Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney, along
Speaker 1: with my co host of Bonnie Quinn. Every business day
Speaker 1: we bring you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts,
Speaker 1: along with essential market moving news. Kind the Bloomberg Markets
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com. Let's get straight to our
Speaker 1: next guest. Richard Bufo, is professor of litigation at Columbia
Speaker 1: Law School. We have a lot to speak to you about, Professor,
Speaker 1: not least the fact that the House has just introduced
Speaker 1: an article of impeachment against the president, the second impeachment
Speaker 1: for the first time ever of a president potentially. But
Speaker 1: that said, what is your base case scenario for how
Speaker 1: rebuke of President Trump proceeds? Well? At this point, it
Speaker 1: looks like the House is planning to go ahead with
Speaker 1: an impeachment proceeding unless, which I guess beginning to see
Speaker 1: monlikely Vice President pens and the Cabinet moved to remove
Speaker 1: the president under the amendment. So it does seem as
Speaker 1: though the House is quite serious about beginning impeachment proceedings,
Speaker 1: possibly as early as tomorrow or Wednesday. So Professor, Let's
Speaker 1: assume that the House does move forward. How do you
Speaker 1: think the timing will play out in terms of the Senate. Well,
Speaker 1: that's a good question, and I think right now they're
Speaker 1: making some Uh there's the initial comments. Are they want
Speaker 1: to get the House wants to take care of the impeachment.
Speaker 1: Remember the impeachments the equival of an indictment, you could, well,
Speaker 1: the impeachment means is the House has called for a
Speaker 1: trial in the Senate. Um. The actual any um conviction
Speaker 1: would require action by the Senate, as we saw last year,
Speaker 1: and like the impeachment that grew out of the Ukraine
Speaker 1: phone call um, so the House could could do this
Speaker 1: rather quickly. What about the Senate, that's a good question,
Speaker 1: sent I think is out of session right now. Uh.
Speaker 1: Leuda McConnell is talking about not bringing them back until
Speaker 1: nineteen UM. The House um majority whip UH Congressman Clyburne
Speaker 1: is talking about even not even sending over the impeachment
Speaker 1: decision the impeachment resolution to the Senate until some time
Speaker 1: after the start of the Biden administration. So it's not
Speaker 1: to get him away with the fur The opening days
Speaker 1: and weeks of the new administration, So it's a little
Speaker 1: hard to tell when it does seem though it's quite
Speaker 1: possible that an impeachment could be voted soon, but it's
Speaker 1: hard to tell at what point it will move from
Speaker 1: the House to the Senate exactly. This talk of you know,
Speaker 1: a hundred days, even allowing Biden half his hundred days.
Speaker 1: What about the idea that it's a sole article of
Speaker 1: impeachment it is regarding inciting the insurrection at the capital
Speaker 1: on January six, in your professional and legal opinion, was
Speaker 1: that the right charge and it is the president guilty
Speaker 1: of it? Well, I noticed they actually combine that with
Speaker 1: the president's phone call to Rappensburg in the Secretary of
Speaker 1: State of Georgia pressuring him to find new votes in
Speaker 1: an effective change the outcome of the election. So it
Speaker 1: is primarily, of course about the uh the attack on
Speaker 1: the Capitol, but I think there are other other statements
Speaker 1: in it that he followed prior to subvert and obstruct
Speaker 1: the certification of the electors. I think they weave it
Speaker 1: together in that sense, is that the president, both by
Speaker 1: his phone call to the Secretary State of Georgia and
Speaker 1: by his inciting speech at the Ellipse was trying to
Speaker 1: block Congress from doing its constitutional duty. I think it's
Speaker 1: a good argument. I mean, I think obviously you need
Speaker 1: to figure out maybe to part the exact language of
Speaker 1: his speech and everything. But the more of this looks
Speaker 1: like this was a clear cut effort by the part
Speaker 1: of many members of that mob to literally block the
Speaker 1: certification of the vote. That is an aspect of an attacking,
Speaker 1: attacking the operation of the government, which fits within the
Speaker 1: model of physition and insurrection. Professor talked to us about
Speaker 1: the amendment, uh, in what's kind of the calculus behind
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to be initiated by the vice president? Yes,
Speaker 1: I think it does. UM. I mean I think that
Speaker 1: UM the twenty and even really emerged in the nineteen
Speaker 1: sixties as a way of dealing with presidential disability. Disability
Speaker 1: short of outright death, president might have a stroke or
Speaker 1: heart attack for some other reason to be incapable of
Speaker 1: fulfilling the duties of his office. And it comes up
Speaker 1: with the process where the vice president, with the concurrence
Speaker 1: of the cabinet, can take over, notifies the Congress. UM
Speaker 1: the president is potentially could challenge it. Uh, And there's
Speaker 1: a process for back and forth for congressional resolution, but
Speaker 1: the first step does require action by the Vice president.
