WEBVTT - Zelenskiy Makes Historic Visit to Washington

0:00:01.840 --> 0:00:04.440
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carol Masser and I'm

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 1>Tim Stanevik. We're here every day bringing you the latest

0:00:06.840 --> 0:00:11.000
<v Speaker 1>news from the world's of business and finance, technology, politics, economics,

0:00:11.039 --> 0:00:14.040
<v Speaker 1>all harnessing the power of Business Week reporters and editors,

0:00:14.160 --> 0:00:17.000
<v Speaker 1>not to mention our journalists and analyst in more than

0:00:17.040 --> 0:00:21.160
<v Speaker 1>one twenty countries. You can download Bloomberg Business Week on iTunes, SoundCloud,

0:00:21.239 --> 0:00:23.320
<v Speaker 1>or Bloomberg dot com. You can also listen to our

0:00:23.360 --> 0:00:26.160
<v Speaker 1>radio show at two pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio

0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:30.600
<v Speaker 1>or stream us live on YouTube and Bloomberg dot Com. Alright,

0:00:30.680 --> 0:00:33.440
<v Speaker 1>let's get back to the news of the day. We're

0:00:33.479 --> 0:00:37.839
<v Speaker 1>going to talk about again Presidents Vladimir's Lensky's visit to

0:00:38.080 --> 0:00:39.640
<v Speaker 1>the White House. We're going to do that now with

0:00:39.760 --> 0:00:43.440
<v Speaker 1>Angela Stent. She is senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:46.279
<v Speaker 1>Joining us now and Angela, it's great to have you

0:00:46.800 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 1>with us. As we've walked through a few different times,

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:53.600
<v Speaker 1>this is President Zelinski's first trip outside of Ukraine in

0:00:53.800 --> 0:00:57.520
<v Speaker 1>three hundred days since the invasion. Walk us through, I

0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:01.520
<v Speaker 1>guess sort of the signal they put it into context

0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:04.800
<v Speaker 1>how important this trip is. Well, this is indeed a

0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:08.240
<v Speaker 1>historic trip. He hasn't left the country. He didn't go

0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:10.720
<v Speaker 1>to the G twenty. He's gone to know how he's

0:01:10.760 --> 0:01:14.080
<v Speaker 1>done everything by zoom. But I think he realizes it

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:16.840
<v Speaker 1>is very important to come to the United States. This

0:01:17.000 --> 0:01:20.240
<v Speaker 1>is a crucial period in this ongoing war. The Russians

0:01:20.280 --> 0:01:24.000
<v Speaker 1>aren't doing well on the battlefield that Ukrainians are doing

0:01:24.080 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 1>much better, but they're also being pummeled every day by

0:01:27.400 --> 0:01:31.040
<v Speaker 1>Russian attacks and losing your electricity and border and heat

0:01:31.080 --> 0:01:33.840
<v Speaker 1>and things like that. So he's coming to the United

0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:36.840
<v Speaker 1>States to thank the United States for everything that's done.

0:01:37.520 --> 0:01:41.000
<v Speaker 1>Without our weapons and our financial support, Ukraine probably wouldn't

0:01:41.000 --> 0:01:44.160
<v Speaker 1>be where it is now. UM too, I think make

0:01:44.200 --> 0:01:47.840
<v Speaker 1>sure when he talks to the Congress certainly that um

0:01:48.360 --> 0:01:51.440
<v Speaker 1>they understand that Ukraine still needs their help because there

0:01:51.520 --> 0:01:54.120
<v Speaker 1>is doubt about what's going to happen when the Republicans

0:01:54.160 --> 0:01:57.280
<v Speaker 1>take over the House. And I'm sure he also wants

0:01:57.320 --> 0:01:59.560
<v Speaker 1>to talk to the President. President Biden wants to talk

0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:02.760
<v Speaker 1>to him about how does this go from here? What

0:02:02.760 --> 0:02:05.720
<v Speaker 1>what does he envisage, UM is going to happen in

0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:08.800
<v Speaker 1>this war? UM, so a lot to talk about and

0:02:09.200 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 1>symbolically very important, you know, and I'm thinking about Vladimir

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.959
<v Speaker 1>Putin in Moscow where wherever he is right now watching

0:02:18.000 --> 0:02:22.440
<v Speaker 1>this meeting on TV. Obviously I would have to assume

0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:26.920
<v Speaker 1>this doesn't play well in Moscow. Does this risk sort

0:02:26.960 --> 0:02:31.240
<v Speaker 1>of a more aggressive retaliation type of thing from from

0:02:31.320 --> 0:02:35.640
<v Speaker 1>Vladimir Putin to to watch this meeting take place? Well, certainly.

0:02:35.680 --> 0:02:38.839
<v Speaker 1>His press secretary this morning said, you know, the more

0:02:38.880 --> 0:02:41.720
<v Speaker 1>assistance of the US gives, you know, the more the

0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:44.920
<v Speaker 1>risk of escalation there is. You know, we've been so

0:02:45.160 --> 0:02:48.040
<v Speaker 1>worried about escalation, and what we've seen the Russians do

0:02:48.160 --> 0:02:52.720
<v Speaker 1>clearly is with this indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, but

0:02:53.160 --> 0:02:57.679
<v Speaker 1>short of using a tactical nuclear weapon, which I think

0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the likelihood of that is not very great. Um, the

0:03:00.880 --> 0:03:03.760
<v Speaker 1>Russians want us to believe that they're going to escalate.

0:03:03.800 --> 0:03:07.240
<v Speaker 1>They want to intimidate the Ukrainians and the West into

0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 1>not doing more. But I'm not sure that this really

0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:13.320
<v Speaker 1>does risk very much more because as I said, the

0:03:13.360 --> 0:03:16.600
<v Speaker 1>Russians are not doing well on the battlefield. That yes,

0:03:16.680 --> 0:03:20.080
<v Speaker 1>they can continue to bomb these civilian targets, but they've

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 1>been doing that for the past few weeks. Anyway, Well, Ahula,

0:03:23.360 --> 0:03:25.639
<v Speaker 1>talk to us about that a little bit more. Sort

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:32.080
<v Speaker 1>of the Russian perspective, specifically, the Putin expects expectation when

0:03:32.280 --> 0:03:36.560
<v Speaker 1>he started this invasion three hundred days ago. Did he

0:03:36.600 --> 0:03:39.160
<v Speaker 1>have any idea or I don't know. Did he Do

0:03:39.560 --> 0:03:41.600
<v Speaker 1>you think that he thought we would be talking about

0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 1>this three hundred days later? Certainly not. He thought that

0:03:45.800 --> 0:03:47.880
<v Speaker 1>right that they be able to take key of in

0:03:48.000 --> 0:03:51.440
<v Speaker 1>three days and conquer the whole country. So I'm sure

0:03:51.440 --> 0:03:54.000
<v Speaker 1>he had, in his wildest dreams, didn't think that the

0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:57.320
<v Speaker 1>war would be going on. Because they totally underestimated the

0:03:57.440 --> 0:04:00.360
<v Speaker 1>Ukrainians ability and will to fight back, and they have

0:04:00.640 --> 0:04:05.320
<v Speaker 1>underestimated Western solidarity. They didn't think the US, we're back

0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:08.440
<v Speaker 1>and it's European. Our eyes were back Ukraine the way

0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:11.640
<v Speaker 1>it has so I think from their perspective, um this

0:04:11.640 --> 0:04:15.920
<v Speaker 1>this was unexpected. The Russians now portrayed this war as

0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:19.080
<v Speaker 1>a proxy war between Russia and the West. They see

0:04:19.120 --> 0:04:22.560
<v Speaker 1>this as a war between them and primarily the United States.

0:04:22.720 --> 0:04:25.080
<v Speaker 1>That's not how we see it. It's a war between

0:04:25.160 --> 0:04:28.159
<v Speaker 1>Russia and Ukraine, and we're helping support the Ukrainians. But

0:04:28.279 --> 0:04:31.200
<v Speaker 1>this is really feeding in through the narrative that Foodin

0:04:31.320 --> 0:04:33.960
<v Speaker 1>is telling the Russian public that this is really the

0:04:34.080 --> 0:04:38.479
<v Speaker 1>USS is guilty here, you know, Angela, I know, uh,

0:04:38.800 --> 0:04:43.159
<v Speaker 1>President Zelinski is in DC's mainly to get more weapons

0:04:43.320 --> 0:04:45.920
<v Speaker 1>in the fight against Russia. But boy, as I think

0:04:45.960 --> 0:04:50.919
<v Speaker 1>of that cold winter approaching and really already here in Ukraine,

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>we talk to us a little bit about what that

0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:56.720
<v Speaker 1>winter is going to look like for Ukraine this year

0:04:56.760 --> 0:04:59.320
<v Speaker 1>and is there anything uh, the US can do to

0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:02.120
<v Speaker 1>to help them on out front. Well, I mean, it's

0:05:02.160 --> 0:05:04.919
<v Speaker 1>going to be a very cold, dark winter, whatever the

0:05:04.920 --> 0:05:07.280
<v Speaker 1>temperatures are. I mean, they're people who have already been

0:05:07.320 --> 0:05:12.120
<v Speaker 1>existing without heat, without electricity, and without running water in

0:05:12.279 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>cities and in rural areas too. But all the more

0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:19.880
<v Speaker 1>that the Russians bomb them, the more that that strengthens

0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:22.560
<v Speaker 1>the will of the Ukrainian people to resist Russia. But

0:05:22.640 --> 0:05:26.680
<v Speaker 1>it's obviously very, very difficult to live under those circumstances.

