WEBVTT - PIMCO's Richard Clarida Talks 'Stagflation' in US Economy

0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:08.000 --> 0:00:10.240
<v Speaker 2>You usually would dive in with Richard Claret of Pimcoe.

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:12.039
<v Speaker 2>He say, what's the market going to do? What's the

0:00:12.039 --> 0:00:15.239
<v Speaker 2>Fed gonna do? We're gonna stop, and this is why

0:00:15.280 --> 0:00:19.440
<v Speaker 2>we're talking to Richard Clareda. And today Kachola Coda of Rochester,

0:00:19.520 --> 0:00:23.280
<v Speaker 2>when he was Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota said, of

0:00:23.320 --> 0:00:28.840
<v Speaker 2>the theories wrapped around Professor Clareda, modern macro models do

0:00:29.000 --> 0:00:34.000
<v Speaker 2>not capture an intermediate, messy reality that's out there right now.

0:00:34.000 --> 0:00:38.120
<v Speaker 2>There's a messy, messy reality that we're all facing there.

0:00:38.680 --> 0:00:44.720
<v Speaker 2>And to me, looking at the magnificent architecture of DSGE folks,

0:00:44.800 --> 0:00:50.040
<v Speaker 2>I'll say, at once dynamics, dotecastic, general equilibrium theory and

0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:54.040
<v Speaker 2>the beauty of it, and not the physics envy, but

0:00:54.280 --> 0:00:58.000
<v Speaker 2>just the wonderful thinking of it. You come here and

0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:01.360
<v Speaker 2>as Ned Phelps would say, go to the X short term,

0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:05.920
<v Speaker 2>medium term, long term. You're in the Oval office right now,

0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:08.640
<v Speaker 2>and you've got to explain to Trump and the gentleman

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:13.520
<v Speaker 2>from Pennsylvania Hasset the short term, the medium term, the

0:01:13.600 --> 0:01:17.360
<v Speaker 2>long term of what they are doing right now. How

0:01:17.400 --> 0:01:18.240
<v Speaker 2>do you explain that?

0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:22.240
<v Speaker 3>Well, what you say is the goal is to onshore,

0:01:22.360 --> 0:01:26.479
<v Speaker 3>bring production back to the US, reduce the trade deficit.

0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:29.280
<v Speaker 3>What we know is they can put on tariffs.

0:01:29.280 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 1>They have.

0:01:29.880 --> 0:01:34.240
<v Speaker 3>The liberation day is tomorrow, but it will take several

0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:38.200
<v Speaker 3>years for that production if it eventually does ramp up.

0:01:38.520 --> 0:01:41.760
<v Speaker 3>To boost the supply side of the economy, we have

0:01:41.840 --> 0:01:45.400
<v Speaker 3>supply chains. Tariffs are essentially attacks on inputs to production,

0:01:45.520 --> 0:01:49.200
<v Speaker 3>so that slows it down. Also the uncertainty about what

0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:52.200
<v Speaker 3>the policy will look like in the future as well.

0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:55.160
<v Speaker 3>So right now what you're getting is a lot of uncertainty.

0:01:55.160 --> 0:01:59.480
<v Speaker 3>It's slowing the demand in the economy. Eventually you may

0:01:59.480 --> 0:02:02.080
<v Speaker 3>get more jobs and more production, but that's several years

0:02:02.080 --> 0:02:04.840
<v Speaker 3>down the road. So I think I want the folks

0:02:04.920 --> 0:02:07.600
<v Speaker 3>in the Oval Office to understand the time dimensions at

0:02:07.640 --> 0:02:08.079
<v Speaker 3>work here.

0:02:08.120 --> 0:02:08.480
<v Speaker 1>For sure.

0:02:08.600 --> 0:02:11.400
<v Speaker 2>Stephanie Kelton has a theory which is very much against

0:02:11.480 --> 0:02:15.640
<v Speaker 2>people like you on what modern monetary theory should look like.

