Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane, along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jaily. We bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcast, Suncloud, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. Joining us now
Speaker 1: William Dudley. He is of Berkeley, he is of Goldman
Speaker 1: sax and of course the former president of the New
Speaker 1: York Federal Reserve. And we're thrilled he could join us,
Speaker 1: and he writes presciently on labor this morning. Bill, I
Speaker 1: don't want to go into the details of President biden
Speaker 1: seventy two points on the power of corporations and the
Speaker 1: consolidation of corporations and the weakness of labor. You do
Speaker 1: address it this morning in your note, But I want
Speaker 1: to go back to an important article you wrote six
Speaker 1: years ago. What kind of jobs have been created? Bill Dudley?
Speaker 1: How did we get here with declining labor share? It's
Speaker 1: not really clear exactly why the labor sharer has declined
Speaker 1: so much over the last uh a couple of decades. Presently,
Speaker 1: it's because corporations have more power. Uh, you know, any
Speaker 1: trust policy has been less aggressive, uh in dealing with
Speaker 1: any competitive practices. And I think labor is power from
Speaker 1: a unionization perspective is also lesson. But you know, it's
Speaker 1: also a question of how tight is the labor markets
Speaker 1: through much of the last economic expansion during an excess
Speaker 1: supply of labor. We only got too close to full
Speaker 1: employment at the very end of the last economic expansion,
Speaker 1: then the pandemic it. So I think the key is
Speaker 1: going to be can the FED drive the economy to
Speaker 1: full employment? And if the economy is at full employment,
Speaker 1: then I would expect labor to do better and pick
Speaker 1: up a bigger share of income. The primal scream of
Speaker 1: this document and the politic little energy that supports it
Speaker 1: so that supports President Biden, seems to be about in
Speaker 1: a blanket of technology over this generation. Do we underestimate
Speaker 1: the technological effects on our labor economy, on our American economy.
Speaker 1: I think there's no question that the digitalization of the
Speaker 1: US economy has had pretty powerful effects on the return
Speaker 1: on capital and in the return on labor. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: I think the ability that people to search now through
Speaker 1: the labor market and find people to employ is vastly
Speaker 1: different than it was. You know when you people used
Speaker 1: to help wanted advertising to attract the workers to employ them.
Speaker 1: Build us a belief that maybe labor has started to
Speaker 1: get a little bit more power as we work through
Speaker 1: this reopening. You've written today in your column, is the
Speaker 1: labor market too loose or is it tight? Is it
Speaker 1: loose or tight? And but your answer is both. Can
Speaker 1: you bolt me through the thinking bill and your license pace.
Speaker 1: So it's it's loose in the sense if you look
Speaker 1: at the point of rate, the one point of rates
Speaker 1: still elevated to compared to where we were in February
Speaker 1: two thousand twenty, when the unemploy rate was three and
Speaker 1: a half percent. Right now it's five point nine percent.
Speaker 1: It's a loose when you look at the number of
Speaker 1: people who are actually employed. Were seven million jobs short
Speaker 1: of where we were in February. If you look at
Speaker 1: it in terms of how many how many job openings
Speaker 1: there are a number of job openings is an all
Speaker 1: time record. We're all we have nine million time point
Speaker 1: two million of open jobs. Businesses have a lot of jobs.
Speaker 1: To feel they can't find workers, you actually see here
Speaker 1: here about that anecdotically in the FED Reserves Bagebook report
Speaker 1: where they talk about how businesses literally can't find workers
Speaker 1: to hire to do they're working and some businesses actually
Speaker 1: are cutting back their hours of operation because they can't
Speaker 1: find enough workers to keep their output up. So, Bill,
Speaker 1: when we talk about though, the power of workers here,
Speaker 1: when you go back decades prior, there was an argument
Speaker 1: to be made to here that it was a mobility
Speaker 1: of workers that also gave them a lot of power,
Speaker 1: and that with the consolidation of industries, with the decline
Speaker 1: of labor unions, UH, that sort of leverage is just
Speaker 1: not there the way it used to be. Is it
Speaker 1: possible to bring that back? Is it possible for that
Speaker 1: to be done at the behest of government policy? I
Speaker 1: think it'll be difficult because mobility has declined. Willingness of
Speaker 1: people to move from one, you know, geographic location in
Speaker 1: the US to another is much lower today than it
Speaker 1: was twenty thirty years ago. And part of that's the
Speaker 1: aging of the population. Is people you know, are are older,
Speaker 1: they're they're more attached to where they've lived historically. So
Speaker 1: I think I think it's really about the FED. It's
Speaker 1: really about the FED getting the economy to full employment.