0:05:26.720 --> 0:05:29.159
<v Speaker 1>So what the US can do is I think we've

0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:33.480
<v Speaker 1>given them some assistance in trying to repair their electricity

0:05:33.520 --> 0:05:37.560
<v Speaker 1>grid and things like that, but by providing them with weapons,

0:05:37.560 --> 0:05:39.640
<v Speaker 1>and we now have announced that we will give them

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:43.720
<v Speaker 1>the Patriot missile. This is a defensive system to shoot

0:05:43.760 --> 0:05:46.960
<v Speaker 1>back the Russian missiles. The more that we can provide

0:05:47.000 --> 0:05:50.920
<v Speaker 1>them with the weapon we to deflect Russian attacks, then

0:05:51.720 --> 0:05:55.760
<v Speaker 1>the less they will in fact lose their electricity uh,

0:05:55.800 --> 0:05:59.799
<v Speaker 1>and the less their infrastructure will be damaged by the Russians.

0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:02.719
<v Speaker 1>So it takes a few weeks to train people to

0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:06.000
<v Speaker 1>use these systems, but hopefully in a few weeks time

0:06:06.440 --> 0:06:09.600
<v Speaker 1>that will help. Well, that's you hit on what I've

0:06:09.600 --> 0:06:13.039
<v Speaker 1>been wondering. So we're we're providing support in the form

0:06:13.080 --> 0:06:17.599
<v Speaker 1>of weapons, but as you mentioned, that requires training as well.

0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:21.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean, is the US providing that training? Yes, it is,

0:06:22.400 --> 0:06:25.800
<v Speaker 1>will be training the Ukrainians I think probably at our

0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:30.839
<v Speaker 1>airport base in Germany, um and uh, and that's where

0:06:30.880 --> 0:06:33.880
<v Speaker 1>they'll receive the training. Edgella. How do you see this

0:06:33.920 --> 0:06:36.600
<v Speaker 1>all ending? I mean, is there any world in which

0:06:36.960 --> 0:06:41.279
<v Speaker 1>Vladimir Putin just concedes defeat and walks out of Ukraine?

0:06:41.320 --> 0:06:45.640
<v Speaker 1>I assume not. But how does this resolve itself? Well,

0:06:45.680 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 1>it's really unclear. This is a war that could go

0:06:47.760 --> 0:06:50.120
<v Speaker 1>on for a long time. The Russians are digging their

0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:53.880
<v Speaker 1>heels and Putin's view is the longer uh, this war

0:06:54.000 --> 0:06:56.640
<v Speaker 1>goes on, the more likely it is that either the

0:06:56.760 --> 0:06:59.599
<v Speaker 1>Ukrainian people will say, we've had enough of this weekend,

0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:02.279
<v Speaker 1>live like this anymore, let's sit down at the table

0:07:02.320 --> 0:07:05.440
<v Speaker 1>and make concessions UM. And the same with the Europeans

0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:09.239
<v Speaker 1>who are also suffering from high gasoline prices and and

0:07:09.240 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 1>and problems also with the supply of electricity and things

0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:15.320
<v Speaker 1>like that, UM as a result of the sanctions by

0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:17.720
<v Speaker 1>the way that we've imposted on Russia. And so they're

0:07:17.760 --> 0:07:21.040
<v Speaker 1>hoping that he's hoping that the Europeans will say, maybe

0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:23.400
<v Speaker 1>we have to rethink what we're doing, and the same

0:07:23.440 --> 0:07:26.880
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. That's why President Zelinski is going

0:07:26.880 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 1>to the Congress. You know, you have a lot of

0:07:28.840 --> 0:07:31.960
<v Speaker 1>skeptics among the Republican Party who are questioning why the

0:07:32.080 --> 0:07:36.040
<v Speaker 1>U should continue supporting Ukraine like that, So that that

0:07:36.200 --> 0:07:38.240
<v Speaker 1>part of Prutin's game plan is to wait for the

0:07:38.280 --> 0:07:42.520
<v Speaker 1>Western resolved to collapse UM and then force the Ukrainians

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>to make these concessions. It doesn't look likely at the

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:48.280
<v Speaker 1>moment that the Ukrainians are going to do this. Blutin

0:07:48.560 --> 0:07:52.960
<v Speaker 1>will never accept defeat, but in theory he could certainly

0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:57.520
<v Speaker 1>um UH present this as some kind of a game

0:07:57.560 --> 0:08:01.080
<v Speaker 1>for Russia if Russia's taking taken the little bit more territory,

0:08:01.640 --> 0:08:04.360
<v Speaker 1>but he doesn't prepared to do that at the moment.

0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:08.560
<v Speaker 1>And Angela, you hit on an important point this this

0:08:08.760 --> 0:08:13.120
<v Speaker 1>Republican opposition when you're you're looking at, uh, what's happening

0:08:13.320 --> 0:08:17.280
<v Speaker 1>on on US shores. And of course President Zelinski is

0:08:17.320 --> 0:08:20.800
<v Speaker 1>set to address Congress later today, and we've been having

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:23.040
<v Speaker 1>this conversation. You think about Matt Gates, you think about

0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:26.880
<v Speaker 1>Marjorie Taylor Green, their their opposition to the fact that

0:08:26.920 --> 0:08:30.920
<v Speaker 1>the US is providing any aid at all to Ukraine.

0:08:31.040 --> 0:08:34.800
<v Speaker 1>Is there anything in your view that that the President

0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:37.760
<v Speaker 1>of Ukraine could say tonight in front of Congress that

0:08:37.840 --> 0:08:42.200
<v Speaker 1>would shift sentiment. Well, I'm sure that he's not going

0:08:42.280 --> 0:08:44.000
<v Speaker 1>to be able to change the mind of people like

0:08:44.040 --> 0:08:48.400
<v Speaker 1>Marjorie Kayla Green. UM. But I think apparently he is

0:08:48.440 --> 0:08:52.560
<v Speaker 1>going to meet them after the speech separately with Republican

0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:55.720
<v Speaker 1>and Democratic leadership. UM. And I think what he's trying

0:08:55.720 --> 0:08:58.600
<v Speaker 1>to do probably is to shore up people like uh,

0:08:58.760 --> 0:09:01.719
<v Speaker 1>Mitch mcconnells and image will common people like that, who

0:09:01.760 --> 0:09:05.760
<v Speaker 1>in fact is still very much in favor of supporting Ukraine.

0:09:05.800 --> 0:09:08.760
<v Speaker 1>We shouldn't forget that until now, Ukraine has been one

0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:11.679
<v Speaker 1>of the few issues on which there's been bipars In

0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:16.520
<v Speaker 1>agreement UM in Congress to support it. So I think

0:09:16.559 --> 0:09:19.760
<v Speaker 1>those people will be his targets. Um. I I read

0:09:19.800 --> 0:09:21.640
<v Speaker 1>somewhere that he might be meeting with some of the

0:09:21.760 --> 0:09:24.680
<v Speaker 1>Round Paul. Now, Round Paul is an extreme skeptic on this,

0:09:25.040 --> 0:09:29.160
<v Speaker 1>so I have no idea whether that would change his mind. Actela,

0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:31.920
<v Speaker 1>Just so our listeners have a sense of of why

0:09:31.960 --> 0:09:34.040
<v Speaker 1>you know so much about this top topic, talk to

0:09:34.120 --> 0:09:37.679
<v Speaker 1>us about your book about Vladimir Putin for a little bit, right, So,

0:09:38.000 --> 0:09:41.560
<v Speaker 1>I've published a book called Putin's World, um. And in

0:09:41.600 --> 0:09:44.560
<v Speaker 1>that book I look at Russia's relations both and the

0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:48.440
<v Speaker 1>subtitles Russia against the West and with the Rest um.