0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:20.200
<v Speaker 2>And part of that theory is the intrusion of politics

0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:25.799
<v Speaker 2>into monetary economics. Right now, we're doing almost Vorescian tariff law,

0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:30.200
<v Speaker 2>mckindling tariff law, certainly from a nineteenth century. Can the

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:34.320
<v Speaker 2>political system be patient enough to get declared as medium

0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:35.359
<v Speaker 2>term success.

0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:37.800
<v Speaker 1>Well, I'm not sure.

0:02:37.919 --> 0:02:41.120
<v Speaker 3>And in particular, it gets it another fundamental idea in economics,

0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:44.440
<v Speaker 3>which is the idea of time consistency, that eventually people

0:02:44.480 --> 0:02:47.840
<v Speaker 3>figure out that your promise now may not be delivered

0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:50.639
<v Speaker 3>in the future. And so that's why, in particular, if

0:02:50.680 --> 0:02:54.200
<v Speaker 3>the twenty percent tariffs that we're hearing about are really

0:02:54.200 --> 0:02:57.560
<v Speaker 3>the beginning of a negotiation, that also adds an additional

0:02:57.600 --> 0:03:00.040
<v Speaker 3>layer of uncertainty on top of just knowing what the

0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:03.440
<v Speaker 3>CARAFF number is is now. You know, Tom, we saw

0:03:03.520 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 3>him when I was at the Fed in twenty nineteen that,

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 3>in fact, just the uncertainty about the trade policy itself

0:03:10.560 --> 0:03:13.480
<v Speaker 3>was a damper to the economy. And that's a very

0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:16.600
<v Speaker 3>tangible factor fact of life in macro, and I think

0:03:16.639 --> 0:03:18.560
<v Speaker 3>we're seeing an elevated version of it now.

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:21.440
<v Speaker 4>And Richard, I think we're seeing some the folks on

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:24.120
<v Speaker 4>wall streets start to take down their GDP numbers being

0:03:24.320 --> 0:03:27.760
<v Speaker 4>ratchet up their inflation expectations. Are they too early here

0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:30.720
<v Speaker 4>or is that a reasonable I guess near to intermediate

0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:31.360
<v Speaker 4>term outlook.

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:34.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, you know, Paul, everything in macro is a probability,

0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:37.560
<v Speaker 3>and so I think it is appropriate to move up

0:03:37.560 --> 0:03:41.040
<v Speaker 3>the probability of a recession. Certainly it would not be

0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:45.000
<v Speaker 3>my base case now, but it's certainly somewhat more elevated

0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:48.080
<v Speaker 3>than it was. In particular, I think the other piece

0:03:48.120 --> 0:03:50.200
<v Speaker 3>of this, Tom, getting back to your point about the

0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:53.680
<v Speaker 3>but the ax axis, is there's a lot of talk

0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:57.160
<v Speaker 3>about fiscal you know, no tax on tips, social Security,

0:03:57.640 --> 0:03:59.880
<v Speaker 3>you know, tax deductions to buy a car.

0:04:00.400 --> 0:04:01.400
<v Speaker 1>But again that's going.

0:04:01.360 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 3>To take most of the rest of this year to

0:04:03.560 --> 0:04:06.440
<v Speaker 3>work its way through Congress, and so again there'll be

0:04:06.520 --> 0:04:09.200
<v Speaker 3>uncertainty over that piece of it as well.

0:04:09.840 --> 0:04:13.840
<v Speaker 4>And given that backdrop of uncertainty, Richard, is there anything

0:04:14.320 --> 0:04:17.919
<v Speaker 4>Fed and policy can do to it to really, I

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:21.280
<v Speaker 4>don't counteractor to impact the economy because it doesn't feel

0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:24.080
<v Speaker 4>like there's much the FED can do in the face

0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:25.960
<v Speaker 4>of what could be a slowing economy in high inflation.