Speaker 1: Is the FED can get the economy full employment, make
Speaker 1: the labor market truly tight, then workers will have to
Speaker 1: Businesses will have to pay up for workers, and workers
Speaker 1: will get up bigger share of the pie. But let's
Speaker 1: talk about the FED just briefly. You've talked a lot
Speaker 1: about the risk the balance of risks around the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve that once they do lift off, that trajectory won't
Speaker 1: be a shallow as the trajectory we saw in the
Speaker 1: previous Psycho I said that you were a pot of
Speaker 1: Do you still feel that way, yeah, because they basically
Speaker 1: he said that we're not gonna even begin to raise
Speaker 1: short term race until three conditions are met. The economy
Speaker 1: has to be at their view of full employment, we
Speaker 1: have to they hit two percent inflation, and they have
Speaker 1: to be confidence that inflation is can go above to
Speaker 1: percent in the future. That's very very late to actually
Speaker 1: begin the tightening process in terms of lifting off in
Speaker 1: terms of short term interest rates. Before they used to
Speaker 1: try to hit you know, they lifted off early with
Speaker 1: the idea of hitting two percent inflation, full employment, and
Speaker 1: a neutral federal fund rate all at the same time.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna do that this time. Important final point
Speaker 1: and Bill get to hear from you as always. That
Speaker 1: paces out on the Bloomberg terminal this morning and on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com. Is the labor market loose or tight?
Speaker 1: The answer it's both by Bill Dudly, the former Federal's
Speaker 1: serve Bank of New York president self. David Riley of
Speaker 1: Blue Bay Asset Management agrees. He says Grin and Barrett,
Speaker 1: it is a growth economy. David, what does the slowdown
Speaker 1: gloom crew get wrong? Well, I think they get wrong
Speaker 1: the extend off momentum that we have in the US,
Speaker 1: and I think also the global economy right now. And
Speaker 1: you know, we still do have continuing substantial fiscal support,
Speaker 1: and I think that we're going to get more going
Speaker 1: forward as well coming out of Washington, and you know,
Speaker 1: we're getting things like the recovery funds will start to
Speaker 1: be dispersed towards the end of this year and into
Speaker 1: two within Europe, and of course with the vaccine rollout
Speaker 1: um as as as well supporting reopening. So I'm pretty
Speaker 1: confident I've got a high conviction, even though the market
Speaker 1: is kind of challenging that conviction. In terms of how
Speaker 1: the bomb market is performing that you know, we do
Speaker 1: have strong growth for this year, we'll have above trend
Speaker 1: for growth for next year. I think where the market
Speaker 1: can reasonably um or you know, those country views can
Speaker 1: can reasonably challenge to sort of yeah, but once we
Speaker 1: get past that, then we're going back into a sort
Speaker 1: of Steckler stagnation of you know, excess savings, low growth,
Speaker 1: low inflation, and the FED will never be able to
Speaker 1: get UH rates higher. It's going to end up getting
Speaker 1: trapped in a way that I think the ECB has done.
Speaker 1: I'm not as pessimistic as as as that so um
Speaker 1: and I think right now the market is underprising um
Speaker 1: the Fed. So you know, I still think that bond
Speaker 1: shields are going to end meaningfully higher by the end
Speaker 1: of this year. But you know, yeah, I'm taking some
Speaker 1: pain and I'm having to gwyn and bear that right now. David,
Speaker 1: earlier on we caught it with Beamo, talked about the
Speaker 1: reaction function of this market, how a market response to
Speaker 1: incoming economic data. It made the point it's not what
Speaker 1: you expect. Might be a little bit more counterintuitive in
Speaker 1: the future, the upside surprises on CPI will actually lead
Speaker 1: to lower yields of the long when tens thirties, and
Speaker 1: you're pushing back against that. Well, I think in the
Speaker 1: new term that is because the market has interpreted the
Speaker 1: last meeting of the FED as as this you know,
Speaker 1: hawkish pivot and basically decided that the FED is blinked
Speaker 1: in terms of his average inflation targeting of regime. So
Speaker 1: if you get higher inflation in the near term, that
Speaker 1: is makes the FED more likely to to to to
Speaker 1: hire Gregs. But as I was saying before, people are
Speaker 1: sort of now debating this kind of secklist stagnation over
Speaker 1: the medium term, but I think they're wrong on that both.
