Because at the end of
(06:38):
the day, when you're running big companies, you're a fiduciary
for shareholder. You're trying to maximize the turn over a
long period of time, and taxes will drive a lot
of those decisions. So, look, one of the most important
things that has to happen this year is we have
to at a minimum extend the Trump tax cuts the job.
So that to me is a minimum. If we can
(06:58):
put something additional, they're great. If we can bring back
we have, bringing back the R and D credits, bringing
back to acceler depreciation, those have more impacts than anything
else we're actually talking about here.
Speaker 5 (07:10):
No, Gary won't be Look, I think there's a large
empirical literature on this question, and taxes matter, but it's
not even close to the most important factor. A lot
of things go into the future cash flows and expectations
of future cash flows, part of which is taxes, but
there are lots of other pieces that are arguably more important.
(07:33):
And on that point, I do think we need to
also highlight that a lot of the benefits that we
are we have experienced historically in the United States comes
from being the world leader in technology in particular, that
is where a disproportionate share of the productivity growth has occurred.
That is where, to the extent there are any differences
(07:55):
with Europe.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
That is where the differences have shown up most.
Speaker 5 (08:00):
Prominently, and we need to be cognizant of that because
there is some risk that we will disrupt the apple cart.
I completely understand and empathize with the perspective that our
leading universities went far off Kilture and how they handled
the aftermath of October seventh in particular, But I think
(08:24):
slashing the NIH budget, slashing funding to the leading universities
of the United States, risks exactly what we're already seeing,
which is Europeans and others are saying, come here, we
will invest in science.
Speaker 3 (08:39):
We don't want that, So.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
That is just as important, if not more important, than
tax policy.
Speaker 3 (08:45):
But obviously everything matters.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Since we've got onto AI and technology. What outcomes were
you hoping for from the Chips Act and was it
successful and revitalizing US microchip manufacturing at Sir Georgia's posito,
and also wondering what the next act like that would be.
I think, I mean you a speaker, when the Bipartisan
Chips Act was passed, there's been sort of different signals
(09:07):
around it. But as far as you're concern, was it
successful in doing what it was supposed to do?
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Not completely?
Speaker 4 (09:12):
No, I mean the company government invested in the most
I don't know is going to make it all the way.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
AI is going to do.
Speaker 4 (09:23):
One thing for America is going to get our energy
policy right, because we'll never capture AI without getting energy
policy right. You'll do more than any climate change has
ever done to our energy policy. Getting chips made in
America is going to be an agreement with government and Taiwan.
Taiwan is never going to give the full fobs here
(09:43):
unless they get an agreement that they're going to get
some type of support and that's actually happening now.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
So I believe there is enough capital out there.
Speaker 4 (09:53):
It's more a government view that in the Senate if
they just throw money at Chips. I think there's a
lot of capital in the market to get money for Chips.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
I don't think government needed to make that investment.
Speaker 4 (10:04):
This isn't normal. I tell my friends in Congress, China
has a congress too. No one knows who they are.
All the power has usurped to the White House. Trump
has one term. You can tell them, oh, if you
went really smooth. None of that's going to matter to him.
He's got one term to get something done. He has
his ten thousand hours that he knows how to do
(10:25):
the job. He picked the cabinet that he wants that
will follow what he wants to do. I believe investment
is important, but under Republicans we increased in IH. But
I don't think any of these colleges have been audited.
Did you really think taxpayer money should give Harvard nine
billion dollars? What are they doing with it? I actually
believe coming after him will make every single college to
(10:50):
start auditing.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
What are we doing with this money?
Speaker 4 (10:53):
And it will drive more towards research and development than prior.
I firmly believe in the tax and it will get done,
but it won't get done perfectly on the timeline that
Congress does right now, but it's too much pain that
they not do it. But Trump will cut regulation he
(11:14):
did last time, even faster than Reagan. That combination will
help energy more and AI will drive energy to do
it more than anything of it.
Speaker 3 (11:26):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (11:26):
Look, I think there is a very positive agenda here
that has to do with expanding the supply, not only
of energy, where honestly, the myth of the immaculate transition
has dominated for too long, and I'm glad, I am
glad we are past that in housing, which admittedly is
mostly local, but is a huge impediment to the upward
(11:48):
mobility of many families. By the way, people have not realized,
but the mobility rates in the United States have been
declining over the past two to three decades.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
And you know part of that is is.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
The rock and effects and the difficulty of finding housing
and wherever you want to move to.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
This is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Speaker 5 (12:09):
And you can go down the list of expanding supply
as a I mean EZRA client and Derek Thompson just
wrote a book called Abundance, which is fundamentally about let's
stop subsidizing demand and let's really focus on expanding supply.