Speaker 1: And um, I mean candidly, it really wasn't meant for
Speaker 1: this kind of situation, But of course I'm not sure
Speaker 1: anything really meant for this kind of situation. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: Nancy Plosi clearly has several plans at our fingertips. And
Speaker 1: there's also a plan D that's getting talked about. The
Speaker 1: fourteen Amendment Section three. This may apply to the president
Speaker 1: and or also to those who wanted to, you know,
Speaker 1: not recognize the certification. What do you imagine as a
Speaker 1: path forward with that? Will it get used? So? Fourteen
Speaker 1: and fourteen member Section three is a provision that was
Speaker 1: added after the Civil War as a way basically of
Speaker 1: saying that members of people who have officers of the Confederacy,
Speaker 1: who had been in part of the US government, people
Speaker 1: who had taken an oath of allegiance in the United
Speaker 1: States before the Civil War and then in effect broke
Speaker 1: that oath and joined up with the Confederacy, as as
Speaker 1: government leaders are as top generals there would be denied,
Speaker 1: it would be thereafter denied any ability to hold the
Speaker 1: US government office. Again, that's the that's the background, and
Speaker 1: again it uses that, but it uses the language of
Speaker 1: participation in insurrection. And so the idea there would be again,
Speaker 1: if you could show that somebody participated in somebody who
Speaker 1: had sworn an oath, an oath of office like the
Speaker 1: president or a member of Congress, or particiating an insurrection,
Speaker 1: that would be a basis for denying them the right
Speaker 1: to hold uh public office in the United States. Um,
Speaker 1: it's not clearly self executing some it would have to
Speaker 1: determine that that's what they did, so uh, and of
Speaker 1: course he would have to determine that what they did
Speaker 1: constituted insurrection. UM. The President's case, there's a good argument
Speaker 1: not all of the members of Congress who you know,
Speaker 1: voted to oppose UM the electoral certification would fall into
Speaker 1: that category. I think people are thinking about it mostly
Speaker 1: in terms of Senator Hawley, maybe Senator Cruise, particularly people
Speaker 1: who gave more inflammation, made inflammatory statements, I think, particularly
Speaker 1: Senator Hawley, and maybe from the members of the House. So, Professor,
Speaker 1: if the House is able to deliver the articles of
Speaker 1: impeachment to the Senate perhaps sometime this week, what is
Speaker 1: incumbent upon the Senate to do in terms of timeliness
Speaker 1: in terms of acting. They are supposed to take it
Speaker 1: up right away. I mean, that is the procedure that's
Speaker 1: been set up. It's supposed to become a first order
Speaker 1: of business, and they are supposed to take it up
Speaker 1: right away. So I think the House is I mean,
Speaker 1: I think in some ways, this this impeachment thing has
Speaker 1: really three things driving in. One is just the sense
Speaker 1: that something has to be done, that this was maybe
Speaker 1: the most outrageous thing in American president has ever done,
Speaker 1: so something has to be done. Second is to get
Speaker 1: him out right away. He's still there at this point.
Speaker 1: People accounting the hours, it's ten more days. He's in
Speaker 1: charge of the unforces, is in charge of the nuclear codes,
Speaker 1: and there's a I think a concerned that maybe he
Speaker 1: will do something improper again. And then third is to
Speaker 1: in effect block him from being able to run again. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's one of the things that the impeachment itself
Speaker 1: doesn't automatically disqualify for future holding office, but it's something
Speaker 1: that the Senate has the power to do if it
Speaker 1: should convict, is to disqualify. And at this point, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure which all three of these things may be
Speaker 1: at play. The longer they delay any action, the more
Speaker 1: it's really about the first and the third. Richard Brice brief.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us with a brief.