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, as the data comes through,
Speaker 1: we will see higher and stickier um inflation as well
Speaker 1: as stronger growth. But also actually that I don't think
Speaker 1: the FED has become meaningfully more hawkish, and so at
Speaker 1: some point I do actually expect the curve to steep
Speaker 1: and back again and to get back onto that more
Speaker 1: kind of reflationary um trade. Tom and I hate that
Speaker 1: when questions when will that happen? But David, I do
Speaker 1: think it's important when you think we'll have sufficient information
Speaker 1: to challenge the current consensus when do you think that
Speaker 1: will happen. I think we're going to be looking at
Speaker 1: sort of September October time. I mean, you know, what's
Speaker 1: important is, in addition to the inflation numbers, is also,
Speaker 1: of course what's happening in terms of, um, the labor market.
Speaker 1: And although we had a pretty strong pay rolls headline number,
Speaker 1: the actual unemployment rate UM, you know, somewhat surprisingly ticked up.
Speaker 1: Now our own forecast suggests that unemployment is going to
Speaker 1: be approaching four percent by the end of this year.
Speaker 1: Uh So, I think, you know, when we get to
Speaker 1: sort of October, we've had a number of payroll reports,
Speaker 1: including you know, the September payrolls, which will start to
Speaker 1: reflect some of the runoff in terms of the extent
Speaker 1: of unemployment insurance. UM. You know, kids returning to school,
Speaker 1: you know, Mom's getting more access to the labor market
Speaker 1: as well, so some of those sort of labor supply
Speaker 1: constraints may start to dissiplate as well. So, David, so
Speaker 1: as we sort of try to assess this growth story,
Speaker 1: this growth scare, whatever we want to sort of call
Speaker 1: it here, can you maybe walk us through the diversions
Speaker 1: that we've seen lately between what's been going on with
Speaker 1: regards to sovereign debt and what's been going on with
Speaker 1: regards of corporate credit, because they seem to now be
Speaker 1: uncoppling maybe just a little bit. Yeah, I think it's
Speaker 1: a good point that. I mean, one aspect of you know,
Speaker 1: what we've been seeing of late is that, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we've seen the volatility in the raids market. We've seen
Speaker 1: the equity markets starting to respond to that, and thinking,
Speaker 1: you know, the ball market is telling us that growth
Speaker 1: is slowing and potentially meaningful credit is actually held up
Speaker 1: pretty well now. In part credit doesn't need sort of
Speaker 1: really strong growth and corporate earnings growth in order to
Speaker 1: be still a relatively attractive from a from a from
Speaker 1: a carry perspective. Um. But I do think we say
Speaker 1: the credit market right now it's sort of saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, okay, maybe growth is you may maybe moderating,
Speaker 1: but that's you know, it's it's not waiving any kind
Speaker 1: of red or even amber flags. In my opinion, David,
Speaker 1: my observation is you're not focused. I mean, that's all
Speaker 1: I can see now, John. This is just simple. Riley
Speaker 1: is focused and one thing and that's what England is
Speaker 1: going to do against Italy. Let's get to it. How
Speaker 1: do they do this? John Pharaoh and David Riley. Does
Speaker 1: England have to come out strong? It's the one question.
Speaker 1: Now when does England do it? Do they come out
Speaker 1: strong in the first half, John, or do they have
Speaker 1: to be patient and come out strong in the second.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of it comes down to one
Speaker 1: player for England. David. I'm sure you agree. Raheem Sterling
Speaker 1: has just been a standout performer, player of the tournament
Speaker 1: for England. If he turns out there could be a
Speaker 1: bit of trouble for Italy. It's just been absolutely fantastic. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I actually think I actually think it's the overall the
Speaker 1: actual better team. But England do have home advantage, so
Speaker 1: I am hopeful that that will be enough to kind
Speaker 1: of get us over the line. But yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: Racine Sterling running uh the Italian center backs I think
Speaker 1: could cause them some problems, particularly if they touch him.