That is an agenda that you know, I'm one hundred
percent behind.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
I just wanted to want to shift a little bit
of that follows on from that, if you have a
supply side approach to the economy. One of the things
that investors and others were very were excited about in
looking at this incoming administration was around deregulation and that
whole agenda. But we also saw in the previous administration
quite an aggressive approach to corporate power, which actually was
(12:51):
also associated with an analysis of what was reducing labor moability,
non compete clauses. You know, the corporate concentration was itself
imped being economic competitiveness. So I just wonder how would
you judge where the administration is on that and whether
it's right to kind of be more relaxed about corporate
concentration if that's if that's the case.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
The frustration I've had in past administrations, if one administration
did something, the other one has to be opposed to it,
which I didn't think good.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Was when it comes to China.
Speaker 4 (13:24):
Maybe China has united everybody, and this isn't about preparing
for war. We've become too dependent. This is about making
sure we don't go to war and pure dependency. And
it's the most bipartisan committee. And when the President of
Taiwan came to see me, I held the meeting at
the Reagan Library simply for the symbolism of defeating communists
without going to war. And when we sat and had
(13:46):
a press conference together with the Berlin Wall behind us,
Andrew Mitchell gave the first question and she said, I cried,
and I was with Reagan. We said, tear down this wall.
And I feel just emotional as today that you are
so united without Paul.
Speaker 3 (14:00):
And I think it's been one of the most positive things.
And dependency.
Speaker 4 (14:04):
Just like they control ninety percent of the critical minerals,
but ninety five percent of the processing, and that really
comes down to Congress. Are they going to allow us
if we have our own resources to be able to
do that? And I think this is a place, this
is where the TikTok band came from. This is going
to be a very positive situation.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Well happn't to that, but I did actually distract you
from Kary Kayan? Do you want or do you want
to take on the Batsy trust question.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Look, I'm always troubled by this topic to some of
the great because, look, we clearly want our companies to
play within the rules. We don't want anyone to have
an unfair advantage. So that's that's a given. On the
flip side, you know, we sit here and we talk
about we have to compete against China, which we do,
and we have to win the battle. China's trying to
build the largest companies in the.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
World to take over the world.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
We're trying to break up the larger companies they're successful
in the United States. I think we got to decide
which side this equation we want to come out on.
I think we want to be able to compete globally.
And if some of our companies are really successful, it
happen to be very large, it's okay. It's probably good
for us in this country, and they probably bring home
a lot of tax revu and they probably employ a
(15:16):
lot of people. As long as they're not prohibiting other
people from competing in the space. I don't think we
as Americans to that problems with it. We should actually
be very prideful in the fact that we can build
these companies from nothing. And the companies we're talking about,
and I know we're smiling, a lot of these companies
didn't exist thirty years ago, forty years fifty years ago,
none existed. So you think about the creativity and this
(15:39):
is why I started out being so bullish on this economy.
You think of the creativity and the entrepreneurial spirit that
exists in this country. We've built some of the largest
companies in the last twenty years. Let's allow them to
continue to thrive as long as they're playing within the laws.
That's why we have loss in this country.
Speaker 5 (15:56):
So the biggest divergence that the biggest bad crowd had
was because it's easy to kind of just say it's
across the board, it's really quite specifically with regard to
vertical integration. So that is a firm that is buying
something that's a supplier or a distributor as opposed to
(16:17):
merging horizontally. And there I think, honestly, there was a
lot of rhetoric, often without a lot of evidence, and
you're going to find that's where the differences will be.
The most significant is a little bit of backing off
from the all vertical integration is bad.
Speaker 3 (16:34):
And let me just.
Speaker 5 (16:35):
Highlight one area where this tension is paramount.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
I saw doctor Oz yesterday. He's here.
Speaker 5 (16:43):
I believe that CMS under doctor Oz will push very
hard on value based care and healthcare, which is fantastic.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
We should pay for value and not for quantity.
Speaker 5 (16:52):
But as you do that, you're creating incentives for insurance
companies and providers to act as one because that's effectively
what most of the incentive undervalue based care does.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
And we have evidence.
Speaker 5 (17:04):
We're here in California, Kiser Pernaminity is a good example
of fully vertically integrated healthcare players that perform better than others.
So if you go after vertical integration, but you also
want value based healthcare, which, by the way, the administration,
the prior administration was saying simultaneously you have massive cognitive dissonance.