0:09:48.559 --> 0:09:52.400
<v Speaker 1>And in that book, I certainly look at why Russia's

0:09:52.400 --> 0:09:56.000
<v Speaker 1>relations with the West have deteriorated so much, um in

0:09:56.040 --> 0:09:58.400
<v Speaker 1>the last few years under Putin. But why the rest

0:09:58.440 --> 0:10:01.640
<v Speaker 1>of the world, much of the US of the World, China, India,

0:10:01.920 --> 0:10:04.840
<v Speaker 1>the other Bricks countries, much as the Middle East, Africa

0:10:04.920 --> 0:10:08.400
<v Speaker 1>and Latin America. All of those countries right have not

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:12.240
<v Speaker 1>condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, have not imposed

0:10:12.280 --> 0:10:16.280
<v Speaker 1>sanctions on it because Putin is very carefully cultivated relations

0:10:16.320 --> 0:10:20.200
<v Speaker 1>with these non Western countries, um and that's really paying

0:10:20.200 --> 0:10:22.720
<v Speaker 1>off for him. And that's why, you know, when we

0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:25.080
<v Speaker 1>look at this, President Biden said at the beginning of

0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:29.040
<v Speaker 1>the wars will be a Pooria. It's a Polia in

0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:31.200
<v Speaker 1>the West, but it's not a prior in the rest

0:10:31.240 --> 0:10:34.520
<v Speaker 1>of the world. Angela really appreciate your time. That is

0:10:34.600 --> 0:10:38.480
<v Speaker 1>Angela stant She is senior fellow at the Brookings Institution,

0:10:38.800 --> 0:10:41.199
<v Speaker 1>and as she said, she's the author of Putin's World,

0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Russia's Russia against the West end with the rest. Really

0:10:45.520 --> 0:10:50.480
<v Speaker 1>appreciate your time. As we watch President Vladimir Zelinsky's trip

0:10:50.679 --> 0:10:55.760
<v Speaker 1>to the US, this is Bloomberg Business Week. These sees

0:10:55.840 --> 0:11:00.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Tim stinebec on

0:11:00.440 --> 0:11:04.400
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Radio. We were just talking about President Biden's meeting

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:08.560
<v Speaker 1>with President Zelinski. Later today, Attorney General Merrick Garland will

0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:12.120
<v Speaker 1>join a meeting with the two. According to Bloomberg reporting,

0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:14.760
<v Speaker 1>that's because the d J has played a key role

0:11:14.800 --> 0:11:18.960
<v Speaker 1>in enforcing some of the sanctions against Russia, which leads

0:11:19.080 --> 0:11:21.720
<v Speaker 1>nicely to one of the stories on the terminal today

0:11:21.880 --> 0:11:24.800
<v Speaker 1>it's in the business Week magazine, the headline of which

0:11:24.920 --> 0:11:28.720
<v Speaker 1>is Russia and Iran are building a trade route that

0:11:28.800 --> 0:11:32.600
<v Speaker 1>defies those sanctions. Let's talk about it with Bloomberg business

0:11:32.600 --> 0:11:36.120
<v Speaker 1>Week editor Joel Weber and business Week Global Economics editor

0:11:36.280 --> 0:11:40.200
<v Speaker 1>Christina Lynde Blad. They joined us both now, and Joel,

0:11:40.360 --> 0:11:43.600
<v Speaker 1>it's a big important story again as we watch what's

0:11:43.600 --> 0:11:47.079
<v Speaker 1>happening in Washington, d C. With the Ukrainian president here

0:11:47.200 --> 0:11:50.959
<v Speaker 1>on us. Doyle, Yeah, it seems like a pretty well

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:53.559
<v Speaker 1>time story and very much adjacent to sort of the

0:11:53.880 --> 0:11:58.800
<v Speaker 1>bigger geopolitical tensions and and what this story um digs

0:11:58.840 --> 0:12:02.600
<v Speaker 1>into was honestly like just it's a you gotta read

0:12:02.640 --> 0:12:05.240
<v Speaker 1>this thing either on your phone or or in the

0:12:05.280 --> 0:12:09.200
<v Speaker 1>magazine or online so that you can see what this

0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:12.720
<v Speaker 1>this this trade corridor is starting to look like. And

0:12:13.120 --> 0:12:15.960
<v Speaker 1>really what Russia and Iran are trying to do here

0:12:16.200 --> 0:12:21.640
<v Speaker 1>is find a synergistic um relationship that can actually be

0:12:21.640 --> 0:12:25.520
<v Speaker 1>behind the lines, UH so that things like ports that

0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:29.760
<v Speaker 1>and that rely on other other UH partners can't be

0:12:30.160 --> 0:12:33.800
<v Speaker 1>affected by sanctions. And so they've really come up with, UH,

0:12:33.920 --> 0:12:38.000
<v Speaker 1>there's an existing infrastructure, but then they have very ambitious

0:12:38.080 --> 0:12:41.440
<v Speaker 1>plans to expand. What that looks like, Christina, how ambitious

0:12:41.440 --> 0:12:44.199
<v Speaker 1>and what do they need to accomplish? Well, they are

0:12:44.240 --> 0:12:48.120
<v Speaker 1>planning to invest about twenty five billion dollars and that

0:12:48.320 --> 0:12:52.800
<v Speaker 1>is in widening and upgrading some part, like you said,

0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:57.240
<v Speaker 1>some parts of existing infrastructure, like the Sea of Azov,

0:12:57.400 --> 0:13:00.280
<v Speaker 1>which is the distinction of being the shallowest in the

0:13:00.320 --> 0:13:03.520
<v Speaker 1>world that needs to be dredged in parts. Uh, there's

0:13:03.559 --> 0:13:07.319
<v Speaker 1>a canal linking the Don and the Volga rivers um

0:13:07.520 --> 0:13:10.720
<v Speaker 1>also very narrow in parts and has sort of traffic

0:13:10.800 --> 0:13:16.000
<v Speaker 1>jams there. We're seeing Iranian ships um beginning to move

0:13:16.120 --> 0:13:18.959
<v Speaker 1>through these waterways. So what they're creating basically is this

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:24.040
<v Speaker 1>internal I'm inland corridor rather which UM where it's more

0:13:24.120 --> 0:13:27.800
<v Speaker 1>difficult to scrutinize what kind of cargo is going through

0:13:29.000 --> 0:13:33.760
<v Speaker 1>and where where does the trade currently begin and where's

0:13:33.840 --> 0:13:38.520
<v Speaker 1>the ideal endpoint currently And then also in their in

0:13:38.520 --> 0:13:41.240
<v Speaker 1>their plans right so right now this the CEO as

0:13:41.280 --> 0:13:43.560
<v Speaker 1>of which is right north of the Black Sea. Most

0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:46.720
<v Speaker 1>people don't even I think you know, probably didn't do

0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:49.880
<v Speaker 1>it in geography and high school. UM. And then the

0:13:50.000 --> 0:13:53.360
<v Speaker 1>terminus would be on the Indian Ocean because India is

0:13:53.400 --> 0:13:57.160
<v Speaker 1>a key part of also what while not making huge

0:13:57.160 --> 0:13:59.720
<v Speaker 1>investments compared to other partners, it is that it is

0:14:00.040 --> 0:14:04.520
<v Speaker 1>part of this um of this corridor because already we're

0:14:04.559 --> 0:14:07.920
<v Speaker 1>seeing UM. For example, Russia was a shipment of Russian

0:14:07.960 --> 0:14:11.600
<v Speaker 1>grain that transited through Iran on its way to India

0:14:11.640 --> 0:14:17.520
<v Speaker 1>this year, and how busy is it currently. UM. We

0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:22.320
<v Speaker 1>analyzed I'm sorry about the noise. We analyzed UM some

0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:26.800
<v Speaker 1>data on ship movements and we saw we were able

0:14:26.840 --> 0:14:32.040
<v Speaker 1>to track a couple of dozen ships from Iran and

0:14:32.040 --> 0:14:35.160
<v Speaker 1>and Russia that are already using the waterway. Some of

0:14:35.160 --> 0:14:39.720
<v Speaker 1>those vessels are sanctioned, but there is in complete data.

0:14:39.760 --> 0:14:43.680
<v Speaker 1>So but that's what we were able to establish. You know, Christina,

0:14:43.760 --> 0:14:47.320
<v Speaker 1>when I think of both Iran and Russia and their

0:14:47.400 --> 0:14:49.240
<v Speaker 1>trade with the rest of the world, all I can

0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:52.080
<v Speaker 1>think about is is oil and energy. So I'm curious,

0:14:52.160 --> 0:14:55.400
<v Speaker 1>what will these two nations be trading back and forth.