Speaker 1: And of just which Italy turns up the one against Bounty,
Speaker 1: the one against Austria. I'm more interested in the thirty
Speaker 1: three unbeaten thirty plus games the City of London tom
Speaker 1: Monday morning. How does that work? David? What have you
Speaker 1: said to your team? Are you turning around to them
Speaker 1: and saying, look, I don't speech to be in early
Speaker 1: on Monday morning after the big game. What are the
Speaker 1: expectations from the staff in the city. Uh, well, I've
Speaker 1: told them I won't don't expect me to be You
Speaker 1: told them that. What about them, David, They've got to
Speaker 1: be banging there. I don't forget. I'm a lot older,
Speaker 1: so I've got to sleep great time. I do need
Speaker 1: my I don't need my sleep, so um yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean hopefully, um, you know we went there'll be a
Speaker 1: little bit of positivity and euphoria, maybe a sort of
Speaker 1: cheeky long sterling which should we should send the camera
Speaker 1: out to bank station just outside of bank Station tom
Speaker 1: on Monday morning. I'm tanning you tumballweeds all the way
Speaker 1: through to lunchtime. It's called bunk, right, bunk. Yeah. What
Speaker 1: I noticed here is David Riley just you know, he
Speaker 1: was not focused until we brought this up, John, and
Speaker 1: he's just full on right now. I would agree David
Speaker 1: in his own David Riley, thank you, Chief Investment Strategist
Speaker 1: t K Monday morning, it's going to be dead. David
Speaker 1: blanche Flower a few decades ago definitely restructured our labor
Speaker 1: thinking with his book The Wage Curve, and what we
Speaker 1: all know is our wage curve as a society has
Speaker 1: been shattered in the recent decades. He is at Dartmouth College.
Speaker 1: David David blanche Flower joins us UH this morning. Danny,
Speaker 1: I look at where we are in the first name
Speaker 1: that I came up with, and what I want to
Speaker 1: talk about more than anything is the primal scream nature
Speaker 1: of the seventy two point Executives Order. Who is screaming
Speaker 1: about consolidation in America? Well, I guess the way you
Speaker 1: would think of it now is that workers have been hurting, um.
Speaker 1: Non workers have been hurting. They've been hit a serious
Speaker 1: pandemic um and it's had a big impact on the world.
Speaker 1: But this sits on the end of many decades of
Speaker 1: poor wage growth, and the balance of power between workers
Speaker 1: and firms has shifted quite considerably compared to where it was.
Speaker 1: So this is a sort of I read it, and
Speaker 1: I've read it very quickly in the last twenty minutes.
Speaker 1: This is the kind of primal scream to try and
Speaker 1: redress the balance of power between workers and firms. Now,
Speaker 1: I think the country we just had its important market
Speaker 1: responses very little because the question is does it have
Speaker 1: any teeth? Is it merely wishful thinking? So when I
Speaker 1: read it that this is trying to think about UM
Speaker 1: some of the stories about big firms, about Google, about
Speaker 1: about on Facebook and song, but this is this is
Speaker 1: a scream and it start to think about that balance
Speaker 1: being being being changed. Whether it can do that, it
Speaker 1: is unclear. What's so important to me, Professor, is the
Speaker 1: idea from you or liberals like Paul Krugman, or conservatives
Speaker 1: as well the late at lazer out at Stanford is
Speaker 1: the overwhelming theme of that document is technology is here,
Speaker 1: and we are using and adapting to technology every every day.
Speaker 1: Within the economics of monopsony, can we take the deadweight
Speaker 1: loss of technology and can basically can we put the
Speaker 1: genie back in the bottle? Well, we'll probably not. UM.
Speaker 1: I mean, the teeth is the big story, but but
Speaker 1: I do think that in some sense that I'd like
Speaker 1: to think of it this way. UM firms have the
Speaker 1: ability to pay higher wages, they've seen no real need
Speaker 1: to do that, and they haven't shared. They haven't shared
Speaker 1: those wages and those in a sense, the profits that
Speaker 1: they've made. So this is a screen to try and
Speaker 1: do something about that. I mean, look at real wages.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've written about it for thirty years. Still,
Speaker 1: even with the growth that we've seen, real wages today
Speaker 1: are still below what they were in the nineties seventies.
