WEBVTT - Surveillance: Vital Monetary Response With Dudley

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:12.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast and I'm Tom Keane.

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Daily we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:23.480
<v Speaker 1>and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:28.000
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Right Now.

0:00:28.120 --> 0:00:31.160
<v Speaker 1>Something special with us William Dudley. He is a former

0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:34.200
<v Speaker 1>president of the New York Fellow Reserve. There are eight, nine,

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:37.720
<v Speaker 1>ten topics that we could speak to William Dudley about,

0:00:37.840 --> 0:00:40.520
<v Speaker 1>but there is only one topic for those of economics,

0:00:40.560 --> 0:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>and you've seen it percolate. We've done it on this

0:00:42.760 --> 0:00:45.919
<v Speaker 1>show as well, and that is a new governor at

0:00:45.960 --> 0:00:49.040
<v Speaker 1>the Felleral Reserve System. Her name is Judy Shelton. She

0:00:49.200 --> 0:00:52.360
<v Speaker 1>has an education degree from Portland State University, which is

0:00:52.400 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 1>six four miles from Bill Dudley's PhD at Berkeley. This

0:00:58.240 --> 0:01:01.240
<v Speaker 1>is a delicate conversation, Bill Dudley, but let me begin

0:01:01.360 --> 0:01:06.039
<v Speaker 1>with a blunt question. How does this system deal with

0:01:06.120 --> 0:01:12.200
<v Speaker 1>a potential governor this uniquely qualified. I don't think it

0:01:12.280 --> 0:01:15.040
<v Speaker 1>creates huge amounts of problems. That there have been governors

0:01:15.040 --> 0:01:17.440
<v Speaker 1>in the past that have been outside the mainstream. And

0:01:17.520 --> 0:01:21.200
<v Speaker 1>Wayne Angel, as someone who comes to mind, uh and

0:01:21.360 --> 0:01:24.000
<v Speaker 1>fed you know there's more than there's there's seven governors.

0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:26.800
<v Speaker 1>There will be seven governors if the Waller and Shelton

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:29.360
<v Speaker 1>are confirmed, and I think you know they will. They

0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:32.080
<v Speaker 1>will have a voice, but they will not actually set

0:01:32.080 --> 0:01:36.039
<v Speaker 1>the path for Monterrey policy or regulatory policy. I'll be

0:01:36.080 --> 0:01:39.800
<v Speaker 1>set by J. Paul and Randy Quarrels. The heart of

0:01:39.840 --> 0:01:43.200
<v Speaker 1>her theory is the yearning to go back to another

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:49.360
<v Speaker 1>time of a more closed American system, a more static economy.

0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:53.360
<v Speaker 1>To the many people that support Judy Shelton and that

0:01:53.840 --> 0:01:57.320
<v Speaker 1>desire that feeling of another time and place, how do

0:01:57.400 --> 0:02:01.000
<v Speaker 1>you respond in this time of an open America, an

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:05.680
<v Speaker 1>open economy. Well, she has advocated returning to the gold standard,

0:02:05.720 --> 0:02:09.640
<v Speaker 1>and returning to the gold standard resulting tremendous increase in

0:02:09.680 --> 0:02:12.959
<v Speaker 1>the volatility of interest rates because basically, my gold prices

0:02:13.000 --> 0:02:14.720
<v Speaker 1>were going up, the Federal Reserve would have to rage

0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:18.639
<v Speaker 1>rates when gold prices would have to lower interest rates,

0:02:18.720 --> 0:02:21.680
<v Speaker 1>regardless of what was happening in the real economy, regardless

0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:24.440
<v Speaker 1>of was having to inflation, regardless of what was having

0:02:24.440 --> 0:02:27.520
<v Speaker 1>to The gold standard is not a good anchor for

0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:30.160
<v Speaker 1>US monetary So let's talk about the real economy. How

0:02:30.200 --> 0:02:32.680
<v Speaker 1>would you be reacting now to the data that started

0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:34.160
<v Speaker 1>to come through in America? We saw in the high

0:02:34.200 --> 0:02:36.320
<v Speaker 1>frequency day, so we've got a flavor that things were

0:02:36.320 --> 0:02:38.440
<v Speaker 1>starting to store to roll over, and now we see

0:02:38.440 --> 0:02:40.919
<v Speaker 1>it in jobless claims as well. They're starting to pick

0:02:41.000 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 1>up again. I said a couple of months ago that

0:02:42.720 --> 0:02:45.280
<v Speaker 1>it looks like the right wing of that v's starting

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:47.079
<v Speaker 1>to break. What would that mean for you? It's a

0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:50.040
<v Speaker 1>policy make for the Fed again. Well, I think what's

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:54.280
<v Speaker 1>happening is the recovering economic activity is flattening out is

0:02:55.080 --> 0:02:59.960
<v Speaker 1>as shut sounds are recurring, and social distancing is increasing again.

0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:02.800
<v Speaker 1>And I don't think we're gonna see a fall back

0:03:02.800 --> 0:03:05.400
<v Speaker 1>to where we were, uh, you know, in March, April

0:03:05.440 --> 0:03:08.600
<v Speaker 1>and May. But the recovery is going to be quite subdued.

0:03:08.960 --> 0:03:12.200
<v Speaker 1>The unemployment rate's gonna stay high for quite some time.

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:14.800
<v Speaker 1>And as a consequence of that, Monterrey policy is going

0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>to be on hold, and the Fed Federal Reserves be

0:03:16.800 --> 0:03:20.040
<v Speaker 1>looking around for what things can they do to provide

0:03:20.040 --> 0:03:22.680
<v Speaker 1>additional Monterrey pals. What things do you think they can

0:03:22.760 --> 0:03:25.400
<v Speaker 1>and should do in the months to come. Well, I

0:03:25.400 --> 0:03:28.040
<v Speaker 1>think Unfortunately, they don't have a lot of great weapons.

0:03:28.480 --> 0:03:30.360
<v Speaker 1>I think they're going to continue their large scale as

0:03:30.440 --> 0:03:33.799
<v Speaker 1>it purchases, buying treasuries and it is mortgage backed securities.

0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:37.840
<v Speaker 1>They may come forward with more definitive forward guidance in

0:03:37.960 --> 0:03:41.240
<v Speaker 1>terms of keeping interest rates until low, for long, until

0:03:41.440 --> 0:03:44.240
<v Speaker 1>the unemployment rate falls below a particular level or inflation

0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 1>clowns above particular level. But the real, the real focus

0:03:47.440 --> 0:03:49.400
<v Speaker 1>right now should be on fiscal policy. That's what the

0:03:49.480 --> 0:03:52.120
<v Speaker 1>U S economy needs. We're basically right at the edge

0:03:52.160 --> 0:03:55.640
<v Speaker 1>of a huge fiscal cliff with the expiration of the

0:03:55.640 --> 0:03:59.040
<v Speaker 1>six hundred dollars a week unemployment conversation benefits at the

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>end of this month. And if that's not, you know,

0:04:02.720 --> 0:04:06.880
<v Speaker 1>replaced by something significant soon, the commun is actually gonna

0:04:07.600 --> 0:04:12.120
<v Speaker 1>be weaker than participate. Bill Fedger Fedger J. Powell also

0:04:12.160 --> 0:04:15.160
<v Speaker 1>agreeing with you coming out and saying fiscal policy is necessary.