Speaker 1: Joseph P. Chamberlain, Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School,
Speaker 1: helping us break down UH the impeachment process, which looks
Speaker 1: like it's about to begin as the House UH introduced
Speaker 1: its articles Impeachment. Well, of course, it is a great
Speaker 1: pleasure to speak to our next guest. Susan DeVore is
Speaker 1: chief executive officer of the Premiere, which is the health
Speaker 1: services company that's listed on the NASDACK under p I
Speaker 1: n C, and she joins us from Charlotte, North Carolina. Susan,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining. Scott Stringer, the New York City Controller,
Speaker 1: coming out today and explaining that, you know, the forms
Speaker 1: online and the process for getting put in line for
Speaker 1: vaccination is an absolute mess. Talk to us about how
Speaker 1: better the vaccine can be ruled out. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for having me. While the truth is we've got
Speaker 1: to get from two fifty thousand vaccinations a day to
Speaker 1: two million a day, and so this is you know,
Speaker 1: the biggest supply chain challenge probably UH in history for healthcare.
Speaker 1: There are several systemic issues. First, we've got a hesitancy problem.
Speaker 1: We've got people who are not willing to take the vaccine.
Speaker 1: We've got to do a lot more education. We've got
Speaker 1: to get people willing to take it. Secondly, our health
Speaker 1: care systems, the premier hospitals would say staffing is one
Speaker 1: of the very largest challenges they have. You know, their
Speaker 1: nurses are taking care of all the COVID patients and
Speaker 1: now they're also doubling up on providing vaccination, so we
Speaker 1: need help with staffing. The distribution challenges, you know, are
Speaker 1: talked about a lot. There are sixty four different state
Speaker 1: and territorial plans, and so the lack of centralization and
Speaker 1: even the lack of standard processes across states huge issue.
Speaker 1: And then there are supply shortages and all kinds of
Speaker 1: communication gaps. So we're early in the process, but but
Speaker 1: there are lots of improvements that need to be made.
Speaker 1: So so it's one of the questions is you know,
Speaker 1: are one of the areas of frustration I guess for
Speaker 1: some people is yes, we we are in the early
Speaker 1: stage of this process, and there will be bumps in
Speaker 1: the roads, certainly, But when you get uh. You know,
Speaker 1: let's say a ten thousand doses delivered to a vaccination point,
Speaker 1: yet only two or three or four thousand have actually
Speaker 1: put in people's arms. The question then becomes, what are
Speaker 1: we waiting for if you don't if someone doesn't want
Speaker 1: to take a go to the next person. So I
Speaker 1: guess there's a question of sticking with the Phase one
Speaker 1: ABC protocols versus just getting as many shots in as
Speaker 1: many arms as quickly as possible. How do you think
Speaker 1: that's going to play out? You know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of inconsistency state to state. So part of the problem
Speaker 1: is hospitals, premier hospitals don't even know if they're going
Speaker 1: to get it, how much they're going to get, when
Speaker 1: they're going to get it. They're worrying about having enough
Speaker 1: for the second dose. And so I think people are
Speaker 1: being cautious in terms of going too fast down the
Speaker 1: prioritization list because the worst that they think could happen
Speaker 1: would be to give them one dose and you don't
Speaker 1: have that second dose. Having said that, I think we
Speaker 1: are being overly cautious as a country, and we ought
Speaker 1: to be using technology to identify all the people out
Speaker 1: there who want to get a vaccine, uh and are
Speaker 1: willing to get a vaccine. And then we ought to
Speaker 1: set up more um sites for vaccination National Guard in
Speaker 1: some places, maybe the retail CBS, Walgreens boxes, so that
Speaker 1: we actually have a way to accelerate this. You know,
Speaker 1: with a normal flu it takes three months to get
Speaker 1: people vaccinated, and this is much more urgent, and we
Speaker 1: have to change our processes in order to get people vaccinating.