0:14:55.440 --> 0:14:58.280
<v Speaker 1>I assume it's not a big oil relationship. What are

0:14:58.320 --> 0:15:01.280
<v Speaker 1>some of the items that will be going pores? Well,

0:15:01.280 --> 0:15:04.000
<v Speaker 1>you're right, great on oil products was the foundation of

0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:07.480
<v Speaker 1>the existing trade. But they've signed a bunch of deals

0:15:07.480 --> 0:15:11.080
<v Speaker 1>this year and they're trying to expand you know two

0:15:11.160 --> 0:15:16.360
<v Speaker 1>into like polymers, medical supply, auto parts. So we saw

0:15:16.440 --> 0:15:19.920
<v Speaker 1>for example already that trade in the first eight months

0:15:19.920 --> 0:15:23.520
<v Speaker 1>of the year doubled between Russia and Iran, and there

0:15:23.560 --> 0:15:28.160
<v Speaker 1>are forecasts from Russian sources saying it could go to

0:15:28.200 --> 0:15:30.640
<v Speaker 1>as high as forty billion dollars a year if the

0:15:30.720 --> 0:15:35.280
<v Speaker 1>two countries wrap up a free trade agreement. And so Christina,

0:15:35.320 --> 0:15:38.120
<v Speaker 1>if the aim here is or one of the aims

0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:42.120
<v Speaker 1>is to build sort of a sanctioned proof trade route,

0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:44.680
<v Speaker 1>what has the response been from around the world. What

0:15:44.840 --> 0:15:48.400
<v Speaker 1>is the US, for example, how to say about this. Well,

0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:53.480
<v Speaker 1>the US UM envoys, um U s officials rather are

0:15:53.520 --> 0:15:56.960
<v Speaker 1>already very concerned that some of the trade going through

0:15:57.040 --> 0:16:01.480
<v Speaker 1>right now is arms from Iran traveling to Russia, and

0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:05.840
<v Speaker 1>they're basically putting the world on notice that you know

0:16:06.520 --> 0:16:10.000
<v Speaker 1>that um they want to crack down on that kind

0:16:10.080 --> 0:16:14.040
<v Speaker 1>of commerce, and also that other countries that that sort

0:16:14.080 --> 0:16:18.520
<v Speaker 1>of aid in this effort, in this larger effort, you know,

0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:22.400
<v Speaker 1>will also be sanctioned. So that could be a concern

0:16:22.560 --> 0:16:25.240
<v Speaker 1>for countries like India if they want to participate in

0:16:25.280 --> 0:16:29.240
<v Speaker 1>this corridor. Okay, So that that speaks to you know,

0:16:29.360 --> 0:16:33.840
<v Speaker 1>how the US and and uh its allies could actually

0:16:34.000 --> 0:16:36.960
<v Speaker 1>try and pinch this. What what options do they have

0:16:37.040 --> 0:16:41.320
<v Speaker 1>to exert influence and try and uh you know, dial

0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:46.880
<v Speaker 1>down what's possible here to exert influence with the other

0:16:47.000 --> 0:16:49.880
<v Speaker 1>with others, like with allies, to make sure that the

0:16:49.960 --> 0:16:53.520
<v Speaker 1>corridor is you know, trafficked, not as much as the

0:16:53.640 --> 0:16:56.680
<v Speaker 1>Uranians and Russians would like. Well, I mean, like I said,

0:16:56.680 --> 0:16:59.160
<v Speaker 1>if they I mean, if they could they could say,

0:16:59.160 --> 0:17:02.640
<v Speaker 1>if they would say action for example Indian buyers of

0:17:02.800 --> 0:17:05.800
<v Speaker 1>Russian wheat that was going through the corridor, that's I mean,

0:17:05.880 --> 0:17:09.359
<v Speaker 1>they haven't spoken exactly with that kind of detail, but

0:17:09.400 --> 0:17:13.440
<v Speaker 1>they basically said, you know, you know, if we find

0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:17.640
<v Speaker 1>that countries are trading with these nations, we will they

0:17:17.640 --> 0:17:21.240
<v Speaker 1>will be targets of sanctions to I mean. The difficulty

0:17:21.359 --> 0:17:25.679
<v Speaker 1>is that it's much harder to track, um, you know,

0:17:25.800 --> 0:17:29.520
<v Speaker 1>cargoes going through this inland corridor than it would be

0:17:29.640 --> 0:17:33.880
<v Speaker 1>in the open sea. Um. For one thing, the vessels

0:17:34.119 --> 0:17:38.720
<v Speaker 1>are generally smaller because you know, these waters aren't as deep,

0:17:38.840 --> 0:17:41.280
<v Speaker 1>so there's going to be more, you know, more traffic

0:17:41.320 --> 0:17:44.959
<v Speaker 1>to get the same amount of goods across. I mean,

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:48.560
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna ask that about Christina about the ships involved

0:17:48.600 --> 0:17:52.159
<v Speaker 1>in this um you know, presumably these are just Iranian

0:17:52.440 --> 0:17:54.920
<v Speaker 1>and Russian ships there are they sort of cutting out

0:17:54.920 --> 0:17:58.120
<v Speaker 1>the global shipping industry more or less. That's I mean,

0:17:58.160 --> 0:18:00.760
<v Speaker 1>from what we've been able to gather. Yet that's mostly

0:18:01.840 --> 0:18:04.720
<v Speaker 1>what they are because you know, ships need. For example,

0:18:05.280 --> 0:18:08.480
<v Speaker 1>Russia has been working uh and you know, to give

0:18:08.560 --> 0:18:12.080
<v Speaker 1>Iranian ships, you know, right of passage through its rivers

0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:15.760
<v Speaker 1>and canals. So so you know, Russia control some of

0:18:15.800 --> 0:18:19.520
<v Speaker 1>these waterways, so not any country can go through and

0:18:19.560 --> 0:18:23.040
<v Speaker 1>talk about India role here. Sorry to cut you off, Shoal,

0:18:23.160 --> 0:18:25.560
<v Speaker 1>but when we think about this route that's being built

0:18:25.560 --> 0:18:28.960
<v Speaker 1>between Russia and Iran, how does India factor in? Well,

0:18:29.000 --> 0:18:33.400
<v Speaker 1>India has made an investment in an Iranian port um,

0:18:33.600 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 1>but it pre dates it's been you know, the work

0:18:36.880 --> 0:18:40.320
<v Speaker 1>there has been lagging for many years, so um, it

0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:43.679
<v Speaker 1>wasn't done. I don't think with any kind of larger

0:18:43.760 --> 0:18:46.359
<v Speaker 1>vision of what was going to happen in terms of

0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:48.960
<v Speaker 1>how these two countries were going to try to you know,

0:18:49.080 --> 0:18:51.640
<v Speaker 1>turn so much towards you know, rushing around towards each

0:18:51.680 --> 0:18:55.439
<v Speaker 1>other and try to accelerate plans for building this route.

0:18:55.680 --> 0:18:58.600
<v Speaker 1>But generally there has been an effort underway for at

0:18:58.640 --> 0:19:02.040
<v Speaker 1>least a decade to sort of together countries in Eurasia

0:19:02.160 --> 0:19:05.280
<v Speaker 1>closer together, and so India was going to be part

0:19:05.359 --> 0:19:10.400
<v Speaker 1>of that in some form. I wonder actually the evolution

0:19:10.440 --> 0:19:15.280
<v Speaker 1>of the brick relationships to write like if you if

0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:18.680
<v Speaker 1>you can reach uh Asia a little bit here, maybe

0:19:18.720 --> 0:19:22.040
<v Speaker 1>even South Africa through this these terminus, you start to

0:19:22.040 --> 0:19:24.600
<v Speaker 1>actually see that this could be I mean this this

0:19:24.680 --> 0:19:27.120
<v Speaker 1>is kind of the US nightmare. I think actually, like

0:19:27.160 --> 0:19:30.320
<v Speaker 1>if they can actually stitch together a trade corridor that's

0:19:30.320 --> 0:19:32.960
<v Speaker 1>sort of behind the namy lines, like you really you

0:19:33.000 --> 0:19:34.960
<v Speaker 1>might not be able to touch it that effectively, right,

0:19:35.119 --> 0:19:37.679
<v Speaker 1>That's right, that's right. I mean it also shows I mean,

0:19:37.720 --> 0:19:40.159
<v Speaker 1>I think one of the things we've been tracking all years,

0:19:40.320 --> 0:19:43.960
<v Speaker 1>it's just to to look at how supply lines, you know,

0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:47.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean, rather supply chains are changing as a result

0:19:47.640 --> 0:19:50.960
<v Speaker 1>of geopolitics. You know. So we've seen a bit through

0:19:51.119 --> 0:19:55.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, near shoring and so called French shoring. But this,

0:19:55.160 --> 0:19:57.679
<v Speaker 1>this to me actually was a story that I hadn't

0:19:57.720 --> 0:20:02.320
<v Speaker 1>heard that much about, so I was very did all right,

0:20:02.400 --> 0:20:06.520
<v Speaker 1>it's a great story from Bloomberg Business Week, that is

0:20:06.640 --> 0:20:10.639
<v Speaker 1>Russia and Iran are building a trade route that defies sanctions.

0:20:10.680 --> 0:20:14.480
<v Speaker 1>Those nations investing upwards of twenty billion dollars to ease

0:20:14.520 --> 0:20:18.679
<v Speaker 1>the passage of goods along those waterways and those railways.