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:28.920
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think here we want to distinguish between what

0:04:28.960 --> 0:04:31.240
<v Speaker 3>the FED can do and what they will do. You know,

0:04:31.279 --> 0:04:34.520
<v Speaker 3>what the FED could do is cut rates preemptively. That's

0:04:34.560 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 3>more or less what the power FED did during my

0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:39.880
<v Speaker 3>team there in twenty nineteen, the economy began to slow

0:04:39.920 --> 0:04:43.120
<v Speaker 3>because of trade policy uncertainty, inflation began to fall, and

0:04:43.160 --> 0:04:46.480
<v Speaker 3>so we cut rates, essentially an insurance cut. I don't

0:04:46.480 --> 0:04:49.279
<v Speaker 3>think the FED really now has the runway to do

0:04:49.360 --> 0:04:50.240
<v Speaker 3>an insurance cut.

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:51.560
<v Speaker 1>In other words, we.

0:04:51.520 --> 0:04:55.040
<v Speaker 3>May need to see a very tangible slowing in the economy,

0:04:55.080 --> 0:04:57.640
<v Speaker 3>in the labor market, rising the unemployment rate to get

0:04:57.680 --> 0:05:00.200
<v Speaker 3>the Fed off of Hold right here.

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:03.039
<v Speaker 2>If you just joining it, because across the nation, we're

0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:05.279
<v Speaker 2>with Richard clair To, the former vice chairman of the FED.

0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:08.560
<v Speaker 2>We have a spectacular set of conversations for you today.

0:05:08.640 --> 0:05:12.640
<v Speaker 2>Nancy Lazar will be with us later. Among us Michael Nathanson.

0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:16.760
<v Speaker 2>Paul had a tantrum yesterday and said, get Nathanson. We

0:05:16.800 --> 0:05:21.360
<v Speaker 2>have Michael Nathanson here with an interesting essay on YouTube.

0:05:21.360 --> 0:05:25.280
<v Speaker 2>We welcome all of you on YouTube. Subscribe to Bloomberg Podcast.

0:05:25.400 --> 0:05:30.159
<v Speaker 2>It's our wonderful new distribution. Thank you for a successful march, Paul, Richard.

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:34.599
<v Speaker 4>So, you know, it's interesting some of the hit You know,

0:05:34.640 --> 0:05:37.680
<v Speaker 4>the data that the FED looks at, historical data still

0:05:37.720 --> 0:05:40.640
<v Speaker 4>shows the economies in pretty solid shape. But boy, I

0:05:40.640 --> 0:05:42.240
<v Speaker 4>get kind of spooked. I think the market gets a

0:05:42.240 --> 0:05:44.960
<v Speaker 4>little spooked when they see survey data like the University

0:05:44.960 --> 0:05:48.640
<v Speaker 4>of Michigan data showing that BOYD consumers really are concerned,

0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:52.600
<v Speaker 4>their sentiment is following their inflation expectations are arising. How

0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:54.359
<v Speaker 4>does the FED look at that type of data?

0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:59.080
<v Speaker 3>It's an input into the projection. I think Cherry Palell

0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:02.160
<v Speaker 3>mentioned at the press conference last week that they look

0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:04.880
<v Speaker 3>at the survey data, but the survey data doesn't necessarily

0:06:04.920 --> 0:06:07.120
<v Speaker 3>translate into hard data eventually.

0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:08.120
<v Speaker 1>I think what we have.

0:06:08.120 --> 0:06:11.440
<v Speaker 3>Seen, even Paul in the hard data is a pretty

0:06:12.120 --> 0:06:16.039
<v Speaker 3>noteworthy slowing in consumption side of the economy relative to

0:06:16.040 --> 0:06:18.839
<v Speaker 3>a really strong fourth quarter. I think a lot of

0:06:18.880 --> 0:06:22.000
<v Speaker 3>reason why cell site houses are marking down their forecast

0:06:22.400 --> 0:06:24.920
<v Speaker 3>is not so much the survey data, it's the tangible

0:06:25.040 --> 0:06:29.560
<v Speaker 3>data on consumption being very very soft in Q.

0:06:29.720 --> 0:06:32.479
<v Speaker 2>One, You, more than anyone, have got to go from

0:06:32.480 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 2>the academics of DSGE and your work at literally building

0:06:36.160 --> 0:06:40.440
<v Speaker 2>the modern Columbia program. Did you bring Woodford over? Were you?