0:04:15.240 --> 0:04:17.800
<v Speaker 1>But the FED has control over monetary policy, and right

0:04:17.800 --> 0:04:21.400
<v Speaker 1>now monetary policy is pushing investors into equities. We're looking

0:04:21.440 --> 0:04:24.160
<v Speaker 1>at futures right now unchanged or a little bit higher

0:04:24.400 --> 0:04:27.440
<v Speaker 1>on the day ahead of the open, even after these

0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:31.960
<v Speaker 1>worsening labor statistics. How much should the equity market be

0:04:32.040 --> 0:04:35.200
<v Speaker 1>a gauge of financial conditions for the Federal Reserve something

0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:38.039
<v Speaker 1>to shoot for, with higher equity values being a good thing.

0:04:39.160 --> 0:04:41.320
<v Speaker 1>I don't think the Fed wants the equity market to

0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:44.160
<v Speaker 1>go to any particular level. They do want financial conditions

0:04:44.160 --> 0:04:46.240
<v Speaker 1>to be accommodati if they want markets to work. They

0:04:46.240 --> 0:04:48.320
<v Speaker 1>want markets the open and will functioning, and I think

0:04:48.360 --> 0:04:50.920
<v Speaker 1>that's what they've achieved. I think there are some people

0:04:50.920 --> 0:04:53.240
<v Speaker 1>on the Reserve that are a little bit concerned about

0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:55.960
<v Speaker 1>how high the equity market in the last sea minutes,

0:04:56.360 --> 0:04:59.719
<v Speaker 1>because saw a couple of people talking about financial stability

0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:02.400
<v Speaker 1>is jees. I personally think the stock market is high

0:05:02.440 --> 0:05:05.320
<v Speaker 1>mainly because bonnyals are low and bonniles are low because

0:05:05.360 --> 0:05:07.720
<v Speaker 1>Montreal policy is going to be very accommodative for a

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:10.320
<v Speaker 1>number of years. Well. But to the extent that the

0:05:10.320 --> 0:05:13.480
<v Speaker 1>Fed is worried about the widening gap between wealthy and

0:05:13.560 --> 0:05:16.760
<v Speaker 1>poorer individuals, how concerning is it that their policies have

0:05:16.800 --> 0:05:20.479
<v Speaker 1>pushed up asset prices, have created easier financial conditions, but

0:05:20.600 --> 0:05:23.320
<v Speaker 1>clearly are not leading to a better labor market. Given

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:27.240
<v Speaker 1>the fact that we're seeing a reversal in the claims numbers. Well,

0:05:27.279 --> 0:05:29.960
<v Speaker 1>I think they are frustrated by the fact that they

0:05:30.000 --> 0:05:33.360
<v Speaker 1>don't have good tools to address the issue of income

0:05:33.360 --> 0:05:36.440
<v Speaker 1>and equality. I think they wish they did have better tools.

0:05:36.440 --> 0:05:39.320
<v Speaker 1>But Montrey policy is not well suited for the fiscal policies.

0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:41.719
<v Speaker 1>So it's really for Congress and the administration to do

0:05:41.800 --> 0:05:45.080
<v Speaker 1>things on fiscal policy that help address the fact that

0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:48.240
<v Speaker 1>the burden of the of the pandemic is falling disproportionately

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:51.520
<v Speaker 1>on low and moderating communciles. Bill Dudley Wethers, and we

0:05:51.520 --> 0:05:54.119
<v Speaker 1>will continue with the former president of New York FED.

0:05:54.320 --> 0:05:57.280
<v Speaker 1>We welcome all of you on Bloomberg Radio and Bloomberg Television.

0:05:57.320 --> 0:05:59.800
<v Speaker 1>Is John Farrell notes a flip in the market here,

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:03.040
<v Speaker 1>you just come back dollars stronger. And John, we've got

0:06:03.040 --> 0:06:05.719
<v Speaker 1>to look as we as we continue with Bill Dudley, John,

0:06:05.760 --> 0:06:09.000
<v Speaker 1>we've got to look at the substantial curve flattening. It's

0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:11.560
<v Speaker 1>really broken down long end and buy two basis points

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:14.560
<v Speaker 1>to about on a thirty year Bill, talk to me

0:06:14.600 --> 0:06:17.599
<v Speaker 1>about the QUE program and the scope for adjusting that

0:06:17.680 --> 0:06:19.800
<v Speaker 1>to sit at the long end just a little bit more.

0:06:19.880 --> 0:06:22.720
<v Speaker 1>The front end is already so well anchored. What can

0:06:22.760 --> 0:06:24.039
<v Speaker 1>you do with the long end and what did you

0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 1>learn coming down to the last crisis. Well, the historically

0:06:28.360 --> 0:06:31.080
<v Speaker 1>as used their large scale asset purchased to buy treasuries

0:06:31.160 --> 0:06:34.039
<v Speaker 1>across the yield curve. They could decide to buy more

0:06:34.200 --> 0:06:37.120
<v Speaker 1>longer matority treasury since, as you point out, the short

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:40.320
<v Speaker 1>end of the treasure market is well anchored by expectations

0:06:40.880 --> 0:06:44.160
<v Speaker 1>move for next for for several years, that has indicated

0:06:44.200 --> 0:06:46.920
<v Speaker 1>that they're going to shift their large scale asset purchase

0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:50.200
<v Speaker 1>programs from focusing on market function, which is now good

0:06:50.480 --> 0:06:53.200
<v Speaker 1>for focusing on how do you actually stimulate econmy I

0:06:53.200 --> 0:06:55.720
<v Speaker 1>think that it does imply that they're gonna buy a

0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:58.599
<v Speaker 1>greater proportion of longer dated treasury. But before we let

0:06:58.640 --> 0:07:01.159
<v Speaker 1>you go, I need a message for fiscal policymakers down

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.400
<v Speaker 1>in Washington. There's a real discussion about perhaps allowing the

0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:08.480
<v Speaker 1>enhanced unemployment benefits to expire, maybe to taper them aggressively.

0:07:08.520 --> 0:07:10.320
<v Speaker 1>Maybe that's the best case that we can hope for

0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:14.440
<v Speaker 1>at the administration and Republicans. If that happens, what you

0:07:14.480 --> 0:07:19.720
<v Speaker 1>expect August and September data to look like, Bill, Well, again,

0:07:19.760 --> 0:07:21.800
<v Speaker 1>I think it's going to depend more on the course

0:07:21.840 --> 0:07:25.080
<v Speaker 1>of the pandemic and what social distancing that then requires.