(17:25):
One arm of the government saying don't do this, in
the other arm saying do it. I think that will
be better going forward.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
I'm going to change the subject, but I did mention
the start. I mean, one of the things that economists
had been quote unquote concerned about given how much it
had been part of the growth model in the last
few years. Was the much tougher stance towards immigration of
this administration. Now, obviously the focus has been illegal administration
immigration and companies don't tend to kind of stand up
(17:55):
for the right to have loads of illegal immigrants working
for them, and really want to get past that and
just to a sort of core of what has been
a source of economic strength for the US over the
last few years, which is to be a very opening.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Environment for legal immigrations.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
So foreign citizens, no, But if we have people who
are now being we have foreign if foreign students who
are studying here, maybe contributing potentially to entrepreneurship and inventions
in the US and down the road, are being intimidated.
If people are worried about I mean, we will know
people here who have been told actually, if you don't
need to come to the US, don't come, or do
(18:33):
just take a burner phone. I mean, all of this
is I'm sure exaggerated, but just about the sort of
atmosphere that it creates for a country that's trying to
attract foreign talent. I mean, Peter, do do you worry
about it? It's not about these specific cases.
Speaker 5 (18:46):
There is I agree that we need to have secure borders,
and I agree that you know no one can or
should be in favor of a legal immigration. So let
me just say that, However, even if the burner phone
finalmon is anecdotal, anecdotes can become the telephone game and
(19:07):
affect our ability to attract top talent. The number of
foreign CEOs with whom I've spoken who say that they
are going to be bringing a burner fund to the
US is much higher than it should be.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
So I very much hope.
Speaker 5 (19:20):
That whatever's causing that changes because that is not good
for our economy.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
Misspeaking, do you think do you just worry about the again,
the tone of what's happened over the last few months,
and maybe the overreach by some people in individual bits
of homeland security, which then contributes to these stories.
Speaker 4 (19:41):
Look, I think the greatest strength of America is not
our aircraft carri is the idea of America. Okay, But
President Trump got elected on two main factors, the border
and the economy, and I think eighty percent of America
believes the border was out of control. So just like
everything else, you have to actually make this statement to
(20:01):
stop the illegal from coming. We're the most generous nation
in the world. More than a million people go. Now
you're going to get a gold cart, so you're going
to get a whole other set. I think this is
a small part. I think it'll make people rethink. I'm
more concerned the relationship with Canada and Mexico because I
believe that's a great deal of strength, and I think
(20:24):
that has to be we have an agreement with them.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
We need to work through it.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Because if you can't work with your neighbors that you
have in agreement with, it's hard to make agreements with
other people.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
Okay, and I want to go back to we started
right at the beginning. You mentioned about debt, and you
also about the importance of making the tax cuts permanent.
You know, that is one of the things that if
you're again just doing a sort of classic economic health
check of the US, you'd say, that's the kind of
scariest bit of the scariest chart is what happens to
debt under any reasonable assumptions. So do you see a
(20:59):
path given the relatively modest gains of DOGE, given the
kind of cuts that are on the table in Congress,
do you see a path to meaningfully flattening the US trajectory.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
There's always a path. Do we want to take the path?
We're going to have no choice. I think we're going
to have to get to the point where we take
the path. So if you look at what DOE is
trying to do in like waste frauden abuse, as the
Governor said, as the Speaker said, there's waste broaden abuse everywhere,
it's hard to go in and find those pieces. I
(21:37):
actually think we'd be better off to take a step
back and figure out what can we actually eliminate. It's
a lot more cost effective to start eliminating things. So
I'll go back to my former former former life. You know,
when you look at the banking sector in the United States,
I think we have eight to eleven regulators in the
banking sector in the United States. If you look at
(21:59):
the UK, you look at Hong Kong, you look at Japan,
you look at Singapore, you'd say, all they have pretty
good markets, pretty good banking systems. They have a maximum
of three regulators in each of those countries. They don't
have an SEC, they don't have a CFTC, they don't
have an OCC. I could keep naming names of things
they don't have. They have a potential regulator and a
(22:19):
market in a central bank, and they have a regulator
that protects the public. We could do that really efficiently
in this country, and we could cut out real, real
spending long term. Now, look, it will take my friend
over here and his colleagues in the Capitol to get
rid of a bunch.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Of these agencies.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
But these agencies in many respects I think have probably
outlived their needs, outlived their services. So if we're gonna
get serious about taking money out and keeping it out,
because the dose money, I hate to say it, in
the next administration could come back in the way to
keep it out. Take it out is the remove part
of the organization that actually doesn't need to be there today.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
I guess you only find out if you needed it
once you get rid of it.