0:20:18.800 --> 0:20:24.200
<v Speaker 1>A very timely conversation again as our Ukrainian President Vlodomir

0:20:24.359 --> 0:20:28.480
<v Speaker 1>Zelinsky visits US soil for the first time, first trip

0:20:28.520 --> 0:20:32.160
<v Speaker 1>outside the country since that war started over three hundred

0:20:32.440 --> 0:20:35.320
<v Speaker 1>days ago. Thank you to Bloomberg business Week editor Joel

0:20:35.359 --> 0:20:39.720
<v Speaker 1>Weber and Business Week Global Economics Editor Christina Lynn Blad.

0:20:40.119 --> 0:20:43.399
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messier and

0:20:43.480 --> 0:20:47.520
<v Speaker 1>Tim Stenebeck on Bloomberg Radio. Well. One of the defining

0:20:47.600 --> 0:20:52.280
<v Speaker 1>features of the economy in two, other than super hot inflation,

0:20:52.600 --> 0:20:55.560
<v Speaker 1>it's been a super strong labor market. The unemployment rate

0:20:55.600 --> 0:20:59.960
<v Speaker 1>came in at three point seven percent in November. Let's

0:21:00.000 --> 0:21:02.760
<v Speaker 1>talk about what the next year holds with Julia Poll

0:21:02.800 --> 0:21:06.359
<v Speaker 1>Actually is cheap economist over at ZIP recruiter. She joins

0:21:06.440 --> 0:21:09.760
<v Speaker 1>us now on zoom from Los Angeles. Julia, It's great

0:21:09.760 --> 0:21:12.720
<v Speaker 1>to get some time with you as we wrap up two.

0:21:12.840 --> 0:21:15.840
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk about the labor market. In three. Do we

0:21:15.920 --> 0:21:19.440
<v Speaker 1>get above four percent inflation or are we gonna stay

0:21:19.480 --> 0:21:24.440
<v Speaker 1>resilient here. Unemployment, I mean unemployment. It's been a long year.

0:21:25.280 --> 0:21:31.480
<v Speaker 1>The FED is predicting four points six unemployment in four

0:21:31.920 --> 0:21:34.119
<v Speaker 1>but it's somewhat hard to see how that will happen

0:21:34.200 --> 0:21:37.520
<v Speaker 1>given the strength of the US consumer right now. We're

0:21:37.560 --> 0:21:41.679
<v Speaker 1>still seeing consumers with with plenty of runway left, with

0:21:41.840 --> 0:21:44.840
<v Speaker 1>very low debt service payments as a share of disposal income,

0:21:45.359 --> 0:21:49.199
<v Speaker 1>and with very low delinquencies. And here's the most important

0:21:49.240 --> 0:21:51.160
<v Speaker 1>thing that's going to happen in the next year. Workers

0:21:51.160 --> 0:21:53.440
<v Speaker 1>are going to see a real wage increase, and that's

0:21:53.480 --> 0:21:56.399
<v Speaker 1>because inflation is coming down more quickly than wage growth,

0:21:56.720 --> 0:22:00.560
<v Speaker 1>and so actually their purchasing power could expand, and I

0:22:00.600 --> 0:22:05.879
<v Speaker 1>think that will fuel strong, UH sustained, robust employment growth

0:22:06.080 --> 0:22:10.600
<v Speaker 1>despite some of the predictions. Well, Julia, clearly I have

0:22:10.840 --> 0:22:13.919
<v Speaker 1>inflation on my mind. So let's talk about that a

0:22:14.000 --> 0:22:17.320
<v Speaker 1>little bit. Sort of the link between inflation and what

0:22:17.359 --> 0:22:21.600
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing in the labor market wrapped those two together,

0:22:21.680 --> 0:22:24.600
<v Speaker 1>are there is what does that relationship look like in

0:22:24.640 --> 0:22:29.200
<v Speaker 1>this moment? Does one depend on the other. So the

0:22:29.240 --> 0:22:33.160
<v Speaker 1>imbalances in the labor market are a key contributing factor

0:22:33.240 --> 0:22:35.840
<v Speaker 1>to inflation, and they are a reason that we have

0:22:36.040 --> 0:22:41.720
<v Speaker 1>seen UH inflation spread across the goods in the CPI basket,

0:22:42.080 --> 0:22:46.800
<v Speaker 1>UH move out of energy and and food and areas

0:22:46.840 --> 0:22:50.000
<v Speaker 1>like that where supply chain issues were to blame initially

0:22:50.440 --> 0:22:53.919
<v Speaker 1>UH and into core services now. But what we know

0:22:54.040 --> 0:22:57.480
<v Speaker 1>is that that the FEDS actions are taking effect. We

0:22:57.520 --> 0:23:02.360
<v Speaker 1>can see inflation coming down now UH and UM real

0:23:02.359 --> 0:23:05.399
<v Speaker 1>time sort of market rents, for example, real time private

0:23:05.400 --> 0:23:10.040
<v Speaker 1>sector data suggests that there's more cooling ahead. We also

0:23:10.080 --> 0:23:12.359
<v Speaker 1>know that when inflation comes down, it doesn't mean that

0:23:12.400 --> 0:23:14.800
<v Speaker 1>wage growth comes down right away either. They have actually

0:23:14.800 --> 0:23:17.959
<v Speaker 1>been pretty long periods in history of real wage growth

0:23:18.600 --> 0:23:22.879
<v Speaker 1>because wages are much stickier than than than prices of

0:23:22.960 --> 0:23:26.080
<v Speaker 1>goods and services. And so what we could see this

0:23:26.160 --> 0:23:31.680
<v Speaker 1>year is that after seeing their purchasing power erode in two,

0:23:31.880 --> 0:23:35.600
<v Speaker 1>workers could now actually finally get a real wage increase

0:23:35.920 --> 0:23:39.520
<v Speaker 1>as they have been doing over the past five months. Actually,

0:23:39.600 --> 0:23:42.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm wondering how you think we got to this situation

0:23:42.920 --> 0:23:45.800
<v Speaker 1>we're in now, with the imbalances you're you're talking about.

0:23:45.840 --> 0:23:49.160
<v Speaker 1>You know, the Jolts Job Survey job opening survey still

0:23:49.160 --> 0:23:52.720
<v Speaker 1>shows something like ten million job openings in the US,

0:23:52.800 --> 0:23:56.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, way off the charts compared to pre COVID.

0:23:56.400 --> 0:24:00.760
<v Speaker 1>Why is the job market still so hot in your opinion, Well,

0:24:00.840 --> 0:24:04.760
<v Speaker 1>initially it was because employers rushed back into the market

0:24:05.040 --> 0:24:09.160
<v Speaker 1>and demand returned much more quickly than labor supply. Many

0:24:09.200 --> 0:24:12.960
<v Speaker 1>of the people who left the labor market initially, who

0:24:12.960 --> 0:24:16.600
<v Speaker 1>were displaced to our older workers, just felt it wasn't

0:24:16.600 --> 0:24:20.199
<v Speaker 1>worth the effort to reskill and and come back. And

0:24:20.240 --> 0:24:23.040
<v Speaker 1>so we we've seen many more people retire than would

0:24:23.040 --> 0:24:26.160
<v Speaker 1>have been the case without the pandemic. Um. We also

0:24:26.240 --> 0:24:29.760
<v Speaker 1>are kind of returning to the pre pandemic downward, trimmed

0:24:29.960 --> 0:24:33.159
<v Speaker 1>in labor force participation that that's driven by an aging

0:24:33.160 --> 0:24:37.199
<v Speaker 1>population and retiring a set of boomers now um. And

0:24:37.240 --> 0:24:40.360
<v Speaker 1>then finally, you know, immigration fell off a cliff. UH.

0:24:40.480 --> 0:24:44.520
<v Speaker 1>Embassies and consulates were closed around the world and UH,

0:24:44.560 --> 0:24:47.520
<v Speaker 1>and immigration had been falling even before the pandemic due

0:24:47.520 --> 0:24:50.560
<v Speaker 1>to the Trump administration's policies. And so the shortfall is

0:24:50.560 --> 0:24:53.200
<v Speaker 1>anywhere between at one point five and two million immigrants

0:24:53.240 --> 0:24:55.600
<v Speaker 1>who would otherwise have been we're working in the United

0:24:55.600 --> 0:24:59.480
<v Speaker 1>States now. UM. So the long term prospects of the

0:24:59.520 --> 0:25:03.840
<v Speaker 1>US lab market UH and its size are not that

0:25:04.600 --> 0:25:07.439
<v Speaker 1>great right now unless we start making more babies or

0:25:07.600 --> 0:25:12.600
<v Speaker 1>or alloting more immigrants and those boomers back to work.