0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:28.600
<v Speaker 1>But if there is no extension of unemployment, conversation benefits,

0:07:28.640 --> 0:07:31.360
<v Speaker 1>and I think you will see consequences for consumer spending.

0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:34.040
<v Speaker 1>The consumer spending is held up reasonably well in part

0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:37.600
<v Speaker 1>because household incomes have been well supported by fiscal policy

0:07:38.000 --> 0:07:41.000
<v Speaker 1>that supports ends the consequences. What we're seeing in the

0:07:41.000 --> 0:07:43.000
<v Speaker 1>liver market, You're gonna start to become more important in

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:46.880
<v Speaker 1>terms of outlets. Bill, appreciate your time this morning. Appreciate

0:07:46.880 --> 0:07:48.800
<v Speaker 1>your patients to great to catch up you William don't

0:07:48.800 --> 0:08:02.440
<v Speaker 1>be their former New York Fed president right now joining us,

0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:05.440
<v Speaker 1>And I'm really looking forward to a good conversation with

0:08:05.560 --> 0:08:09.000
<v Speaker 1>a guy who has put together a firm of continued success.

0:08:09.160 --> 0:08:11.280
<v Speaker 1>It is ever cord as ever Core I s I

0:08:11.360 --> 0:08:13.600
<v Speaker 1>of course with the great at Himan and he is

0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:17.560
<v Speaker 1>Ralph Schlastein. He is co chairman and co CEO, looking

0:08:17.600 --> 0:08:20.080
<v Speaker 1>like he just played a folk act at the Dennison

0:08:20.160 --> 0:08:24.200
<v Speaker 1>College Michael Eisner Performing Center, and we are thrilled he

0:08:24.240 --> 0:08:27.840
<v Speaker 1>could join us this morning. Ralph, I want to talk

0:08:28.000 --> 0:08:32.160
<v Speaker 1>first about your senior chairman, Roger Altman. I think it

0:08:32.280 --> 0:08:36.719
<v Speaker 1>is under appreciated how lonely you guys were when you

0:08:36.800 --> 0:08:40.240
<v Speaker 1>set up ever cor. What did Altman and schlo Stein

0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:44.920
<v Speaker 1>do at that time that was so different? Well, I

0:08:44.960 --> 0:08:48.680
<v Speaker 1>wasn't there. Roger was there for the first fourteen years

0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:52.200
<v Speaker 1>without me. I joined eleven years ago. But he literally,

0:08:52.840 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>uh came back from his stint at the Treasury and

0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:02.840
<v Speaker 1>thought that the world needed a more old time investment bank,

0:09:03.200 --> 0:09:07.560
<v Speaker 1>one that focused purely on advice. Uh. And the very

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:12.679
<v Speaker 1>first presentation he made twenty five years ago, the first

0:09:12.720 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 1>page had the words quality and integrity on that first page.

0:09:17.920 --> 0:09:20.320
<v Speaker 1>And I've been here eleven years. The one thing I

0:09:20.400 --> 0:09:23.400
<v Speaker 1>was allowed to do by Roger is I change quality

0:09:23.440 --> 0:09:26.840
<v Speaker 1>to excellence. And so now it's excellence in integrity. But

0:09:27.600 --> 0:09:31.760
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a great business model. We have very senior people.

0:09:32.320 --> 0:09:37.400
<v Speaker 1>They actually do the work rather than just show and

0:09:37.480 --> 0:09:40.920
<v Speaker 1>the board meeting. So well, that's a huge distinction, and

0:09:41.040 --> 0:09:43.240
<v Speaker 1>certainly we've seen that with Ed Hyman and with the

0:09:43.240 --> 0:09:46.760
<v Speaker 1>others of your your principles. Okay, let's cut to the chase.

0:09:47.120 --> 0:09:50.800
<v Speaker 1>How do you readjust and recalibrate out of this pandemic

0:09:51.440 --> 0:09:57.080
<v Speaker 1>given the competition of the major banks. Well, uh, what

0:09:57.160 --> 0:10:00.080
<v Speaker 1>we have done over the last several years is to

0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:05.200
<v Speaker 1>dramatically broaden the things that we can advise our clients on.

0:10:05.559 --> 0:10:10.320
<v Speaker 1>So we have the number one activist fence practice. We're

0:10:10.360 --> 0:10:14.440
<v Speaker 1>the only independent firm with an equity underwriting capability, and

0:10:14.480 --> 0:10:18.800
<v Speaker 1>in the quarter we just finished, we did more underwriting

0:10:18.800 --> 0:10:22.120
<v Speaker 1>revenues UH than we did all of last year, which

0:10:22.160 --> 0:10:25.960
<v Speaker 1>was a record for US. We have debt advisory, we

0:10:26.040 --> 0:10:30.640
<v Speaker 1>have restructuring UH advice on hedging. So what we've done

0:10:30.720 --> 0:10:36.160
<v Speaker 1>is we've built deep capabilities in everything that a company

0:10:36.200 --> 0:10:40.400
<v Speaker 1>would want to do. Big firm as a counterpart Ralph.

0:10:40.480 --> 0:10:42.880
<v Speaker 1>One important question, and this has come up with Lisa

0:10:42.920 --> 0:10:47.080
<v Speaker 1>Bramwis and John Farrell day after day. You guys have

0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:52.280
<v Speaker 1>been massively benefited by the stimulus of Jerome Powell and

0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:56.080
<v Speaker 1>by the leadership of Congress. How do you how do

0:10:56.120 --> 0:10:59.560
<v Speaker 1>you move forward with the American public Where we see

0:11:00.160 --> 0:11:03.760
<v Speaker 1>New York Wall Street and indeed global Wall Street benefiting

0:11:03.960 --> 0:11:10.000
<v Speaker 1>so much from the stimulus, That's a I think a

0:11:10.200 --> 0:11:15.559
<v Speaker 1>really really important issue. UH. There's clearly been a uh

0:11:16.080 --> 0:11:20.400
<v Speaker 1>massive effect on the capital markets, both the equity market

0:11:20.520 --> 0:11:24.199
<v Speaker 1>and the debt market. UH, and that has certainly benefited

0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the trading activities and the shares of the large firms

0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:33.800
<v Speaker 1>and of all all firms also, So we have this

0:11:35.040 --> 0:11:40.160
<v Speaker 1>massive inequality. It was necessary to stabilize the economy, but

0:11:40.240 --> 0:11:43.520
<v Speaker 1>it's had a much greater effect on the wealth of

0:11:43.559 --> 0:11:46.480
<v Speaker 1>the wealthy than it has on the well being of