Speaker 1: How does Premiere work with the various states. It seems
Speaker 1: like because it's a state by state issue, it's obviously
Speaker 1: slightly different for every state. And you know, a company
Speaker 1: like you or is is it difficult to to manage
Speaker 1: all that? So Premier has hospitals and hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of providers across the country. We work through the inside,
Speaker 1: We work through the healthcare system them and all of
Speaker 1: the things that they're trying to respond to. At state level,
Speaker 1: we have a big supply chain organization. And one of
Speaker 1: the things folks don't talk a lot about is, you know,
Speaker 1: these these vials are overfilled, so you can get six
Speaker 1: doses instead of five, while the kit only includes five needles,
Speaker 1: So you've gotta go get needles and surringes, which are
Speaker 1: on shortage. The kids did not include any gloves um
Speaker 1: and most clinicians want to wear gloves when they're vaccinating folks,
Speaker 1: and so we've got a shortage of gloves. So what
Speaker 1: Premier is trying to do is make sure we've got syringes,
Speaker 1: make sure we've got needles, make sure we've got gloves,
Speaker 1: make sure we're helping health care systems share their best
Speaker 1: practices and compare notes about how they're dealing with the
Speaker 1: various state programs and those, you know, states that are
Speaker 1: doing a better job of accelerating the vaccination are sharing
Speaker 1: how they're going about that with other other states. So
Speaker 1: Premier is kind of a critical piece right in the
Speaker 1: middle of all of the activity at the various state levels.
Speaker 1: Susan should there be federal guidance, federal coordination of a
Speaker 1: vaccination into so how you know, we believe a premiere
Speaker 1: There should be federal guidance. There should be a standard
Speaker 1: reporting process, maybe there could even be a universal scheduling process.
Speaker 1: You know, the CDC today is reporting the doses, but
Speaker 1: you don't know how many of those are first doses
Speaker 1: or second doses. And it's not a problem yet because
Speaker 1: not enough time has passed, but it will be a
Speaker 1: problem in the future. So we need federal guidelines, We
Speaker 1: need federal standards of reporting, We need federal you know,
Speaker 1: technology support. We can use federal and state resources like
Speaker 1: National Guard and others to accelerate this process. So yeah,
Speaker 1: we believe you need a lot more federal guidance and
Speaker 1: then you need state level execution of the broader vaccination plan. Susan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us once again, we
Speaker 1: would appreciate your perspective. Susan DeVore, chief executive officer of
Speaker 1: healthcare services company Premier based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Just
Speaker 1: getting an update on the logistics of getting these vaccines
Speaker 1: out there, into the marketplace and into patients as quickly,
Speaker 1: UH and asficially and as safely as possible. That's been
Speaker 1: a challenged uh so far, but hopefully things will improve well.
Speaker 1: One of the many fallouts to come from the um
Speaker 1: what happened at the Capitol last week has been the
Speaker 1: role of social media platforms. What role did they play,
Speaker 1: uh and what roles should they played going forward. We
Speaker 1: saw many of these social media platforms drop President Trump's account, band,
Speaker 1: President Trump's account that's razing some question questions about free
Speaker 1: speech versus accountability. To dig into that, we welcome Mark Douglas.
Speaker 1: He's a CEO of marketing firm Steelhouse based in Los Angeles. Uh. Mark,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for joining us here. So we had Twitter,
Speaker 1: we've had Facebook banned the account of President Trump. How
Speaker 1: do you think those social media platforms and Amazon as
Speaker 1: related to Parlor? How do you think they came to
Speaker 1: those decisions? Okay, well, obviously I think, um, what happened
Speaker 1: last week at the Capitol plus four years of history,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of um, the cumulative effected at um
Speaker 1: led to that decision. I think that the Twitter and
Speaker 1: Facebook banning his accounts is was somewhat expected. What's unexpected
Speaker 1: I think is um Apple and Aws and the actions
Speaker 1: you know they've taken that go beyond Trump. And so
Speaker 1: you know, there's just a climate right now of of
Speaker 1: making these kinds of decisions. And I don't I think
Speaker 1: there's still a lot more to come in terms of
Speaker 1: where we settle in in terms of what's allowed and
Speaker 1: what's not allowed. Yeah, that was really fascinating. Parlor is
Speaker 1: funded by, among others, Rebecca Mercer, and it builds itself
Speaker 1: as a platform really for all that protects the First
Speaker 1: Amendment rights of Americans. But honestly, it did seem like
Speaker 1: perhaps some of what happened on Wednesday, if not organized
Speaker 1: on Parlor, was at least chatted about on Parlor. And
Speaker 1: you know, it didn't hurt that people were sort of
Speaker 1: suggesting things to each other. And then Apple came out
Speaker 1: and said it was going to take it off its
Speaker 1: app store, and Amazon Web Services said it wouldn't host
Speaker 1: it anymore. What is the future for parlor? Who CEO
Speaker 1: insists that nothing illegal is not dealt with, that they
Speaker 1: take down illegal things and anything else is completely legal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I think there's two issues there. One is Parlor.