0:25:12.600 --> 0:25:14.960
<v Speaker 1>It's always the boomer's fault. Katie ever noticed that it's

0:25:14.960 --> 0:25:17.560
<v Speaker 1>a nice change from just blaming the millennial. Yeah, I

0:25:17.600 --> 0:25:19.680
<v Speaker 1>don't know, let's go back to flaving the millennials. I'm

0:25:19.680 --> 0:25:22.440
<v Speaker 1>closer to the boomer and than the millennial and making

0:25:22.480 --> 0:25:25.320
<v Speaker 1>me uncomfortable with all those even even among working age people,

0:25:25.320 --> 0:25:28.280
<v Speaker 1>even among the millennials, we have this this very worrying

0:25:28.359 --> 0:25:32.000
<v Speaker 1>trend of working age men leaving the labor force, the

0:25:32.080 --> 0:25:35.520
<v Speaker 1>decline in labor force precipation among prime age men. I

0:25:35.520 --> 0:25:38.240
<v Speaker 1>think it is perhaps even more concerning, and that's tied

0:25:38.280 --> 0:25:41.919
<v Speaker 1>to things like this, you know, dramatic increase in in

0:25:42.040 --> 0:25:46.760
<v Speaker 1>drug use and drug overdoses and and opioids and fentonmyl

0:25:46.800 --> 0:25:50.040
<v Speaker 1>and these very very dangerous things. So hopefully this is

0:25:50.080 --> 0:25:56.959
<v Speaker 1>a year of where policymakers study the reasons underlying relatively

0:25:56.960 --> 0:25:59.800
<v Speaker 1>sluggish low participation in the labor force and come up

0:25:59.800 --> 0:26:02.760
<v Speaker 1>with and serious solutions. Yeah. No, that's definitely been one

0:26:02.800 --> 0:26:06.760
<v Speaker 1>of the mysteries just tracking that participation rate. But sort

0:26:06.760 --> 0:26:09.600
<v Speaker 1>of to Mike's previous question, why has the labor market

0:26:09.640 --> 0:26:13.400
<v Speaker 1>been so resilient. That question becomes even more pressing when

0:26:13.400 --> 0:26:15.520
<v Speaker 1>you think about some of the headlines that we've been

0:26:15.520 --> 0:26:18.080
<v Speaker 1>getting over the past couple of months. When you watch

0:26:18.080 --> 0:26:22.399
<v Speaker 1>what's happening in the crypto industry, which it's told idiosyncratic story,

0:26:22.480 --> 0:26:25.000
<v Speaker 1>but you've seen a lot of jobs lost there. Then

0:26:25.040 --> 0:26:27.000
<v Speaker 1>you think about the tech sector and some of these

0:26:27.040 --> 0:26:31.720
<v Speaker 1>big tech giants either freezing hiring or laying people off.

0:26:31.800 --> 0:26:35.200
<v Speaker 1>You haven't seen it work its way into the data.

0:26:35.359 --> 0:26:38.840
<v Speaker 1>And is that because there's certain sectors of the economy,

0:26:38.960 --> 0:26:42.760
<v Speaker 1>of the jobs market that are still hiring and then

0:26:42.880 --> 0:26:46.280
<v Speaker 1>some or how does that sort of wash out? So

0:26:46.280 --> 0:26:49.119
<v Speaker 1>when we talk about tech layoffs, we're talking about tens

0:26:49.119 --> 0:26:53.200
<v Speaker 1>of thousands of workers. But in a normal month, two

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:55.800
<v Speaker 1>million workers in the US economy are laid off or

0:26:55.840 --> 0:26:59.600
<v Speaker 1>fired typically, and since the pandemic, that has been way

0:26:59.640 --> 0:27:03.040
<v Speaker 1>down to about one point three one point four million.

0:27:03.760 --> 0:27:06.320
<v Speaker 1>Uh and so we have far fewer layoffs and terminations

0:27:06.359 --> 0:27:09.200
<v Speaker 1>happening in the economy right now overall in the aggregate,

0:27:09.480 --> 0:27:12.879
<v Speaker 1>and that's why those tech layoffs are hardly even showing up. Also,

0:27:13.000 --> 0:27:16.560
<v Speaker 1>when tech workers are laid off, their reemployment prospects are

0:27:16.600 --> 0:27:18.119
<v Speaker 1>are pretty strong. I mean, this is the cream of

0:27:18.119 --> 0:27:20.240
<v Speaker 1>the crop. These are the most in demand workers in

0:27:20.400 --> 0:27:23.120
<v Speaker 1>the economy, and so many of them are finding reemployment

0:27:23.119 --> 0:27:27.080
<v Speaker 1>remarkably quickly. Uh They're getting calls from recruiters before they

0:27:27.119 --> 0:27:31.720
<v Speaker 1>even you know, sign that severance stackage. So that's why

0:27:31.760 --> 0:27:35.479
<v Speaker 1>we're just not seeing unemployment take up that much as

0:27:35.520 --> 0:27:37.879
<v Speaker 1>a result of these layoffs. I was going to ask you, actually,

0:27:38.000 --> 0:27:41.760
<v Speaker 1>like what is the matchup between the job openings and

0:27:42.040 --> 0:27:45.080
<v Speaker 1>these layoffs in the tech sector. You know, it's it's

0:27:45.280 --> 0:27:47.120
<v Speaker 1>I would worry that you'd get laid off, as say

0:27:47.160 --> 0:27:49.880
<v Speaker 1>a programmer at Twitter and have to you know, your

0:27:49.920 --> 0:27:52.120
<v Speaker 1>your best option is to go work as a barista

0:27:52.560 --> 0:27:54.800
<v Speaker 1>at Starbucks or something. But I guess it's not. It's

0:27:54.840 --> 0:27:58.199
<v Speaker 1>not that dire right now that there is still a

0:27:58.240 --> 0:28:01.000
<v Speaker 1>lot of openings in the tech sector for these layoffs

0:28:01.000 --> 0:28:04.280
<v Speaker 1>that we're hearing about. Anecdotally, about three and four laid

0:28:04.280 --> 0:28:06.760
<v Speaker 1>off tech workers appear to be getting new jobs in

0:28:06.880 --> 0:28:10.680
<v Speaker 1>tech based on our surveys. So, um, you know, there

0:28:10.680 --> 0:28:14.760
<v Speaker 1>there are still tech opportunities. There are companies that are

0:28:14.800 --> 0:28:18.360
<v Speaker 1>profitable who are seeing their share prices rise. I mean

0:28:18.359 --> 0:28:20.919
<v Speaker 1>it's you know, it's a small set of tech companies,

0:28:21.320 --> 0:28:24.760
<v Speaker 1>but there are solid, healthy tech companies with with strong

0:28:24.840 --> 0:28:28.080
<v Speaker 1>growth prospects um. And then even within tech companies, you know,

0:28:28.119 --> 0:28:31.080
<v Speaker 1>many of them are laying off workers in their least

0:28:31.200 --> 0:28:37.120
<v Speaker 1>profitable UH teams or functions or sections, but still hiring

0:28:37.520 --> 0:28:40.280
<v Speaker 1>pretty rapidly in other parts of the business that are

0:28:40.360 --> 0:28:43.680
<v Speaker 1>very profitable and strong UH. And so you know, sometimes

0:28:43.720 --> 0:28:46.160
<v Speaker 1>we needs to look at these layoffs as a share

0:28:46.200 --> 0:28:49.040
<v Speaker 1>of employment in the entire company, and often they're they're

0:28:49.040 --> 0:28:52.520
<v Speaker 1>not really changing head count very much overall. And then

0:28:52.600 --> 0:28:55.360
<v Speaker 1>in the broader economy, there's still huge demand for tech workers,

0:28:55.400 --> 0:28:59.640
<v Speaker 1>both within tech and beyond tech every other industry. Every

0:28:59.640 --> 0:29:02.640
<v Speaker 1>company is becoming a tech company in America, within a website,

0:29:02.840 --> 0:29:06.680
<v Speaker 1>an app, and increasing amounts of data that they collect

0:29:06.720 --> 0:29:09.880
<v Speaker 1>an analyze. So what does it all mean for wage growth, Julia?

0:29:10.000 --> 0:29:12.400
<v Speaker 1>You know, is are we going to see sort of

0:29:12.520 --> 0:29:16.719
<v Speaker 1>that wage price spiral that people talk about where company

0:29:16.840 --> 0:29:20.320
<v Speaker 1>you know, workers are demanding higher pay and so companies

0:29:20.680 --> 0:29:23.960
<v Speaker 1>raise their prices to to pay for that. Is that

0:29:24.040 --> 0:29:28.360
<v Speaker 1>a risk do you think going in So? I don't

0:29:28.360 --> 0:29:29.800
<v Speaker 1>think so. I don't think we're seeing a wage price

0:29:29.840 --> 0:29:32.120
<v Speaker 1>spiral because we are actually seeing prices come down. We're

0:29:32.120 --> 0:29:35.920
<v Speaker 1>seeing goods prices come down and uh, and we're seeing uh,

0:29:36.160 --> 0:29:39.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, wage growth appear to sort of slow or

0:29:39.880 --> 0:29:43.320
<v Speaker 1>or level off. UM. So I don't think that is

0:29:43.400 --> 0:29:46.440
<v Speaker 1>too much of a concern. I think we've now given

0:29:46.520 --> 0:29:50.160
<v Speaker 1>time for supply chains to sort of repair and improve,

0:29:50.600 --> 0:29:56.520
<v Speaker 1>and so as workers now start receiving real wage increases again, uh,

0:29:56.760 --> 0:30:02.720
<v Speaker 1>that will uh you know, sustain demand for goods and services, um,

0:30:02.760 --> 0:30:06.080
<v Speaker 1>but without putting too much pressure on their prices. So

0:30:06.320 --> 0:30:09.560
<v Speaker 1>I think the you know, there's a there's something called

0:30:09.600 --> 0:30:12.360
<v Speaker 1>the beverage curve and labor economics, which is a curve

0:30:12.680 --> 0:30:16.360
<v Speaker 1>showing job openings versus the unemployment rate, and what the

0:30:16.400 --> 0:30:19.959
<v Speaker 1>Fed really wants to do reduce job openings, reduce that

0:30:20.080 --> 0:30:22.880
<v Speaker 1>gap between the number of people seeking jobs in the

0:30:22.960 --> 0:30:26.360
<v Speaker 1>number of jobs available without pushing unemployment up too much.