0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:42.279
<v Speaker 2>You're the one that said, Michael, come on over.

0:06:42.720 --> 0:06:44.120
<v Speaker 1>I wish I could take credit for that.

0:06:44.120 --> 0:06:47.200
<v Speaker 3>That was my success of Don Davis who brought Woodford over,

0:06:47.320 --> 0:06:50.640
<v Speaker 3>but I was leading the cheerleading effort to do it.

0:06:50.680 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 2>There was a cheerleading effort and they used torpedo bets

0:06:53.800 --> 0:06:56.320
<v Speaker 2>at the Columbia right now.

0:06:56.400 --> 0:06:58.240
<v Speaker 1>So Richard to bring in Stigletz.

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:02.600
<v Speaker 2>Okay, credit for that, Okay, that's good. But their thing,

0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:05.479
<v Speaker 2>in Richard Clariday, is to bring this over to the

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:09.080
<v Speaker 2>application of what we're doing now that the theories to

0:07:09.160 --> 0:07:12.400
<v Speaker 2>me are literally out the window. What is the theory

0:07:12.440 --> 0:07:14.120
<v Speaker 2>of the dual mandate right now?

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:17.320
<v Speaker 1>Well, right now, the labor markets where the Fed wants

0:07:17.360 --> 0:07:17.680
<v Speaker 1>it to be.

0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:21.640
<v Speaker 3>We have about a four percent unemployment rate and all

0:07:22.000 --> 0:07:24.600
<v Speaker 3>broad measures of the labor market. So the Fed wants

0:07:24.640 --> 0:07:26.880
<v Speaker 3>to keep the market, labor market where it is right now.

0:07:27.040 --> 0:07:29.640
<v Speaker 3>Char Pal has said a number of times that the

0:07:29.680 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 3>Committee doesn't think that the labor market now is a

0:07:32.200 --> 0:07:35.280
<v Speaker 3>source of inflation. So they're very happy where the labor

0:07:35.320 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 3>market is. What they were thinking six months ago is

0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:42.040
<v Speaker 3>that they were on a glide path to this soft landing,

0:07:42.040 --> 0:07:44.000
<v Speaker 3>although they didn't use that term. And I think the

0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:46.760
<v Speaker 3>glide path has been delayed somewhat.

0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:49.280
<v Speaker 2>My ten year real yield here, Jerome Schneider called me

0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:51.920
<v Speaker 2>up from PIMCO yet up early. He says, Tom, the

0:07:51.960 --> 0:07:55.240
<v Speaker 2>ten year really yield one point seventy eight percent. It's

0:07:55.280 --> 0:07:59.080
<v Speaker 2>coming down, down, down, If you're talking to PIMCO troops

0:07:59.160 --> 0:08:02.520
<v Speaker 2>right now, are you modeling out a higher unemployment rate?

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:06.600
<v Speaker 2>I got Atlanta GDP GRIMM, I got feder Reserve Bank

0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:10.320
<v Speaker 2>of New York disagreeing with that. Where is Richard Clarida

0:08:10.680 --> 0:08:13.480
<v Speaker 2>on the I guess the vector of the unemployment rate?

0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:15.400
<v Speaker 1>I think the risk is to the upside.

0:08:15.440 --> 0:08:18.080
<v Speaker 3>And indeed, if you look at the FEDS projections two

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:20.480
<v Speaker 3>weeks ago, where they show a chart that what is

0:08:20.520 --> 0:08:23.280
<v Speaker 3>the risk to the unemployment outlook, it's to the upside.

0:08:23.280 --> 0:08:25.960
<v Speaker 3>So I think there's some upside risk right here. You know,

0:08:26.000 --> 0:08:30.280
<v Speaker 3>at minimum, given what's going on with DOGE right now,

0:08:30.560 --> 0:08:35.840
<v Speaker 3>we're going to see some increase in unemployment through those efforts.