Speaker 1: It's although the lot of what people do as right
Speaker 1: wing discussion is occurring on Parlor. Parler themselves just view
Speaker 1: themselves as champions of free speech, that's what they say,
Speaker 1: and don't think free speech is a Republican right wing issue.
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure there's as much support for, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of taking apps down and out of the App store.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of companies, ironically, including Facebook, think
Speaker 1: that Apple has a heavy hand when it comes to
Speaker 1: the app store, and and you know, Facebook and December
Speaker 1: did full page ads in the Wall Street Journal, in
Speaker 1: New York Times and other publications essentially railing against Apple's
Speaker 1: decisions that it relates to to the the app store,
Speaker 1: and there are other companies that are suing Apples. So
Speaker 1: now Parlor, for a different reason, is now in that
Speaker 1: bucket ironically aligned somewhat with Facebook and that Apple is
Speaker 1: exerting too much control. And so I think, you know,
Speaker 1: that's the first party issue. The second part is coming
Speaker 1: out of the app store. I think Parlor will relaunch
Speaker 1: as a mobile app and um and and I think
Speaker 1: can do so relatively quickly. And so again that's the way,
Speaker 1: you know, they just used the opening in net um
Speaker 1: to put apps out there or to put websites out there,
Speaker 1: rabbit and relying solely on Apple, who who's been somewhat
Speaker 1: quite frankly hypocritical on the topic. So Mark, you expect this,
Speaker 1: this discussion again, this whole First Amendment issue, accountability, free
Speaker 1: speech too. I guess, you know, retrain the lens of Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Congress regulators on the Internet as it relates
Speaker 1: to kind of these free speech issues. Um, I think
Speaker 1: obviously it's a hot topic, but I think actually the
Speaker 1: users of these platforms um are ultimately going to somewhat
Speaker 1: retrain the lens. So keep in mind only ten percent
Speaker 1: of Facebook's users in the United States, but of their
Speaker 1: revenue is in the United States. So if you have
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of US users of Facebook and Twitter,
Speaker 1: because they're similar type numbers, but Twitter, if you have
Speaker 1: a lot of users for um of Facebook and Twitter,
Speaker 1: essentially you know, feel that these platforms are being unfairs
Speaker 1: in particular around free speech. UM it doesn't. It takes
Speaker 1: a lot of people, but as a percentage of the
Speaker 1: total number of Facebook users, it doesn't take a lot
Speaker 1: to have a very big effect on their revenue, which
Speaker 1: is going to have a huge effect on advertising and
Speaker 1: have a huge effect that they go on Wall Street,
Speaker 1: which you already thing Wall Street somewhat respond to. I
Speaker 1: think some of the drop in Twitter and and UM
Speaker 1: today is not just about Trump. It's about the savvy
Speaker 1: investors realizing that you that Twitter cannot afford to lose
Speaker 1: you know, a third or quarter you know up there
Speaker 1: their US user base, that that that would have a
Speaker 1: devastating impact on their financials because they're so dependent on
Speaker 1: the United States for for revenue. So fascinating to see
Speaker 1: what happens next. And you have to wonder if these
Speaker 1: companies aren't concerned about legal liability as well, if it
Speaker 1: can be proven that there was organization for some of
Speaker 1: the events on their platforms. Our thanks to you very
Speaker 1: much for joining us today. Mark Douglas is CEO of
Speaker 1: steel House marketing firm with a lot of experience in
Speaker 1: a social media marketing and so on. Interestingly, Paul Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Intelligence suggests that Twitter's advertising base will actually grow in
Speaker 1: spite of its ban on President Donald Trump right now,
Speaker 1: and we'll have to see if that's the case. Well
Speaker 1: at this time for Bloomberg Opinion, so let's welcome Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Opinion columnist Brooke Sutherland, who is a great opinion out
Speaker 1: about corporate America and how it responded to last Wednesday's events.