0:11:46.520 --> 0:11:49.839
<v Speaker 1>those in me. Does that compromise your ambitions in any way,

0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:53.280
<v Speaker 1>shape or film, Ralph, No, I think we have to

0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:57.599
<v Speaker 1>continue to do what we do, but it does, UH,

0:11:57.760 --> 0:12:01.040
<v Speaker 1>in my private life make me some bard of of

0:12:01.880 --> 0:12:07.640
<v Speaker 1>UH people and of policies that are focused more on

0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:11.640
<v Speaker 1>a more equal distribution of wealth in this country. Give

0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:13.360
<v Speaker 1>us more detail on that, Ralph, Is that a shift

0:12:13.400 --> 0:12:16.559
<v Speaker 1>to the left for you politically speaking ahead of this election? No,

0:12:16.800 --> 0:12:21.920
<v Speaker 1>I actually, uh worked for Hubert Humphrey in the Senate

0:12:22.520 --> 0:12:25.680
<v Speaker 1>and then worked for President Carter in the White House,

0:12:25.720 --> 0:12:28.720
<v Speaker 1>so I've always had a I wouldn't call it a left.

0:12:28.760 --> 0:12:32.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm a conservative on fiscal policy, but I do believe

0:12:33.679 --> 0:12:35.920
<v Speaker 1>that we need to do more for those who are

0:12:36.520 --> 0:12:43.120
<v Speaker 1>underserved in terms of income, health care, housing in this country. So, Ralph,

0:12:43.120 --> 0:12:45.480
<v Speaker 1>given the fact that you're a fiscal conservative, what would

0:12:45.480 --> 0:12:47.720
<v Speaker 1>you say to companies right now raising record amounts of

0:12:47.760 --> 0:12:50.760
<v Speaker 1>debt in order to survive this period of time becoming

0:12:50.800 --> 0:12:54.800
<v Speaker 1>more indebted ahead of a period of slowing growth. Well,

0:12:54.840 --> 0:12:59.080
<v Speaker 1>I think the the most important thing for every company

0:12:59.200 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 1>to look at in the period that we've just been

0:13:01.960 --> 0:13:07.160
<v Speaker 1>through has been liquidity. Uh, do we have the cash

0:13:07.240 --> 0:13:11.920
<v Speaker 1>to survive? Because? Uh? In O eight O nine, we

0:13:12.080 --> 0:13:16.680
<v Speaker 1>learned that financial institutions fail not because of capital, but

0:13:16.760 --> 0:13:22.920
<v Speaker 1>because of liquidity. And in this UH recession, deep recession,

0:13:23.960 --> 0:13:29.760
<v Speaker 1>we have learned also that that phenomena is more widespread.

0:13:29.880 --> 0:13:32.120
<v Speaker 1>So we spent a lot of time in the last

0:13:32.160 --> 0:13:35.719
<v Speaker 1>four months encouraging companies to put more cash on their

0:13:35.720 --> 0:13:38.959
<v Speaker 1>brown sheets. But here's here's the conundrum, Rouph. Because we're

0:13:38.960 --> 0:13:41.480
<v Speaker 1>heading into a period of slowing growth, we have a

0:13:41.520 --> 0:13:45.320
<v Speaker 1>more fragile economy, and we have more indebted companies. Why

0:13:45.400 --> 0:13:49.080
<v Speaker 1>not just file for bankruptcy? Why not renegotiate the debtloads

0:13:49.080 --> 0:13:52.800
<v Speaker 1>now with creditors to reduce the obligations rather than putting

0:13:52.800 --> 0:13:57.559
<v Speaker 1>their entire capital models in a more precarious situation. Well,

0:13:57.600 --> 0:14:01.800
<v Speaker 1>there's some of that going on as well. Uh. I

0:14:01.840 --> 0:14:05.280
<v Speaker 1>think the real issue, UH, in terms of how to

0:14:05.440 --> 0:14:10.240
<v Speaker 1>solve one's balance sheet issues, depends upon the outlook for

0:14:10.240 --> 0:14:14.720
<v Speaker 1>the business. If if it truly is a the uh

0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:21.000
<v Speaker 1>type uh downturn and then recovery. Uh. Then it's just

0:14:21.080 --> 0:14:24.600
<v Speaker 1>a matter of having the cash to survive to the

0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:29.000
<v Speaker 1>other side of the chasm. Other businesses obviously are going

0:14:29.080 --> 0:14:33.520
<v Speaker 1>to be more seriously uh and permanently impaired, and for them,

0:14:33.960 --> 0:14:38.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, bankruptcy and recapitalization is the right model. Well,

0:14:38.560 --> 0:14:41.680
<v Speaker 1>if the heritage of ever Core Forward is on John

0:14:41.720 --> 0:14:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Weinberg and you and of course Mr Weinberg, that name

0:14:44.600 --> 0:14:48.840
<v Speaker 1>is magical and always associated with Golden Sex, I'd be

0:14:48.880 --> 0:14:52.920
<v Speaker 1>honored if you'd comment Ralph on the retail experiment at

0:14:52.920 --> 0:15:00.000
<v Speaker 1>Golden Sex. Can institutions be all things to all people? Uh?

0:15:00.000 --> 0:15:03.160
<v Speaker 1>If do you really want me to comment on that,

0:15:03.360 --> 0:15:09.400
<v Speaker 1>he'd love you take if I were in their shoes,

0:15:09.480 --> 0:15:13.960
<v Speaker 1>It's not the path that I would choose. Uh. I

0:15:14.000 --> 0:15:16.840
<v Speaker 1>think that. Well, there are two parts of their retail experiment.

0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:24.560
<v Speaker 1>One is collecting deposits. That makes sense because deposits are

0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:28.840
<v Speaker 1>much more stable funding source uh than going to the

0:15:28.920 --> 0:15:33.000
<v Speaker 1>institutional market. And I think that is a very sound

0:15:33.040 --> 0:15:34.920
<v Speaker 1>thing to do. And they're you know, they're paying up

0:15:34.960 --> 0:15:38.480
<v Speaker 1>a little bit, but they're paying for much more stable

0:15:39.200 --> 0:15:44.360
<v Speaker 1>liabilities or borrowings. Uh, the lending side of it. I'm

0:15:44.440 --> 0:15:47.800
<v Speaker 1>not a big fan of It's a very crowded business.