0:08:35.920 --> 0:08:39.560
<v Speaker 3>Also important to note that even coming into the year Tom,

0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:43.240
<v Speaker 3>if you look at private employment in particular, excluding healthcare

0:08:43.280 --> 0:08:46.760
<v Speaker 3>and education, which have a pretty big government backstop, private

0:08:46.760 --> 0:08:50.000
<v Speaker 3>employment had been really slowing throughout much of last year.

0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:51.960
<v Speaker 3>So I think that's also irrelevant.

0:08:52.040 --> 0:08:54.280
<v Speaker 4>How do you view the consumer here today, Richard? It

0:08:54.360 --> 0:08:58.360
<v Speaker 4>just seems like anytime over the last twelve fifteen years

0:08:58.400 --> 0:09:01.760
<v Speaker 4>to get concerned about the economy, the consumer hangs in

0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:05.079
<v Speaker 4>there and generally keep spending pretty well. How do you

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:06.600
<v Speaker 4>think about the US consumer.

0:09:06.679 --> 0:09:08.679
<v Speaker 3>Well, in the aggregate, you know, there are three hundred

0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:11.600
<v Speaker 3>million consumers, and in the aggregate they're in great shape.

0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:14.320
<v Speaker 3>You know, in particular high levels of net worth. If

0:09:14.360 --> 0:09:16.440
<v Speaker 3>you own a house, if you have money in the

0:09:16.480 --> 0:09:19.319
<v Speaker 3>stock market, you've had a really good run for the

0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:20.600
<v Speaker 3>last several years.

0:09:21.160 --> 0:09:23.120
<v Speaker 1>But about a third of Americans don't.

0:09:22.960 --> 0:09:25.480
<v Speaker 3>Own their own home or don't hold any stock, and

0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:27.640
<v Speaker 3>for them it's a very different outcome. So what you're

0:09:27.640 --> 0:09:30.360
<v Speaker 3>starting to see in the data now is a pretty strong,

0:09:30.480 --> 0:09:33.280
<v Speaker 3>if I may use the term bifurcation between upper ear

0:09:33.440 --> 0:09:36.240
<v Speaker 3>consumers and consumers who don't own their own homes or

0:09:36.280 --> 0:09:39.440
<v Speaker 3>have a lot of stock market wealth, and then they're

0:09:39.480 --> 0:09:40.199
<v Speaker 3>getting pinched.

0:09:41.120 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 2>Okay, this is the heart of the matter. I mean,

0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:45.840
<v Speaker 2>Alan Meltzer almost took it, almost took a swing at me,

0:09:46.000 --> 0:09:48.800
<v Speaker 2>Jackson Whole ones over this because Alan Meltzer want to

0:09:48.800 --> 0:09:51.600
<v Speaker 2>go back to forty seven and aggregate data. You've been

0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:53.960
<v Speaker 2>teaching that for twenty five years back when you were

0:09:53.960 --> 0:09:57.600
<v Speaker 2>at Illinois. We're aggregating data. You just described a Barbell

0:09:57.760 --> 0:10:01.440
<v Speaker 2>John Edwards to Americas. Yeah, around the table at the

0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:06.960
<v Speaker 2>Eccles building. Besides arguing over who's got redskinsts. Forget about that.

0:10:07.320 --> 0:10:09.839
<v Speaker 2>But around the table at the Eckles Building, are you

0:10:09.960 --> 0:10:14.080
<v Speaker 2>looking at two Americas or some economic aggregated fiction.

0:10:14.559 --> 0:10:16.880
<v Speaker 3>Well, I'll put and say you look at both. But

0:10:17.000 --> 0:10:20.080
<v Speaker 3>certainly during my time there, the staff did very very

0:10:20.080 --> 0:10:24.679
<v Speaker 3>good work on looking a very disaggregated data. Forget you

0:10:24.720 --> 0:10:26.800
<v Speaker 3>know two Americas that were looked at like thirty eight

0:10:26.840 --> 0:10:29.040
<v Speaker 3>different parts of the economy.

0:10:29.080 --> 0:10:29.960
<v Speaker 1>So you do both?