Speaker 1: You know, it's really interesting. Only one major business group,
Speaker 1: and that's the National Association of Manufacturers signaled the president
Speaker 1: out when they were denouncing what happened on Wednesday. Many
Speaker 1: many big companies from JP Morgan to Goldman Sachs dennounced
Speaker 1: the violence, but only this one group actually mentioned President
Speaker 1: Trump by name. Brook, You write about this because it's
Speaker 1: fascinating that it's it's a pretty conservative group that actually
Speaker 1: ended up doing this what led to the decision? Sure,
Speaker 1: and you know, I think we should say too that
Speaker 1: they didn't just call him out by name. They called
Speaker 1: for the Vice president and the cabinet to seriously consider
Speaker 1: removing President Trump from office with the twenty five Amendment.
Speaker 1: So this was a pretty incredible statement, um, for many
Speaker 1: business group, like you said, but especially from the National
Speaker 1: Association of Manufacturers, which has historically, you know, really aligned
Speaker 1: itself with conservative priorities. They advocated very aggressively for the
Speaker 1: Trump tax cuts in twenties seventeen, for example. But um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think for this group in particular, that
Speaker 1: the frustration level with the antics of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has been rising for months now. Um. You know, the
Speaker 1: head of this organization, uh labeled the protests over you know,
Speaker 1: the economic protection measures that were taken in the wake
Speaker 1: of the coronavirus m as idiots, saying that, you know,
Speaker 1: if we try to rush reopening the economy, that's going
Speaker 1: to be the detriment of everybody. Um. Also, you know,
Speaker 1: came up very strongly against the efforts by some Republicans
Speaker 1: in Congress to uh, you know, argue against the certification
Speaker 1: of the election results. And I think where this frustration
Speaker 1: stems from is that, you know, the reason why the
Speaker 1: National Association of Manufacturers has been aligned with Republicans is
Speaker 1: that they have tended to be the pro business party,
Speaker 1: that they've advocated policies that are good for businesses. And
Speaker 1: that has not necessarily been the case, um this past year.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you look at the handling of the
Speaker 1: coronavirus pandemic, and you know the fact that stimulus became
Speaker 1: such a political football, the fact that any kind of
Speaker 1: you know, aggressive progress on stimulus measures was sort of
Speaker 1: turned into a side show with this election narrative. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is not good for business. That is not what
Speaker 1: manufacturers were certainly hoping to see from a Republican party.
Speaker 1: And in Manufacturers Brooke, I mean, as you've written about before,
Speaker 1: they've actually, i mean they've really stepped up during this pandemic,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, Ford or General Motors, you know,
Speaker 1: making ventilators, or Boeing you know, making face shields. So
Speaker 1: they've really stepped up and and and and try to
Speaker 1: be part of the solution here. They really have I mean,
Speaker 1: it's been incredible. I know, you know, corporate America takes
Speaker 1: a lot of flack, and some of it is obviously
Speaker 1: very well deserved. But in this moment of need, we've
Speaker 1: seen manufacturers across the spectrum really step up. And that was,
Speaker 1: you know, in the crunch time of March and aprilogy
Speaker 1: reference these companies that you know, I've never made face shield,
Speaker 1: face masks, ventilators before stepping in and saying, okay, we
Speaker 1: have machinery that we're not using, how can we help.