0:15:48.480 --> 0:15:52.320
<v Speaker 1>Uh and uh coming late to the party. In my view,

0:15:52.800 --> 0:15:55.880
<v Speaker 1>as you know, Ralph, Bloomberg, surveillance is all about the

0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:59.960
<v Speaker 1>conversation with experts. Of course, we all know your acquisition

0:16:00.040 --> 0:16:03.120
<v Speaker 1>of that Hyman Services a number of years ago. Tell

0:16:03.200 --> 0:16:07.400
<v Speaker 1>us the value, the intellectual component value of the future

0:16:07.480 --> 0:16:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Wall Street, the future global Wall Street. How much does

0:16:10.600 --> 0:16:14.920
<v Speaker 1>it matter that experts will be needed? I you know,

0:16:15.120 --> 0:16:19.600
<v Speaker 1>it's it's interesting. I often say, uh that we're We're

0:16:19.600 --> 0:16:22.280
<v Speaker 1>in every business that Goldman Sacks is in that meets

0:16:22.320 --> 0:16:26.200
<v Speaker 1>the following criteria. You compete solely on the basis of

0:16:26.280 --> 0:16:31.000
<v Speaker 1>your ideas, your intellectual capital, and your relationships. And the

0:16:31.000 --> 0:16:34.760
<v Speaker 1>only source of revenue is f income. So we are

0:16:35.560 --> 0:16:40.360
<v Speaker 1>we are the walking example of an intellectual capital firm.

0:16:40.520 --> 0:16:43.800
<v Speaker 1>We have two major businesses, the research business which you

0:16:43.920 --> 0:16:48.480
<v Speaker 1>just asked about, and the investment banking advisory business, and

0:16:48.560 --> 0:16:54.000
<v Speaker 1>both of those are fundamentally driven by intellectual capital. Ralph.

0:16:54.040 --> 0:16:56.720
<v Speaker 1>One final question, this is a critical importance. We have

0:16:56.800 --> 0:17:00.040
<v Speaker 1>a viewer that emails in right now, John from of

0:17:00.160 --> 0:17:03.520
<v Speaker 1>indremed and he suggests. I asked you, do you think

0:17:03.560 --> 0:17:06.000
<v Speaker 1>I could pull off the beard? Relf? I mean this

0:17:06.119 --> 0:17:09.400
<v Speaker 1>was a point of debate pre pandemic. Did you think

0:17:09.520 --> 0:17:14.359
<v Speaker 1>you know? Does my face say beard? Tom? You're asking

0:17:14.400 --> 0:17:17.240
<v Speaker 1>about you? Yeah, do you think I should grow a beard?

0:17:17.280 --> 0:17:20.400
<v Speaker 1>What do you think? I don't know. You should probably

0:17:20.600 --> 0:17:22.960
<v Speaker 1>ask those near and dear to you. Yeah, I did.

0:17:23.040 --> 0:17:28.960
<v Speaker 1>Hell from New Jersey said no, Ralph, last I go away. Congratulations, Congratulations, Ralph,

0:17:29.080 --> 0:17:34.040
<v Speaker 1>last time with ever talking to you. Thank you, Ralph,

0:17:34.080 --> 0:17:46.679
<v Speaker 1>appreciate it. Right now our conversation of the day on China,

0:17:46.760 --> 0:17:49.879
<v Speaker 1>Meredith Sumters eraise your group had a research strategy and

0:17:49.960 --> 0:17:52.760
<v Speaker 1>operations in a move from Bill Ackman over to the

0:17:52.800 --> 0:17:56.520
<v Speaker 1>authority of Meredith Sumters important out of LSE and a

0:17:56.640 --> 0:18:00.719
<v Speaker 1>course with a profound knowledge of China. Meredith, what can

0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:03.800
<v Speaker 1>you add to the conversation? You see the punditry, it's

0:18:03.800 --> 0:18:06.360
<v Speaker 1>in the zeitgeist right now. But what can you add

0:18:06.400 --> 0:18:09.879
<v Speaker 1>on this Thursday morning about this consulate tip for Tad.

0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:14.400
<v Speaker 1>Great to be here with you, Tom. I would say, like, look,

0:18:14.480 --> 0:18:18.520
<v Speaker 1>this is a remarkably unusual escalation. A closure of a

0:18:18.640 --> 0:18:22.080
<v Speaker 1>conflant outside of wartime is rare and It's really just

0:18:22.160 --> 0:18:24.520
<v Speaker 1>one of a myriad of US actions, as you've noted,

0:18:24.560 --> 0:18:26.800
<v Speaker 1>to pressure China and to try to put the ballateral

0:18:26.880 --> 0:18:31.240
<v Speaker 1>relationship on a fundamentally different course. And we heard comments

0:18:31.240 --> 0:18:34.040
<v Speaker 1>that this is strong, but the question is is it effective?

0:18:34.600 --> 0:18:38.760
<v Speaker 1>And what's key here? As you see this unswerving US

0:18:38.840 --> 0:18:43.240
<v Speaker 1>pressure in speeches of Trump administration officials over the past

0:18:43.280 --> 0:18:47.920
<v Speaker 1>several weeks, National Security Advisor O'Brien hitting out the ideology

0:18:47.960 --> 0:18:52.919
<v Speaker 1>of the CCP, the Communist Party, train General bar calling

0:18:53.000 --> 0:18:55.400
<v Speaker 1>China's ambitionism to trade with the US but to raid

0:18:55.440 --> 0:18:58.879
<v Speaker 1>the US, and of course Secretary of State Pompeo who's

0:18:58.920 --> 0:19:03.440
<v Speaker 1>called the relationship fundentally detrimental to the United States. All

0:19:03.520 --> 0:19:05.880
<v Speaker 1>this tells you is that you should expect the US

0:19:05.920 --> 0:19:10.320
<v Speaker 1>to continue this escalation with China up through November, even

0:19:10.359 --> 0:19:13.760
<v Speaker 1>as most US officials recognize that President Trump, accordin to

0:19:13.840 --> 0:19:16.880
<v Speaker 1>Whole Night numbers, is currently on track to potentially lose

0:19:16.880 --> 0:19:20.840
<v Speaker 1>in November. Their actions. Bottom line, what we're watching here

0:19:20.920 --> 0:19:23.840
<v Speaker 1>is their actions could fundamentally alter the course of the

0:19:23.960 --> 0:19:28.360
<v Speaker 1>Biloud relationship on the eve of a potential administration change. Well, Mary,

0:19:28.440 --> 0:19:30.280
<v Speaker 1>to let me ask you this from your perspective of

0:19:30.400 --> 0:19:36.000
<v Speaker 1>these decisions surgical or they reactive and unpredictable. You mean

0:19:36.000 --> 0:19:38.120
<v Speaker 1>that the decisions from the U S and Jonathan, Yeah,

0:19:38.119 --> 0:19:40.440
<v Speaker 1>I'm just wondering if there is an ultimate objective here

0:19:40.480 --> 0:19:42.320
<v Speaker 1>and there are some surgical decisions which are going to

0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:44.680
<v Speaker 1>come together in a bigger picture, there's a bigger strategy,

0:19:45.040 --> 0:19:48.679
<v Speaker 1>or whether this is just ad hoc. I wouldn't call

0:19:48.720 --> 0:19:51.280
<v Speaker 1>it necessarily ad hoc, but I wouldn't call it part