0:30:26.800 --> 0:30:30.720
<v Speaker 1>So far, they're actually managing to move down that beverage curve,

0:30:31.040 --> 0:30:36.400
<v Speaker 1>pushing job openings down ever so gradually without really increasing unemployment.

0:30:36.840 --> 0:30:38.400
<v Speaker 1>It would be a sort of a miracle if they

0:30:38.480 --> 0:30:40.400
<v Speaker 1>if they managed to do that. That's not usually the

0:30:40.400 --> 0:30:43.680
<v Speaker 1>direction that this curve is, but it seems to be

0:30:43.680 --> 0:30:45.560
<v Speaker 1>working all right. Julie We've got to leave it there.

0:30:45.560 --> 0:30:48.479
<v Speaker 1>That is Julia poll actually is chief economist over as

0:30:48.560 --> 0:30:56.200
<v Speaker 1>ZIP recruiter. N all yeah, but you let me drive?

0:30:56.720 --> 0:31:02.560
<v Speaker 1>No no, no no, all right, please, I'll do the right gravels.

0:31:03.000 --> 0:31:11.320
<v Speaker 1>I want to drive. It's a good question. Drive is

0:31:11.320 --> 0:31:17.120
<v Speaker 1>the drive to the globe? Tim Well down on Bloomberg Radio,

0:31:18.640 --> 0:31:21.360
<v Speaker 1>All right, we are about eighteen minutes away from the

0:31:21.400 --> 0:31:25.200
<v Speaker 1>close of trading on December twenty one. Let's get some

0:31:25.240 --> 0:31:28.080
<v Speaker 1>insight from Lisa Ericson. She is head of the Public

0:31:28.160 --> 0:31:31.520
<v Speaker 1>Markets group over at US Bank Wealth Management. She joins

0:31:31.600 --> 0:31:35.480
<v Speaker 1>US now on Zoom from Minneapolis. Lisa, we're looking at

0:31:35.480 --> 0:31:38.920
<v Speaker 1>a big broad rally today, but when you look across

0:31:38.920 --> 0:31:42.360
<v Speaker 1>the Wall Street forecasts for there is a lot of

0:31:42.400 --> 0:31:45.320
<v Speaker 1>doom and gloom when it comes to the stock market.

0:31:45.600 --> 0:31:47.520
<v Speaker 1>Where do you fall when you look at the balance

0:31:47.520 --> 0:31:52.040
<v Speaker 1>of risks. We're really more cautious on the US equity

0:31:52.120 --> 0:31:54.760
<v Speaker 1>market going into the new year. And the reason why

0:31:54.960 --> 0:31:57.440
<v Speaker 1>is that, as you pointed out, when you look both

0:31:57.480 --> 0:32:00.800
<v Speaker 1>at the macro outlook and the micro look, we continue

0:32:00.800 --> 0:32:03.560
<v Speaker 1>to have some headwinds. Chief among them is the fact

0:32:03.600 --> 0:32:08.200
<v Speaker 1>that we still have inflation while declining at relative relatively

0:32:08.280 --> 0:32:11.520
<v Speaker 1>elevated levels, and as long as that remains the case,

0:32:11.560 --> 0:32:14.120
<v Speaker 1>we're going to have the FED continue to be more

0:32:14.160 --> 0:32:17.400
<v Speaker 1>restrictive in their policy, again maybe at a slower pace,

0:32:17.880 --> 0:32:21.080
<v Speaker 1>but nonetheless really trying to tighten. So you can bind

0:32:21.120 --> 0:32:24.400
<v Speaker 1>those two factors with the fact that consumers and companies

0:32:24.440 --> 0:32:27.840
<v Speaker 1>now have been having to deal with this tougher environment

0:32:27.920 --> 0:32:30.680
<v Speaker 1>for some time, and it becomes a question again of

0:32:30.720 --> 0:32:33.680
<v Speaker 1>how long the consumer can continue to hold out and

0:32:33.720 --> 0:32:37.640
<v Speaker 1>those corporate profit margins continue to hold out in terms

0:32:37.680 --> 0:32:42.400
<v Speaker 1>of maintaining relatively resilient levels, but not with without some

0:32:42.480 --> 0:32:45.960
<v Speaker 1>slowing slely. So what does it look like in practice

0:32:46.040 --> 0:32:48.840
<v Speaker 1>to be cautious on the equity market at this point?

0:32:48.920 --> 0:32:51.400
<v Speaker 1>Do you avoid it completely, just go all in the

0:32:51.480 --> 0:32:54.800
<v Speaker 1>fixed income or do you try to find those stocks

0:32:54.840 --> 0:32:58.560
<v Speaker 1>that that actually do benefit from higher rates and pricing power.

0:32:58.840 --> 0:33:01.760
<v Speaker 1>How do you sort of put cautiousness into practice in

0:33:01.800 --> 0:33:06.960
<v Speaker 1>the market. We're advising our clients to be underweight US

0:33:07.040 --> 0:33:11.000
<v Speaker 1>equities relative to their long term strategic allocations, so we

0:33:11.040 --> 0:33:15.280
<v Speaker 1>think again caution is warranted and how they're positioning themselves

0:33:15.360 --> 0:33:18.240
<v Speaker 1>across asset classes because of those factors that we just

0:33:18.320 --> 0:33:21.400
<v Speaker 1>talked about, where we would put that money in term

0:33:21.520 --> 0:33:25.520
<v Speaker 1>is relatively more sort to our fixed income, higher quality

0:33:25.560 --> 0:33:29.320
<v Speaker 1>fixed income as well as global infrastructure listed stocks, which

0:33:29.320 --> 0:33:34.240
<v Speaker 1>would contain sectors such as utilities UH, it would contain

0:33:34.360 --> 0:33:39.720
<v Speaker 1>midstream energy, UH, transports, all of those kinds of infrastructure

0:33:39.760 --> 0:33:43.520
<v Speaker 1>items that again tend to offer like high quality fixed income,

0:33:43.920 --> 0:33:47.680
<v Speaker 1>higher levels of interest or dividends, and so that higher

0:33:47.760 --> 0:33:51.120
<v Speaker 1>level of incoming cash flow helps to buffer the portfolio

0:33:51.520 --> 0:33:55.560
<v Speaker 1>in more difficult environments, and so high quality fixed income

0:33:55.640 --> 0:33:59.200
<v Speaker 1>that makes me think of treasuries, and treasuries are interesting.

0:33:59.240 --> 0:34:00.719
<v Speaker 1>When you think about the news that we got from

0:34:00.720 --> 0:34:04.000
<v Speaker 1>the Bank of Japan yesterday that they're lifting the cap

0:34:04.200 --> 0:34:09.120
<v Speaker 1>on yield curve control. That spurred some fears that maybe

0:34:09.120 --> 0:34:12.160
<v Speaker 1>if you think about Japanese bond buyers, there's such a

0:34:12.160 --> 0:34:16.440
<v Speaker 1>consistent force in US government bond markets that maybe they'll

0:34:16.520 --> 0:34:19.239
<v Speaker 1>stay home if fields are a little bit higher over there.