Speaker 5 (23:02):
But Pisa, Look if I told all of you that
there was a country running seven percent of GDP deficits,
as far as I can see, that the debt to
GDP of that country was one hundred percent, that the
political system was deeply polarized, that the country was arguably
(23:25):
alienating a third of its investor class, and that that
country was also toying with the idea of whether the
central bank should remain fully independent or not. That would
not be a combination of factors that would be confidence inspiring.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
So I agree with Gary this is in my opinion.
Speaker 5 (23:45):
Now there was a decade and now I will say
even I, as a former CBO director and a former
budget director, sort of had just tuned out all the
chicken little kind of the sky is falling fiscal stuff
because all of the dire predictions were not happening, and
it kind of got a little tiresome to keep hearing them.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
But if you.
Speaker 5 (24:05):
Compare where we are now to where we were a
decade ago, it's a lot different. The deficits twice as
high interest rates are dramatically higher. I am particularly pleased
that Secretary of Bison has cleaned up the question of
whether the administration is doubting whether it being the reserve
currency is a benefit or not. I think there were
(24:25):
statements from other administration officials which were not helpful. That
is a very dangerous thing to be doing, given the
combination of facts that I had. So this is I
think it's time to worry again about this trajectory and
I do hope that we get serious about what we're
going to do, because you don't want to be in
a situation where it gets away from you. And I
think the risk that it gets away from us are
(24:48):
higher now than it was over the past decade.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Mister speakers, as Gary said, it's all down to your colleagues, Well.
Speaker 4 (24:56):
Then I'd be really worried. Structure dictates behavior. There is
not one person who gets elected that they're going to
go in and cut It doesn't show up on any poll. Now.
We had this exact same problem in nineteen ninety with
the collapse of the Soviet Union, and there's not one
(25:16):
member of Congress who's going to raise their hand that
we've spent the last forty years developing a military to
fight the Soviet Union. Who's going to raise their hand
and said close my base. So they know the structure
wouldn't work. So what did they do. They created bract
base re Alignment Enclosure, so every leader got to appoint
to it. If they came up with the plan, this
is all they were promised. They'd get a vote on
(25:38):
the floor in the House and no amendments.
Speaker 3 (25:40):
You know what happened.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
It would pass and it would be bipartisan, because then
you're boxed in. I actually made this offer to Biden
during the debt ceiling. I said, let's do it and
let's vote after the election. You got the tax bill,
and you've got some provision in some Obamacare coming due.
So technically, in the tax bill, if you took some revenue,
(26:04):
you're not raising taxes because they're all going up automatically.
You're actually decreasing them. In Obamacare, some of them are
going to go. Provisions were leaving, So if you reform
that from a Democrat, you weren't destroying Obamacare. And if
you did it after the election, you got a little
aim duck. The greatest strength any politician has is the
(26:25):
first day they're elected, and it goes down each day
to the next election, then it goes back up. So
and if you did it together, no one will lose
their job over it. Now you can eliminate things in
government that's not going to do anything for you. The
drivers today are the government programs, and if you do
nothing eight years and nine years, they'll automatically be double
(26:48):
digit cuts to them and few options. It's the greatest
threat we have.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
Okay, but help me out here because when you look
at the only serious cut in a non discretionary that's
on the table that is actually gaining some momentum in
Congress never been not medicaid. But the President has said
multiple times he doesn't want to see cuts the many
without that number. Without that cut, it's very hard to see, say,
how you start to pay for the tax cuts. So
(27:15):
I'm just wondering, how do you've given your history, your experience,
how do you think that's going to be resolved?
Speaker 4 (27:20):
Okay, my experience in the dead saying I got two
trillion dollars and I lost my job over it. Even
in this reconciliation, they're not coming anywhere near that. And
it's a Republican White House or Republican Senate, Republican House.
So that's why I say I don't put my trust
in them. Getting it's kinna becomes such a big problem
that no longer anybody can ignore it. But you have
(27:40):
to change the structure otherwise the members will just the
minority will fight who's ever in the majority. Take it
out of the argument, and bring it back in one vote,
and that's the way you have to get it done.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
Thank you very much, thank you, Thanks for listening to
Trumpnomics from Bloomberg. It was hosted by Me, Stephanie Flanders
(28:13):
and I was joined by Gary Cohne, Peter Orsac, and
Kevin McCarthy. Trumponomics is produced by Samasadi and Moses and
Them with help from Chris Martlou and Amy Keen. Sound
design is by Blake Maples and Brendan Francis Newnham is
our executive producer. Please help other people find the show.
Just rate it very highly and review it wherever you
listen to your podcast
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.