0:19:51.320 --> 0:19:55.760
<v Speaker 1>of a grand strategy at all. Talking to Trumba administration officials,

0:19:55.800 --> 0:19:58.480
<v Speaker 1>what's clear is the President has given a green light

0:19:58.520 --> 0:20:01.600
<v Speaker 1>for his officials to get how on China, thinking it

0:20:01.880 --> 0:20:04.399
<v Speaker 1>might help him in the polls, although so far his

0:20:04.520 --> 0:20:07.320
<v Speaker 1>campaign has been disappointed by that, with voters focus more

0:20:07.359 --> 0:20:11.080
<v Speaker 1>so on pandemic than on China. But President Trump has

0:20:11.119 --> 0:20:13.879
<v Speaker 1>been very clear that his Phase one trade deal is

0:20:13.960 --> 0:20:16.560
<v Speaker 1>off limits. So you see this tip for tat escalation

0:20:16.680 --> 0:20:19.240
<v Speaker 1>being pushed by the U S side that gets right

0:20:19.359 --> 0:20:22.320
<v Speaker 1>up to that breaking point, but it's not meant to

0:20:22.359 --> 0:20:24.719
<v Speaker 1>go over the line, and the risk is that they

0:20:24.760 --> 0:20:26.920
<v Speaker 1>could go over the line without knowing that they're doing.

0:20:26.960 --> 0:20:29.440
<v Speaker 1>So what happens then, what happens if the Phase one

0:20:29.480 --> 0:20:32.720
<v Speaker 1>trade deal gets rejected, is basically dead in the water,

0:20:32.760 --> 0:20:35.120
<v Speaker 1>as Leland Miller China Beige Book thinks it probably will

0:20:35.160 --> 0:20:38.720
<v Speaker 1>be soon, you know, at least. What's really key here

0:20:38.960 --> 0:20:41.080
<v Speaker 1>is that, well, obviously you know in the immediate term

0:20:41.119 --> 0:20:43.959
<v Speaker 1>there's going to be negative market reaction and fallout. This

0:20:44.080 --> 0:20:46.240
<v Speaker 1>is not what President Trump wants in his side, neither

0:20:46.359 --> 0:20:48.679
<v Speaker 1>is it what for his president she wants on on

0:20:48.800 --> 0:20:51.040
<v Speaker 1>Beijing side, which is why we still have a sixty

0:20:51.040 --> 0:20:55.520
<v Speaker 1>five percent probability that that deal last through the November election.

0:20:55.600 --> 0:20:58.119
<v Speaker 1>But what's really key here is that Phase one deal

0:20:58.320 --> 0:21:03.400
<v Speaker 1>is increasingly a relevant barometer of the U. S. China relationship.

0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:07.159
<v Speaker 1>Even if that deal provides, the broader relationship has pretty

0:21:07.240 --> 0:21:11.600
<v Speaker 1>much fallen apart, and that that is going to be

0:21:11.720 --> 0:21:13.720
<v Speaker 1>the case with regardless of whether you have a second

0:21:13.800 --> 0:21:16.400
<v Speaker 1>term compan administration or if you have a Joe Biden

0:21:16.400 --> 0:21:20.000
<v Speaker 1>administration who will come into office and inherit uh quite

0:21:20.000 --> 0:21:22.320
<v Speaker 1>a challenging by that of relationships. I mean, we can

0:21:22.359 --> 0:21:24.640
<v Speaker 1>go all day on this and the different theories of

0:21:24.840 --> 0:21:27.280
<v Speaker 1>game theory, Meredith Sumter, but it comes down to a

0:21:27.280 --> 0:21:29.840
<v Speaker 1>game of chicken. Maybe you go back to Cuba and

0:21:29.880 --> 0:21:33.840
<v Speaker 1>the Cuban missile crisis, mutual assured destruction. It comes down

0:21:33.840 --> 0:21:37.480
<v Speaker 1>to who's gonna blink first. How does that play out?

0:21:37.600 --> 0:21:41.399
<v Speaker 1>What is the process of how you get through a

0:21:41.480 --> 0:21:45.639
<v Speaker 1>game of chicken? Well, I would say I think that

0:21:45.800 --> 0:21:49.159
<v Speaker 1>from from Asians perspective, they're just trying to manage that

0:21:49.240 --> 0:21:52.560
<v Speaker 1>game of chicken through November, looking at poll numbers and

0:21:52.600 --> 0:21:54.960
<v Speaker 1>hoping that they're going to have a change in US

0:21:55.000 --> 0:21:58.480
<v Speaker 1>political leadership that they don't think will necessarily have a

0:21:58.560 --> 0:22:03.320
<v Speaker 1>fundmently different view of of that that um uh sort

0:22:03.320 --> 0:22:05.919
<v Speaker 1>of confrontation with China, but it will be handled in

0:22:05.920 --> 0:22:09.960
<v Speaker 1>a much different way and a much more manageable way

0:22:10.040 --> 0:22:12.479
<v Speaker 1>for Beijing murder. If we've got to wrap up by

0:22:12.520 --> 0:22:16.119
<v Speaker 1>talking about the response from Beijing. Last week, the United

0:22:16.200 --> 0:22:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Kingdom is freezing out announcing plans to freeze out Huawei.

0:22:19.480 --> 0:22:21.359
<v Speaker 1>What we've learned in the last twenty four hours is

0:22:21.400 --> 0:22:24.000
<v Speaker 1>that China is responding by having a blackout for the

0:22:24.040 --> 0:22:26.679
<v Speaker 1>English Premier League this coming weekend, the last game of

0:22:26.720 --> 0:22:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the season. I'm just wondering why they keep going towards sports.

0:22:29.800 --> 0:22:31.160
<v Speaker 1>They did this with the mp A and the last

0:22:31.160 --> 0:22:33.560
<v Speaker 1>twelve months as well, they're doing with English football. Now

0:22:33.600 --> 0:22:35.879
<v Speaker 1>in the last twenty four hours, how effective do you

0:22:35.880 --> 0:22:39.920
<v Speaker 1>think the strategy actually is? Jonathan talked about a game

0:22:39.920 --> 0:22:41.680
<v Speaker 1>of chicken. You think you have problems with the US

0:22:41.760 --> 0:22:44.600
<v Speaker 1>China relationship, and China has problems across the whole host

0:22:45.080 --> 0:22:48.800
<v Speaker 1>of its relationships externally. And the question is does Beijing

0:22:49.000 --> 0:22:53.000
<v Speaker 1>realize the strategic error that they're making. In other words,

0:22:53.000 --> 0:22:55.200
<v Speaker 1>at a time when the US positions vis the China

0:22:55.240 --> 0:22:57.119
<v Speaker 1>and frankly Vius to be, the rest of the world

0:22:57.720 --> 0:23:00.040
<v Speaker 1>has been at odds with with what the worst of

0:23:00.080 --> 0:23:03.359
<v Speaker 1>the world want, this could have been an opportunity for Beijing,

0:23:03.560 --> 0:23:07.480
<v Speaker 1>but really Beijing has fundamentally failed to capitalize on that

0:23:08.080 --> 0:23:11.520
<v Speaker 1>on the part of using politics in its own political

0:23:11.560 --> 0:23:14.800
<v Speaker 1>insentives to try to course other countries. That's going to

0:23:14.880 --> 0:23:18.159
<v Speaker 1>have negative fill over, John, are you telling me that

0:23:18.400 --> 0:23:21.399
<v Speaker 1>China is gonna blackout Crystal Palace and the tots that

0:23:21.520 --> 0:23:24.320
<v Speaker 1>massive game that you're so excited about, they won't be

0:23:24.359 --> 0:23:27.760
<v Speaker 1>able to see. Meredith, were gonna say thank you, Meredith

0:23:27.840 --> 0:23:31.000
<v Speaker 1>somethday you write your group had of research, strategy and operations.