Speaker 1: So this is about trying to think about that coming
Speaker 1: out of the White House, coming out of cc rouse,
Speaker 1: who cares about these kinds of questions. The issue is
Speaker 1: can you can you change this part? There appeared to
Speaker 1: be sensible things there in terms of let's think about
Speaker 1: this occupation or licensing, let's think about ways in which
Speaker 1: we can get prices down. But that in a in
Speaker 1: a sense an o'domini can just continues. And in a
Speaker 1: sense I read it is we would like for these
Speaker 1: things to happen. We would like to try and sort
Speaker 1: of stop the world from rolling. But there's little or
Speaker 1: nothing in it. I mean, there is going to be
Speaker 1: a White House competition, council um and and but that's true.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about that word and forgive me for
Speaker 1: up because I think that word is so important. The
Speaker 1: knee jerk reaction from conservatives this morning, I think would
Speaker 1: be to say I'm from the government and I'm here
Speaker 1: to help. This is a problem. The government wants to
Speaker 1: set prices all those kind of things. But I hear
Speaker 1: competition and the lack of air off and Tom I
Speaker 1: think rightly mentioned the late great and and Cruder and
Speaker 1: some of the work he did on non compete clauses
Speaker 1: and the labor market. And this is about trying to
Speaker 1: reintroduce competition where there hasn't been enough competition. Can you
Speaker 1: just sit there, that's your world, the labor something like
Speaker 1: non competes and the problem then that is caused. Well,
Speaker 1: this is about the balance of power. When the balance
Speaker 1: of power sits with firms. Firms can put put in
Speaker 1: occupational licenses and they differ by a state um and
Speaker 1: in the UK they can do these things called zero
Speaker 1: our contracts. That's what happens when the bargaining power shifts
Speaker 1: strongly towards towards firms. If you can somehow or other
Speaker 1: redress that take the occupational licenses the way that increases
Speaker 1: the powers of workers, that's what this document is about.
Speaker 1: But it but the first thing you read it, John,
Speaker 1: is it doesn't have any teeth it doesn't have. How
Speaker 1: are we going to do this? Yeah, you can say,
Speaker 1: you know, it will be good idea to lower drug prices.
Speaker 1: It would be good idea to let people have have refunds.
Speaker 1: And in some sense what we'll see and that's something
Speaker 1: I'd argue about a lot workers ability to bargain these
Speaker 1: things becomes greater as the economy moves towards full employment,
Speaker 1: and so we're seeing these adjustments going on. And then
Speaker 1: the last six or seven months we've see increasing power
Speaker 1: of workers trying to get trying trying to deal with
Speaker 1: the bottlenecks that we see. So I think this is
Speaker 1: sort of an opening salvo. Al Kruger's work is really
Speaker 1: important in that in that area, firms can impose rules
Speaker 1: when when they're bargaining position is strong. We will see
Speaker 1: what happens. But I just think, you know, the this
Speaker 1: is an opening salvo, it seems to me. But the
Speaker 1: professor when we talk about some of the market forces
Speaker 1: that have sort of pushed a little bit more, given
Speaker 1: the workers a little bit more bargaining power. Here the
Speaker 1: idea here that the administration now wants to nudge that
Speaker 1: further not necessarily a surprise but the idea when you
Speaker 1: start talking about some of these right to work issues
Speaker 1: and some of these licensing issues here, this is now
Speaker 1: a major shift. If he's able to get it through
Speaker 1: and able to sort of enforce these things, this would
Speaker 1: be a major shift in how in the US economy,
Speaker 1: in the US labor market. I think it would be.
Speaker 1: And there are signs around the world that these that
Speaker 1: this shift is underway. Um. Two examples in the UK
Speaker 1: we've seen rising unionization rates and actually in the United
Speaker 1: States and the last data that we have union rates,
Speaker 1: union density rights, that's the proportion of workers union has
Speaker 1: actually risen. Why is that. It's because actually in the
Speaker 1: last years or so, non union jobs have actually declined.
Speaker 1: So I think there is some evidence in the last
Speaker 1: couple of years that there is a move away. I mean,
Speaker 1: the right to work laws are our laws that can
Speaker 1: be imposed when there's plenty of workers around. So I
Speaker 1: think you're right, Um, the balance between workers and firm
Speaker 1: seems to be changing a bit. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: this is a really important and interesting document. It suggests
Speaker 1: that you know, we're going to see a push on
Speaker 1: the front of let's increase the power of workers. But
Speaker 1: whether you can impose that is another thing. Problem is, Danny,
Speaker 1: that's the left wing interpretation of this. And I mentioned
Speaker 1: a little bit earlier the conservative criticism would be, we're
Speaker 1: trying to we're trying to reduce the friction of corporations
Speaker 1: at the same time, I don't want to introduce more
Speaker 1: friction on the labor side with unions. And you know
Speaker 1: that's a political point, of course. I know that's a
Speaker 1: political point. Um that that that that that's true. I'm
Speaker 1: just suggesting that there are there are trends that are
Speaker 1: moving partly because that's what's happening out there in the world.