0:10:30.200 --> 0:10:33.520
<v Speaker 2>Oh, come on, I mean Jason Furman in his wonderful

0:10:33.559 --> 0:10:36.920
<v Speaker 2>New York got bed. We'll get Professor Furman in up

0:10:37.000 --> 0:10:40.439
<v Speaker 2>at some at a school in New England somewhere. Jason says,

0:10:40.520 --> 0:10:43.640
<v Speaker 2>flat out, tariffs kill the poor and the tax cut

0:10:43.679 --> 0:10:47.480
<v Speaker 2>goes to the rich. It's a single sense INTI surveillance correction. Lisa,

0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:50.640
<v Speaker 2>thank you for noting it. It's not the Washington Redskins.

0:10:51.000 --> 0:10:55.400
<v Speaker 2>It's the commander's my foots it's my foot. Excuse me.

0:10:55.440 --> 0:10:57.600
<v Speaker 1>Maybe we'll go back, who knows, maybe I'll still have

0:10:57.640 --> 0:10:58.000
<v Speaker 1>a job.

0:10:58.040 --> 0:10:58.959
<v Speaker 4>The world's changed.

0:10:59.240 --> 0:11:01.480
<v Speaker 1>So Richard, where do we go from here?

0:11:01.520 --> 0:11:03.960
<v Speaker 4>What's the key thing that you're looking at here for

0:11:04.080 --> 0:11:07.479
<v Speaker 4>this economy? Is it the tariffs? Is it the consumer?

0:11:07.640 --> 0:11:09.760
<v Speaker 4>Is it the labor market. What's the key thing you're

0:11:09.760 --> 0:11:10.400
<v Speaker 4>focusing on.

0:11:10.640 --> 0:11:14.080
<v Speaker 3>Look, I think I think the issue is we're in

0:11:14.120 --> 0:11:17.320
<v Speaker 3>a period now where measured inflation is going to go

0:11:17.440 --> 0:11:20.560
<v Speaker 3>up because of the pass through of the tariffs, and

0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:21.360
<v Speaker 3>activity is.

0:11:21.280 --> 0:11:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Going to slow.

0:11:21.880 --> 0:11:24.080
<v Speaker 3>So the real question for me, Paul, is are we

0:11:24.160 --> 0:11:26.760
<v Speaker 3>going through what I call a whiff of stagflation or

0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:29.199
<v Speaker 3>are we really entering what would be a pretty very

0:11:29.240 --> 0:11:35.040
<v Speaker 3>pretty persistent stagflationary crunch. You know, I'm still relatively optimistic.

0:11:35.080 --> 0:11:37.280
<v Speaker 3>I think it's more of a whiff than a new normal,

0:11:37.640 --> 0:11:40.880
<v Speaker 3>but it's certainly something that that is would be would

0:11:40.920 --> 0:11:41.760
<v Speaker 3>be quite relevant.

0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:45.400
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, it seems like a tough political call there to

0:11:45.440 --> 0:11:49.400
<v Speaker 4>slow this economy and the rise inflation. Is the longer

0:11:49.480 --> 0:11:54.479
<v Speaker 4>term gain that this administration sees from perhaps restoring more manufacturing.

0:11:55.080 --> 0:11:56.839
<v Speaker 1>Is that a realistic expectation?

0:11:56.960 --> 0:11:57.440
<v Speaker 4>Do you think?

0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:01.040
<v Speaker 3>Well, that it is a realistic expect but it will

0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:05.199
<v Speaker 3>not happen overnight. It will take several years. And in particular,

0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:08.840
<v Speaker 3>in fairness, we saw a version of this in the

0:12:08.840 --> 0:12:12.120
<v Speaker 3>Reagan administration. People think of Reagan as being a free trader,

0:12:12.120 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 3>and he may have been philosophically, but the Reagan administration,

0:12:15.679 --> 0:12:18.520
<v Speaker 3>which I actually worked with back in my youth, was

0:12:18.559 --> 0:12:21.520
<v Speaker 3>actually quite interventionist. In particular, they had a policy known