0:23:41.600 --> 0:23:44.480
<v Speaker 1>Joining is right now a gentleman who it is important

0:23:44.520 --> 0:23:50.280
<v Speaker 1>to speak to on the miles rounded up six miles

0:23:51.160 --> 0:23:56.600
<v Speaker 1>from Manila west northwest to a set of islands with

0:23:56.840 --> 0:24:00.080
<v Speaker 1>Chinese jets on them in the South China Sea, and

0:24:00.119 --> 0:24:02.719
<v Speaker 1>that would, of course be James Trevinis. Admiral Stevinus has

0:24:02.800 --> 0:24:05.280
<v Speaker 1>been a wonderful friend of the show, and of course

0:24:06.080 --> 0:24:09.080
<v Speaker 1>has authored too many books to count, including the time

0:24:10.000 --> 0:24:13.880
<v Speaker 1>his ship came out of San Diego and he moved

0:24:13.880 --> 0:24:15.879
<v Speaker 1>out to sea for the first time. Admiral, thank you

0:24:15.960 --> 0:24:18.159
<v Speaker 1>so much for joining us this morning. How do we

0:24:18.280 --> 0:24:20.719
<v Speaker 1>show the flag in the South China Sea? How does

0:24:20.760 --> 0:24:25.879
<v Speaker 1>that actually happen? Tom? We take our ships as you

0:24:25.880 --> 0:24:30.600
<v Speaker 1>would expect. Our big aircraft carrier's nuclear powered aircraft carriers

0:24:30.680 --> 0:24:35.639
<v Speaker 1>are big amphibious carriers that carry thousands of marines and

0:24:35.720 --> 0:24:39.280
<v Speaker 1>above all our destroyers like the new movie Tom Hanks Greyhound,

0:24:39.720 --> 0:24:43.680
<v Speaker 1>those fast, lean ships that can go into these waters,

0:24:44.080 --> 0:24:47.400
<v Speaker 1>and we simply drive them through these waters. We operate

0:24:47.520 --> 0:24:50.200
<v Speaker 1>the aircraft of them. And we do this to demonstrate

0:24:50.280 --> 0:24:55.080
<v Speaker 1>to China that China's claim that the entire South China

0:24:55.160 --> 0:25:00.160
<v Speaker 1>Sea is territorial Chinese waters is preposterous and viole. It's

0:25:00.160 --> 0:25:04.080
<v Speaker 1>international law. These are called freedom of navigation patrols. It's

0:25:04.119 --> 0:25:08.760
<v Speaker 1>the most effective way to physically demonstrate these are high seas,

0:25:08.880 --> 0:25:11.320
<v Speaker 1>international water. And well, let me ask the question, and

0:25:11.400 --> 0:25:13.639
<v Speaker 1>I say this our attempt to say this with grace

0:25:14.320 --> 0:25:16.440
<v Speaker 1>and that we all have a collective memory of the

0:25:16.520 --> 0:25:19.119
<v Speaker 1>Falkland Islands where boats were floating around and all of

0:25:19.160 --> 0:25:21.520
<v Speaker 1>a sudden there was a missile. In this case, there

0:25:21.560 --> 0:25:27.639
<v Speaker 1>are some form of images of Chinese aviation within the vicinity.

0:25:28.280 --> 0:25:30.879
<v Speaker 1>How do we know that our kids are safe on

0:25:31.000 --> 0:25:35.080
<v Speaker 1>these ships? First of all, these ships have the most

0:25:35.160 --> 0:25:39.040
<v Speaker 1>sophisticated air defense systems in the world. Having said that,

0:25:39.280 --> 0:25:42.159
<v Speaker 1>you're absolutely correct, Tom. In the nineteen eighties during the

0:25:42.240 --> 0:25:48.119
<v Speaker 1>Falkland's invasion, number of British ships were sunk by Argentine aircraft.

0:25:48.600 --> 0:25:54.800
<v Speaker 1>On the other hand, are AEGIS combat system is very sophisticated.

0:25:54.840 --> 0:25:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Great are we have high speed missiles that go with it?

0:25:58.400 --> 0:26:02.600
<v Speaker 1>We can defend ourselves re noably well. Part of this again,

0:26:02.720 --> 0:26:04.840
<v Speaker 1>one final question. I know Paul Sweeney wants to jump

0:26:04.920 --> 0:26:09.720
<v Speaker 1>in here as well. Admiral it is tit for tat diplomacy.

0:26:10.520 --> 0:26:13.720
<v Speaker 1>You are toughs, I'm sure had to go through courses

0:26:13.800 --> 0:26:17.120
<v Speaker 1>on game theory. To our audience and to me it's

0:26:17.160 --> 0:26:20.640
<v Speaker 1>just a game of chicken. How does a diplomatic game

0:26:20.720 --> 0:26:25.840
<v Speaker 1>of chicken unravel? How does it end? Um it unravels.

0:26:25.880 --> 0:26:30.400
<v Speaker 1>Those are two different questions. It unravels if the protagonists

0:26:30.520 --> 0:26:35.359
<v Speaker 1>in the game on the point of the exercise UM miscalculate,

0:26:35.520 --> 0:26:40.760
<v Speaker 1>if a Navy destroyer UH fires on a Chinese jet

0:26:41.760 --> 0:26:44.119
<v Speaker 1>before it's in a firing position, and we have an

0:26:44.200 --> 0:26:48.199
<v Speaker 1>international incidents, that's how it unravels. The way we prevent

0:26:48.320 --> 0:26:50.879
<v Speaker 1>it is create buffer zones, Tom. And the way to

0:26:50.960 --> 0:26:54.440
<v Speaker 1>do that is negotiate with China for a set of

0:26:54.560 --> 0:26:58.880
<v Speaker 1>protocols and see that keep our forces some set distance

0:26:58.960 --> 0:27:02.040
<v Speaker 1>physically apart. We did that with the Soviet Union during

0:27:02.080 --> 0:27:05.399
<v Speaker 1>the Cold War. We're gonna need to do that with China. Admiral,

0:27:05.480 --> 0:27:07.000
<v Speaker 1>what is it? What is the state of the United

0:27:07.000 --> 0:27:09.879
<v Speaker 1>States Navy in the Pacific as we speak here is

0:27:09.880 --> 0:27:14.120
<v Speaker 1>because we think about the tensions rising with China. Good news,

0:27:14.200 --> 0:27:18.240
<v Speaker 1>bad news. Good news are carriers are forward. We have

0:27:18.320 --> 0:27:21.720
<v Speaker 1>two nuclear powered aircraft carriers in the South China Sea

0:27:21.840 --> 0:27:25.520
<v Speaker 1>right now. We have very capable forces in Japan Forward.