Speaker 1: I mean seeing those things happening. But yeah, John, I
Speaker 1: mean I don't think it's the it's the left wing view.
Speaker 1: I think it's that the reality is, the reality is
Speaker 1: where we are. How that's going to change will really
Speaker 1: depend upon how tight the labor market is. And we
Speaker 1: can both agree we need more competition. Danny, you and
Speaker 1: I could talk forever. I'll give you a call later.
Speaker 1: We'll carry this on and a little bit more. Danny
Speaker 1: Flat of Doltma College Andrew Peckross resists of Johns Hopkins
Speaker 1: were thoroughly could join us this morning. The mystery for
Speaker 1: me is someone vaccinated. Professor, is the idea that if
Speaker 1: I choose to be unvaccinated, how sick is sick when
Speaker 1: I get the delta variant? What's the level of sick
Speaker 1: we should expect. Well, the data is really rolling in
Speaker 1: now that um, the delta variant is causing disease primarily
Speaker 1: and unvaccinated populations, and the disease that it's showing seems
Speaker 1: to be a bit more severe than the disease we
Speaker 1: saw in similar age groups at the beginning of the pandemic.
Speaker 1: So if you're unvaccinated, the risk from delta variant is
Speaker 1: greater of infection, and there's also going to be a
Speaker 1: slightly greater increase of severe disease from infection. So there's
Speaker 1: nothing good about being vaccinated when you think about the
Speaker 1: delta v area. Where are we on the vaccination process
Speaker 1: right now? I follow the statistics. I saw something age
Speaker 1: over twelve fully vaccinated fifty x per cent as well?
Speaker 1: Are you pleased with the rate of vaccination? Every vaccination
Speaker 1: is a good thing. I would love to see these
Speaker 1: vaccination rates get much higher than they were than they
Speaker 1: are right now. Um, we've reached a stage where many
Speaker 1: of the people who are vaccinated. Now, obviously they're protected
Speaker 1: from infection, they're protected from severe disease. We haven't reached
Speaker 1: those levels that really give us a population based benefit
Speaker 1: from vaccination. Yet. That's that herd immunity thing that you
Speaker 1: hear about all the time. It doesn't mean that the
Speaker 1: vaccine doesn't work against you individually with vaccination helps protect you,
Speaker 1: but at some level we get that added benefit that
Speaker 1: the virus is just so difficult to to circulate in
Speaker 1: the population because of vaccination that even the unvaccinated um
Speaker 1: get a benefit from that. We're not close to that level,
Speaker 1: and as a research scientist, that's what I really like
Speaker 1: to set as a as a as a standard vaccination goal. Yeah, doctor,
Speaker 1: a lot of talk now about sort of what the
Speaker 1: next step is for those folks who have been fully vaccinated. Fiser,
Speaker 1: of course coming out yesterday and talking about the idea
Speaker 1: of a booster shot the CDC saying that well, maybe
Speaker 1: not quite yet here where do we stand. Well, all
Speaker 1: the data so far from the US looks like vaccination,
Speaker 1: particularly vaccination with the MR and A based vaccines, is
Speaker 1: protecting against delta variant. So I like the fact that
Speaker 1: Fiser has gone forward with the clinical trial to show
Speaker 1: what a booster will do um. I think that's important
Speaker 1: data to have. I don't see it as an eminent
Speaker 1: thing in terms of a guidance for the US population,
Speaker 1: but this virus moves quickly. Variants are merging fast, and
Speaker 1: I think the fiser move is good in terms of
Speaker 1: preparing for the future. If we get a variant that's
Speaker 1: even more deadly than Delta, then a booster maybe an
Speaker 1: important thing that to to consider. And having fiser Um
Speaker 1: completed the clinical trials for that, there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: good thing in terms of helping us be prepared for that. Professor,
Speaker 1: it's gonna hate for me, said, it's gonna catch you out.
Speaker 1: We go some breaking news we need to run to.
Speaker 1: Andrew Peco, stat John's Healthians, bloombeg skill of the public help.
Speaker 1: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join
Speaker 1: us live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day from six
Speaker 1: to nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance Podcast on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcast SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course, on
Speaker 1: the terminal. I'm Tom Keene and this is Bloomberg