0:12:21.559 --> 0:12:25.600
<v Speaker 3>as voluntary export restraints on Japanese cars, and what the

0:12:25.640 --> 0:12:30.800
<v Speaker 3>big Japanese automaker's Toylet and Honda realized is the only

0:12:30.840 --> 0:12:33.000
<v Speaker 3>way for them to have a presence in the US

0:12:33.240 --> 0:12:35.160
<v Speaker 3>was to build a lot of factories in the US,

0:12:35.200 --> 0:12:41.040
<v Speaker 3>And so I worked an ambitious enough trade policy can

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:44.760
<v Speaker 3>lead over time to some onshoring, but it won't happen overnight.

0:12:44.880 --> 0:12:46.760
<v Speaker 2>I got eight ways to go. For a final question,

0:12:46.920 --> 0:12:48.840
<v Speaker 2>I want to go to zero s, but it's too

0:12:48.920 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 2>early in the morning for a zero sum a discussion. Here,

0:12:52.320 --> 0:12:55.480
<v Speaker 2>the heart of the matter is a president is looking

0:12:55.520 --> 0:12:59.720
<v Speaker 2>at this as a bilateral discussion. The giant William Klein

0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:07.359
<v Speaker 2>Peterson Institute aggressively disagrees with that. What's our multilateral outcome

0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:10.760
<v Speaker 2>of this bilateral naivete?

0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:13.760
<v Speaker 3>I think we'll learn a little bit more tomorrow about

0:13:13.760 --> 0:13:16.480
<v Speaker 3>how much of this is intended to be permanent and

0:13:16.520 --> 0:13:18.679
<v Speaker 3>how much it is an opening, you know, art of

0:13:18.720 --> 0:13:23.559
<v Speaker 3>the deal negotiation. If it is. If it is, as

0:13:23.600 --> 0:13:26.920
<v Speaker 3>I suspect, it will be the opening rounds of multiple

0:13:26.960 --> 0:13:29.040
<v Speaker 3>negotiations across different countries.

0:13:29.840 --> 0:13:31.160
<v Speaker 1>Then it's certainly not going to be.

0:13:31.280 --> 0:13:33.960
<v Speaker 3>It's certainly not going to really be a multilateral plan

0:13:34.040 --> 0:13:36.360
<v Speaker 3>will be a series of bilateral deals.

0:13:36.160 --> 0:13:39.640
<v Speaker 2>Is get gone to put you know, partner phrases get gone.

0:13:39.960 --> 0:13:41.760
<v Speaker 3>And I think the evidence in favor of that is

0:13:41.760 --> 0:13:45.000
<v Speaker 3>that the Biden administration really didn't try to resuscitate the

0:13:45.160 --> 0:13:46.160
<v Speaker 3>w TO.

0:13:46.400 --> 0:13:50.439
<v Speaker 2>So why didn't they? Why did Why did they resuscitate

0:13:50.840 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 2>the Atlantic Charter off of Newfoundland in nineteen forty two

0:13:55.080 --> 0:13:56.360
<v Speaker 2>when we were flat on our back.

0:13:56.520 --> 0:14:01.800
<v Speaker 3>Well you would have to ask them, but they're the

0:14:01.920 --> 0:14:06.840
<v Speaker 3>political center of gravity in the last four years before

0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:09.480
<v Speaker 3>Trump two point zero was really not to engage in

0:14:09.520 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 3>the WTO. We never staffed up the dispute settlement process.

0:14:13.520 --> 0:14:17.160
<v Speaker 2>It's completely fair. I mean, it goes back to transpecific failure.

0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:21.080
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and very good reminder the transpecific partnership exactly.

0:14:21.320 --> 0:14:23.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, you can come into off for liberation data.

0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:26.760
<v Speaker 1>I'll do it by phone. How about that?

0:14:27.000 --> 0:14:29.080
<v Speaker 2>Richard clear to thank you so much, generous of you

0:14:29.160 --> 0:14:29.800
<v Speaker 2>to be with us,