0:27:25.880 --> 0:27:29.800
<v Speaker 1>About half of our fleet focuses on that vast Pacific

0:27:30.320 --> 0:27:33.840
<v Speaker 1>water space. The bad news paul Is. For example, we

0:27:33.960 --> 0:27:36.479
<v Speaker 1>just recently had a fire and lost one of our

0:27:36.680 --> 0:27:41.000
<v Speaker 1>big deck UH amphibious carriers in San Diego, the Bonham

0:27:41.119 --> 0:27:45.280
<v Speaker 1>Richard Um. We see some instances where the Navy needs

0:27:45.359 --> 0:27:48.960
<v Speaker 1>to do better with its level of professionalism. That destroyer

0:27:49.040 --> 0:27:51.920
<v Speaker 1>collisions a couple of years ago. So Navy has some

0:27:52.080 --> 0:27:55.000
<v Speaker 1>work to do. It's not perfect, but it's still the

0:27:55.160 --> 0:27:59.640
<v Speaker 1>best maritime force in the world. I'm confident in the Navy. So, Adam,

0:27:59.680 --> 0:28:02.399
<v Speaker 1>what you kind of mentioned that the fire for that

0:28:02.680 --> 0:28:04.840
<v Speaker 1>ship in San Diego, We've we've all seen the images

0:28:04.960 --> 0:28:07.560
<v Speaker 1>on the news, and you mentioned some of those collisions

0:28:08.080 --> 0:28:10.720
<v Speaker 1>from uh some Navy ships over the last couple of years.

0:28:11.440 --> 0:28:14.760
<v Speaker 1>Is there anything there to extrapolate from those issues? Is

0:28:14.840 --> 0:28:17.680
<v Speaker 1>there a is there something wrong with the Navy? Is

0:28:17.760 --> 0:28:20.600
<v Speaker 1>there a breakdown anywhere you think the professionalism of the

0:28:20.680 --> 0:28:23.080
<v Speaker 1>Navy or these are just kind of one off coincidences.

0:28:23.880 --> 0:28:26.320
<v Speaker 1>Now I don't think they're one off coincidences. And and

0:28:26.560 --> 0:28:29.240
<v Speaker 1>I just did a piece in Bloomberg Opinion, where I'm

0:28:29.240 --> 0:28:31.960
<v Speaker 1>a columnist, as you know, on this exact subject. It's

0:28:32.000 --> 0:28:34.399
<v Speaker 1>time for the Navy to kind of say all stop,

0:28:34.480 --> 0:28:37.080
<v Speaker 1>let's take a hard look at how we're operating the

0:28:37.200 --> 0:28:42.400
<v Speaker 1>Navy because there are too many, uh, individual instances of concern.

0:28:42.560 --> 0:28:44.920
<v Speaker 1>The new Chief of Naval Operations, and he is new.

0:28:45.000 --> 0:28:47.320
<v Speaker 1>We have a new Secretary of the Navy. They both

0:28:47.440 --> 0:28:49.560
<v Speaker 1>gripped this, and I think you're going to see some

0:28:50.360 --> 0:28:54.200
<v Speaker 1>hard self examination by the service going forward. It seems

0:28:54.240 --> 0:28:58.800
<v Speaker 1>to be such rough language. Secretary of Pompeo with comments

0:28:58.880 --> 0:29:01.400
<v Speaker 1>this morning of the course in Denmark. I believe it

0:29:01.520 --> 0:29:03.600
<v Speaker 1>was yesterday. I believe he has a speech of four

0:29:03.680 --> 0:29:06.920
<v Speaker 1>pm this afternoon. Is moving so fast, folks, I can't

0:29:07.000 --> 0:29:11.640
<v Speaker 1>keep up. This is almost ad hoc diplomacy. Is there

0:29:11.680 --> 0:29:15.600
<v Speaker 1>a theory here admalstra vitas? I think there is a

0:29:15.800 --> 0:29:19.400
<v Speaker 1>theory with regard to China, which is, as we get

0:29:19.440 --> 0:29:23.120
<v Speaker 1>into this twenty one century, our greatest challenge is not

0:29:23.320 --> 0:29:25.560
<v Speaker 1>going to be Russia, which is what I focused on

0:29:25.680 --> 0:29:29.040
<v Speaker 1>when I was Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Instead, our

0:29:29.120 --> 0:29:35.200
<v Speaker 1>greatest challenge going forward in this century tom economically, culturally, politically, diplomatically,

0:29:35.320 --> 0:29:38.400
<v Speaker 1>certainly militarily, is going to be China. So I think

0:29:38.480 --> 0:29:44.160
<v Speaker 1>the administration would say they are constructing a strategy to

0:29:44.360 --> 0:29:49.440
<v Speaker 1>compete with China to ensure that we maintain our sets

0:29:49.520 --> 0:29:52.560
<v Speaker 1>of alliances around the world. That's why you're seeing Secretary

0:29:52.640 --> 0:29:56.320
<v Speaker 1>Pompeo out on patrol all around the world making these points.

0:29:56.960 --> 0:29:58.480
<v Speaker 1>And well, I've got too short of visit. We have

0:29:58.560 --> 0:30:00.440
<v Speaker 1>to leave it there, but we look forward speaking to

0:30:00.440 --> 0:30:03.840
<v Speaker 1>you again. Apples te Vidis James Travins with us today

0:30:04.000 --> 0:30:07.400
<v Speaker 1>with just wonderful books. I can't say enough, folks about

0:30:07.440 --> 0:30:10.040
<v Speaker 1>the Leader's bookshelf. I just really can't say enough about

0:30:10.040 --> 0:30:14.200
<v Speaker 1>its effort, particularly here within the pandemic. Thanks for listening

0:30:14.320 --> 0:30:18.880
<v Speaker 1>to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews

0:30:18.920 --> 0:30:24.120
<v Speaker 1>on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.

0:30:24.720 --> 0:30:28.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You

0:30:28.080 --> 0:30:31.440
<v Speaker 1>can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.