0:34:19.239 --> 0:34:22.560
<v Speaker 1>When you're looking long term at the fixed income market,

0:34:23.040 --> 0:34:24.759
<v Speaker 1>do you factor that in or do you think those

0:34:24.800 --> 0:34:29.160
<v Speaker 1>fears are overblown? To your point, there are forces that

0:34:29.239 --> 0:34:33.000
<v Speaker 1>continue to pull up yields across the globe. Obviously, here

0:34:33.000 --> 0:34:36.080
<v Speaker 1>in the US, the FED itself is tightening, and we

0:34:36.200 --> 0:34:39.359
<v Speaker 1>have central banks globally, the most recent of which being

0:34:39.400 --> 0:34:42.640
<v Speaker 1>the Bank of Japan, really having to raise their targets

0:34:42.719 --> 0:34:46.440
<v Speaker 1>or their bands. Nonetheless, we still think that having that

0:34:46.640 --> 0:34:50.680
<v Speaker 1>higher income cushion that can come from higher quality fixed

0:34:50.680 --> 0:34:53.840
<v Speaker 1>income makes sense. And right now, all other things being equal,

0:34:53.880 --> 0:34:58.319
<v Speaker 1>we would also lean slightly shorter immaturity, keeping closer to

0:34:58.360 --> 0:35:01.640
<v Speaker 1>the benchmark because of those actors, but we do want

0:35:01.640 --> 0:35:04.839
<v Speaker 1>to continue to keep an outlook. We do see that

0:35:05.320 --> 0:35:08.360
<v Speaker 1>yields overall are are quite attractive, so at some point

0:35:08.400 --> 0:35:12.799
<v Speaker 1>in the future we might actually look at potentially extending

0:35:12.840 --> 0:35:16.520
<v Speaker 1>out that maturity profile of a fixing portfolio, But right

0:35:16.520 --> 0:35:19.239
<v Speaker 1>now we're still on the relatively short side again because

0:35:19.280 --> 0:35:21.880
<v Speaker 1>of the factors that you mentioned. At least I know

0:35:22.080 --> 0:35:26.799
<v Speaker 1>at US Bank Wealth Management you have a proprietary health

0:35:26.880 --> 0:35:29.719
<v Speaker 1>check you call it of macro indicators. Can you talk

0:35:29.719 --> 0:35:31.400
<v Speaker 1>to us a little bit about what some of the

0:35:31.400 --> 0:35:35.239
<v Speaker 1>inputs are and what is that health check showing for

0:35:35.360 --> 0:35:38.640
<v Speaker 1>the US and some other parts of the world. We

0:35:38.719 --> 0:35:41.800
<v Speaker 1>do have a global proprietary health check that looks across

0:35:42.000 --> 0:35:45.160
<v Speaker 1>the countries, whether in the developed markets or emerging markets,

0:35:45.480 --> 0:35:48.560
<v Speaker 1>at how activity is going on in general sectors of

0:35:48.560 --> 0:35:51.880
<v Speaker 1>the economy, whether it's consumer housing, and for each of

0:35:51.920 --> 0:35:55.480
<v Speaker 1>those sectors, what it does is it bottom up puts

0:35:55.520 --> 0:35:59.279
<v Speaker 1>together a number of key indicators in each area. What

0:35:59.400 --> 0:36:01.560
<v Speaker 1>we've really and seeing here over the course of the

0:36:01.640 --> 0:36:03.960
<v Speaker 1>last year, whether it's in the US, whether it's in

0:36:04.040 --> 0:36:07.960
<v Speaker 1>developed international markets or emerging markets, is we definitely have

0:36:08.080 --> 0:36:12.000
<v Speaker 1>seen slowing in the trend of where those indicators are pushing.

0:36:12.360 --> 0:36:15.520
<v Speaker 1>In addition to that, the absolute level of the indicators

0:36:15.520 --> 0:36:18.040
<v Speaker 1>have come down quite a bit. So all of those

0:36:18.040 --> 0:36:20.200
<v Speaker 1>are really just pointing to the fact that the macro

0:36:20.360 --> 0:36:25.080
<v Speaker 1>environment has been impacted by again, uh, the tougher market

0:36:25.200 --> 0:36:28.480
<v Speaker 1>monetary environment, in addition to just some of the natural

0:36:28.560 --> 0:36:32.480
<v Speaker 1>deceleration that comes from the fact that one was a

0:36:32.480 --> 0:36:35.240
<v Speaker 1>big reopening year and it's just hard to keep growth

0:36:35.320 --> 0:36:38.920
<v Speaker 1>at that same level. And so these a you're cautious

0:36:38.960 --> 0:36:41.680
<v Speaker 1>on the equity market, do you see any opportunities to

0:36:41.719 --> 0:36:44.160
<v Speaker 1>go on offense when you look at equities or you

0:36:44.239 --> 0:36:48.920
<v Speaker 1>mostly playing defense here? One of the areas within equities

0:36:48.960 --> 0:36:51.799
<v Speaker 1>that we do think again is interesting right now are

0:36:51.840 --> 0:36:55.279
<v Speaker 1>more dividend oriented equities. So in line with the theme

0:36:55.360 --> 0:36:58.279
<v Speaker 1>that we had on the fixed in comic global infrastructure

0:36:58.280 --> 0:37:01.360
<v Speaker 1>side of again pulling some of that cash flow upfront

0:37:01.520 --> 0:37:04.920
<v Speaker 1>in what could be again a more volatile market. We

0:37:05.200 --> 0:37:08.240
<v Speaker 1>see within equities again some of those dividend paying stocks,

0:37:08.280 --> 0:37:12.400
<v Speaker 1>particularly those with good ongoing dividend growth, really makes sense,

0:37:12.960 --> 0:37:14.480
<v Speaker 1>you know, at least I've heard. I've talked to a

0:37:14.480 --> 0:37:19.320
<v Speaker 1>few people fund managers and strategists who have said, well,

0:37:20.640 --> 0:37:22.719
<v Speaker 1>is going to start out rough. It's basically going to

0:37:22.800 --> 0:37:28.720
<v Speaker 1>be a lot like two was volatility, Inflation still too high,

0:37:28.840 --> 0:37:32.920
<v Speaker 1>rates still elevilate, elevated. But then they expect sort of

0:37:32.960 --> 0:37:35.400
<v Speaker 1>an inflection point in the year where it's clear that

0:37:35.440 --> 0:37:38.720
<v Speaker 1>inflation has come under control and the Fed might actually

0:37:39.040 --> 0:37:43.400
<v Speaker 1>start signaling that they'll they're gonna ease eventually. How do

0:37:43.440 --> 0:37:45.960
<v Speaker 1>you think about the year coming up? Is it possible

0:37:46.000 --> 0:37:48.440
<v Speaker 1>to sort of break it into sort of a good

0:37:48.880 --> 0:37:51.200
<v Speaker 1>bad first half and a and a better second half.

0:37:51.600 --> 0:37:55.000
<v Speaker 1>Is that a possibility? Do you think? Well, it certainly

0:37:55.080 --> 0:37:59.120
<v Speaker 1>is a possibility that hopefully over three things improve, and

0:37:59.160 --> 0:38:01.640
<v Speaker 1>of course, for all of us, we do hope that's

0:38:01.680 --> 0:38:04.920
<v Speaker 1>the case. When we look at the year overall, however,

0:38:05.040 --> 0:38:08.400
<v Speaker 1>we just see a lot of uncertainty. We haven't been

0:38:08.440 --> 0:38:11.360
<v Speaker 1>in a period like this where again the level of

0:38:11.440 --> 0:38:14.480
<v Speaker 1>forecast and certainty is high, and I think that stems

0:38:14.520 --> 0:38:16.880
<v Speaker 1>from a couple of things. So one is just the

0:38:16.920 --> 0:38:19.719
<v Speaker 1>fact that we've never been through a period like we've

0:38:19.719 --> 0:38:23.000
<v Speaker 1>had where we had a sudden event like a global pandemic,

0:38:23.080 --> 0:38:26.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, shut down the economy. Then we've had extraordinary

0:38:26.640 --> 0:38:31.360
<v Speaker 1>monetary and fiscal stimulus leading to reopening and then unfortunately

0:38:31.920 --> 0:38:35.000
<v Speaker 1>elevated inflation because not only of demand, but because of

0:38:35.040 --> 0:38:38.640
<v Speaker 1>the supply chain constraints. So again, how that exactly works

0:38:38.640 --> 0:38:41.800
<v Speaker 1>out and the pace at which again supply comes back online,

0:38:41.840 --> 0:38:45.240
<v Speaker 1>including in the labor force, just really remains to be seen.

0:38:45.360 --> 0:38:48.319
<v Speaker 1>So with all of that, there is high uncertainty I

0:38:48.360 --> 0:38:51.880
<v Speaker 1>think about the trajectory, so we again believe the best

0:38:51.880 --> 0:38:55.239
<v Speaker 1>place to start is a more cautious uh stance. But

0:38:55.320 --> 0:38:58.240
<v Speaker 1>we'll look at it as it continues to move forward, allright.

0:38:58.280 --> 0:39:00.919
<v Speaker 1>Lisa Erickson, she is head of the Public Markets group

0:39:01.000 --> 0:39:04.720
<v Speaker 1>over at US Bank Wealth Management. Joining us on zoom

0:39:04.760 --> 0:39:08.800
<v Speaker 1>from Minneapolis. Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Business Week. Download

0:39:08.840 --> 0:39:12.120
<v Speaker 1>the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com. You

0:39:12.120 --> 0:39:14.480
<v Speaker 1>can also listen to our radio show at two pm

0:39:14.520 --> 0:39:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Eastern on Bloomberg Radio or stream US live on YouTube

0:39:18.280 --> 0:39:27.040
<v Speaker 1>and Bloomberg dot com.