Speaker 1: But then also you know, on the vaccine distributions front,
Speaker 1: you can't make vaccines without equipment from manufacturers. You can't
Speaker 1: distribute the vaccines without the logistics companies s FedEx and
Speaker 1: ups and so these companies have been working very, very
Speaker 1: hard to do whatever they can to try to get
Speaker 1: the economy back on track, to get steer us through
Speaker 1: this very unprecedented situation. And I don't know if those
Speaker 1: efforts have been fully appreciated by the federal government, which
Speaker 1: at times just seemed to be sort of floundering in
Speaker 1: its response effort um And like I said, you know
Speaker 1: that response effort has increasingly become sort of a sideshow
Speaker 1: to some of these more political considerations, and that's not
Speaker 1: good for business. Some companies have said that they will
Speaker 1: not donate any more to members of Congress who did
Speaker 1: try to overturn the election. Some have suggested that they
Speaker 1: won't donate to any political party, Goldman Sex in particular,
Speaker 1: saying that for the first gevil future, there will be
Speaker 1: no political donations. Are these bold moves on the part
Speaker 1: of our corporate titans? Brook? Uh? You know, I can't
Speaker 1: speak to the banks specifically, as they don't cover them
Speaker 1: as closely. I mean, I think time will tell how
Speaker 1: firmly they stick to these initiatives that are coming out now.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously this is a moment where it's easier
Speaker 1: to do something. Um Now, whether you know these that
Speaker 1: meantest daying power, I think is a question for a
Speaker 1: different day. It's my understanding this is a pretty light
Speaker 1: kime of year for political donations anyway. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think that obviously this is something that people care about,
Speaker 1: and I think that we're living in a moment where
Speaker 1: people are looking to corporate America to be more of
Speaker 1: a leader. Is that, you know, it's not an option
Speaker 1: anymore for these companies to stay silent when questions about,
Speaker 1: you know, the fundamental nature of our democracy are being raised,
Speaker 1: and so, you know, I think there has been some
Speaker 1: question about when we did get into the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: whether corporate America could sort of fade back into the
Speaker 1: background and if there wouldn't be quite as much pressure
Speaker 1: on these leaders to come out and make statements in
Speaker 1: the wake of events. And I think what we're seeing
Speaker 1: is evidence that that pressure is not going away, and
Speaker 1: that employees are going to want to work at places
Speaker 1: where their companies do take a stand um and so,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that's pressure for accountability is going
Speaker 1: to persist. Now, whether that actually translates into you know,
Speaker 1: where companies put their money, I think we have to
Speaker 1: wait and see. So, Brooke, you covered the industrial America
Speaker 1: manufacturing sector for a long time here. What do you
Speaker 1: think or how how are some of these industrial companies
Speaker 1: and trade organizations how are they viewing the incoming Biden administration. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think there was this narrative out there
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration is going to be bad for
Speaker 1: corporate American. I don't know if that's really true. I
Speaker 1: think when you sort of drill deeper down into the
Speaker 1: outcome of the election. Now that we do have, you know,
Speaker 1: a decision made on those two Georgia Senate seats, I
Speaker 1: think this could actually be a pretty good outcome for manufacturers.
Speaker 1: I mean, the big question mark is what happens on
Speaker 1: tax policy. And certainly, you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: US manufacturing companies that are heavily geared towards the domestic
Speaker 1: market and would you know, face repercussions from tax policy changes.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, you know, an infrastructure bill
Speaker 1: is obviously a boon to the manufacturing industry. And this
Speaker 1: is something that companies had hoped to see under a
Speaker 1: Trump administration and that did not happen in large part
Speaker 1: because Congressional Republicans were something of an obstacle to that.
Speaker 1: And so I think, you know, if you do as
Speaker 1: a unified government on the Democrats, that does pave the
Speaker 1: way for some sort of infrastructure spending down the road,
Speaker 1: which I think would be a real benefit to these companies.
Speaker 1: And you know, even in the shorter term, talking about
Speaker 1: coronavirus stimulus, that does seem to be a priority for
Speaker 1: this administration. That could be particularly helpful for the aerostates
Speaker 1: and defense industry, which of course is still struggling from
Speaker 1: the fallout of the pandemic. And you know, there was
Speaker 1: some additional stimulus that went to the airlines under the
Speaker 1: most recent build that was passed. But you know, some
Speaker 1: questions about getting the aerostas manufacturing industry in a place
Speaker 1: where it's stabler and stronger to be able to be
Speaker 1: in a position to respond to that demand when it
Speaker 1: does come back, would certainly be beneficial. Hey, brook thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. We appreciate chatting with
Speaker 1: you as always about all things coming out of Industrial America.
Speaker 1: Brooks Sutherland deals and industrials columns for Bloomberg Opinion. You
Speaker 1: can read Brooks work and all of the good work
Speaker 1: from our Bloomberg Opinion columns at Bloomberg dot com, Slash
Speaker 1: Opinion or O P I n Go on the Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 1: It's eating to see um industrial America. We've seen a
Speaker 1: manufacturing data bonnie pretty solid over the last four or
Speaker 1: five months, so the industrial part of the economy is
Speaker 1: doing pretty well, gearing up for what it expects to
Speaker 1: be a stronger back half of Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: at Apple Podcasts or whatever a podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm Bonnie Quinn, I'm on Twitter at Bonnie Quinn. And
Speaker 1: I'm Paul Sweeney. I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before
Speaker 1: the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio