Speaker 1: Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane.
Speaker 1: Daily we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. Right now,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Rosenberg joining us the Black Rock, their portfolio manager
Speaker 1: of Systematic multi Strategy. Jeff, how is the black Rock
Speaker 1: called nuanced in the last two weeks, the cacophony of
Speaker 1: noise and what we see within this job's report, how
Speaker 1: is the yield call morphed for black Rock? Well, it's
Speaker 1: really as Jonathan was just talking about, you know, the
Speaker 1: changes that the focus is less on what the FETE
Speaker 1: is going to do and on monetary policy and much
Speaker 1: more on the fiscal policy. And when you look at
Speaker 1: this report, there's a little bit of good news, there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of bad news, but I don't think
Speaker 1: it really changes the overall narrative from fiscal policy and importantly,
Speaker 1: market expectations for fiscal policy. It appears that we're going
Speaker 1: to go to the bigger plan. Uh, and with that
Speaker 1: you've had this return to a pretty significant bear steeping
Speaker 1: in in the curve UH, and that's a reflection of
Speaker 1: the impact the expected impact of these very significant fiscal policies.
Speaker 1: I'll use the plural here because the focus is on
Speaker 1: the first one, UH, the one point one point nine
Speaker 1: trillion the fiscal plan to address COVID, but it will
Speaker 1: be followed by a second one, which is further economic
Speaker 1: UH fiscal interventions. And so that's really the focus here,
Speaker 1: and that's what's changing the outlook. It's steeping of the curve,
Speaker 1: increasing inflation expectations, modestly higher interest rates. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: that a little bit more. Front end of the Yeld
Speaker 1: curve pin to the floor ten eleven basis points on
Speaker 1: a two year old that's going nowhere for a long time,
Speaker 1: and the FED changes course. Jeff, As you say, all
Speaker 1: the flexibility is the long end through the belly out
Speaker 1: of tends out to thirties. That's where you get this flexibility,
Speaker 1: this ability to shift higher in yields. How self limiting
Speaker 1: do you think of SALF could be? Well, you know
Speaker 1: it's about the pace of the of the increase in
Speaker 1: terms of it being self limiting. Right, what what limits
Speaker 1: it is? Is there a degree of increase in long
Speaker 1: term interest rates that starts to have a meaningful impact
Speaker 1: to expectations in the real economy. Where does that mostly
Speaker 1: show up. It's through the transmission to the housing market, right,
Speaker 1: the big story in the real economy, the big beneficiary
Speaker 1: of this interest rate structure has been housing. And so
Speaker 1: if you had a significant disruption there in terms of
Speaker 1: the steepening of the curve, that's when it becomes self limiting,
Speaker 1: because then the market starts to worry that it's gone
Speaker 1: too far that the FED would then ramp up its intervention.
Speaker 1: That's the first area. The second area, real quickly is
Speaker 1: financial conditions. Right, A two aggressive move in terms of
Speaker 1: the back end of the curve steepening, taper, tantrum kind
Speaker 1: of concerns that starts to disrupt financial intermediation and the
Speaker 1: stock market most importantly, probably triggers some kind of first
Speaker 1: verbal intervention and maybe you know, a larger intervention if
Speaker 1: the disruption is larger. So that's the way in which
Speaker 1: itself limiting. This kind of gradual bear steepening that doesn't
Speaker 1: disrupt those two elements you know, can be absorbed. The
Speaker 1: bear stepening that we're talking about, the longer term yield
Speaker 1: going up Is it because that the supply of treasuries
Speaker 1: that the US is going to be selling is going
Speaker 1: to be going up so significantly to pay for all
Speaker 1: of this fiscal stimulus. Or is it because inflation is
Speaker 1: expected to tick up with all the money circulating in
Speaker 1: the economy. Well, it's a little bit of both, you know.
Speaker 1: The supply demand uh imbalances or or balance I should
Speaker 1: call it, because uh, it gets met. The question is
Speaker 1: at what price? And that's really a reflection of the
Speaker 1: total of the demand. The key is is that the
Speaker 1: FED is is uh the major purchaser there, and so
Speaker 1: the expectations are that they will maintain that. You know
Speaker 1: this year through this year a lot of question and
Speaker 1: debate about the pace of tapering and eventually halting those purchases.
Speaker 1: But what we've seen from FED officials recently is you know,
Speaker 1: no hurry to talk about and really tamping down any
Speaker 1: discussion about that. So that FED support really helps to
Speaker 1: offset the increase and expected supply, and then the long
Speaker 1: term inflation expectations are taking up. We've seen that certainly
Speaker 1: in terms of break even inflation, UH. And that's a
Speaker 1: modest increase in a return to some term premium in
Speaker 1: the back end of the curve, but it's a very
Speaker 1: modest increased relative to historical levels. Jeff Frozenberg, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, greatly appreciate it. With black Rock this morning,
Speaker 1: I'm policy. We went out in our rolodex and said,
Speaker 1: who was someone who did not sleep last night? That
Speaker 1: would be Henrietta Treas a Veta partners looking at the
Speaker 1: festivities of the Senate and the path towards a new
Speaker 1: kind of stimulus. Henrietta first Principles explained to our audience
Speaker 1: the distance that the Democrats are from filibuster Um. Well,
Speaker 1: technically speaking, they are very far from the filibuster, but
Speaker 1: practically they are right up on it um and getting
Speaker 1: closer every day as we go through UM. What I
Speaker 1: expect will be a very generous interpretation of something called
Speaker 1: the Bird Rule, which prohibits any policy agenda items from
Speaker 1: passing with just votes. So we're very close. At about
Speaker 1: five o'clock this morning, the Democrats unlocked reconciliation authority, which
Speaker 1: will allow them to get their stimulus out sometime in
Speaker 1: the next just four weeks here um, maybe five, to
Speaker 1: provide as much as one point nine trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: stimulus to the U S Economy UM with only Democratic
Speaker 1: votes Henrietta, does the Senator from West Virginia apply the
Speaker 1: Bird rule or the marginal Bird rule? And can Republicans
Speaker 1: the minority adjust the Bird rule to steer reconciliation in
Speaker 1: their direction. Well, the most important person technique here is
Speaker 1: going to be the parliamentarian, woman Elizabeth McDonough, and she
Speaker 1: is going to be the one to who UM tells
Speaker 1: the Democrats how much they can get away with in
Speaker 1: practical purposes. Though Senator Mansion is absolutely someone who is
Speaker 1: going to be able to say, you know, maybe you can,
Speaker 1: you know, twist the arm of the parliamentarian, but I'm
Speaker 1: still not going to vote for it. That would apply
Speaker 1: to things like UM getting the direct payment to individuals
Speaker 1: out to people who he thinks are in an upper
Speaker 1: income threshold, or moving the minimum wage to fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: an hour. Last night there was a vote that got
Speaker 1: rejected or supported rather from the Republican side saying you know,
Speaker 1: we're not going to increase the minimum wage and potentially
Speaker 1: hurt small businesses during a pandemic, and there was Democratic
Speaker 1: support for that, which points the picture of even if
Speaker 1: UH Budget Community Chairman Bernie Sanders and his chief of
Speaker 1: staff Bill Downstair, who has extraordinarily experienced in the reconciliation process.
Speaker 1: If Mansion is not going to vote for it, or
Speaker 1: Senator Cinema or Warner, Tester or Kelly, there is nothing
Speaker 1: the bird rule or tweaking the Bird ule could do
Speaker 1: to overcome what they will not do. UM. So the
Speaker 1: restrictions there on policy are still very much in fit
Speaker 1: in place by the Moderates and the Democratic Conference. So basically,
Speaker 1: Biden's hope for a bipartisan Washington seemed to be fading
Speaker 1: as time goes on, rapidly fading. And there is a
Speaker 1: question of whether people's hopes for a second round of
Speaker 1: stimulus after this one that perhaps they've gotten a little
Speaker 1: ahead of themselves given the lack of willingness to really
Speaker 1: work together to push something through. Henrietta, do you think
Speaker 1: that it's less likely that we're going to get some
Speaker 1: sort of infrastructure spending if the Democrats push this through unilaterally.
Speaker 1: I think it's really difficult. Um. One of the things
Speaker 1: the Street is factoring in is that Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to plow through the stimulus bill moved to an infrastructure
Speaker 1: package and offset it with tax increases on corporations and individuals.
Speaker 1: There's just no planet where you have the votes for that. UM.
Speaker 1: So I think the difficulty of getting their budget through
Speaker 1: holding another all nighter on vote a rama at this time,
Speaker 1: doing it on infrastructure spending is going to be even
Speaker 1: more complicated than this package. So if we have a
Speaker 1: hundred percent that this bill will eventually go through, whether
Speaker 1: Republicans vote in favor of another stimulus bill or not,
Speaker 1: it's going to pass. The infrastructure package is going to
Speaker 1: be even harder. UM. And then some Democrats you talked
Speaker 1: to would say, and then we want to do a
Speaker 1: third bill after that, propecially your three, And it's really
Speaker 1: hard to thread the needles for for that component, especially
Speaker 1: as we get into midterm elections, which are just going
Speaker 1: to start around March of next year. So I think
Speaker 1: that each subsequent path forward on a partisan basis does
Speaker 1: get more difficult. But what we've seen from this president
Speaker 1: is that they're extraordinarily um rigorous in their messaging. And
Speaker 1: so there's no question that we're in you know, COVID
Speaker 1: relief week, and I would be eager to see what
Speaker 1: infrastructure Week looks like under this president, just on a
Speaker 1: technical note, Henriette, you were talking about taxation, and when
Speaker 1: can you talk about the wreck inciliation process and whether
Speaker 1: Congress has to pay for some of the measures that
Speaker 1: they pass if they go through reconciliation rather than a
Speaker 1: bipartisan a measure. Great question, a major source of can
Speaker 1: confusion on the street. What happened last night is that
Speaker 1: Democrats authorized one point nine trillion dollars in deficit increases.
Speaker 1: That is over a ten year budget window, and that
Speaker 1: means that over ten years, Democrats or Republicans, if they
Speaker 1: want to vote for the bill, can authorize one point
Speaker 1: nine trillion dollars of deficit increases and they do not
Speaker 1: have to pay for it. Do not. There are no
Speaker 1: taxes in this bill. Indeed, there was a vote offered
Speaker 1: by a couple of Republicans that said we will not
Speaker 1: raise taxes on small businesses during a pandemic, and it
Speaker 1: passed one hundred to zero. So there are no taxes.
Speaker 1: The bill will not be offset by tax increases, either
Speaker 1: at the corporate or individual level. The deficit spending will
Speaker 1: be incurred during that tenure budget window, and no taxes
Speaker 1: will be increased. As a result of this spill, some
Speaker 1: of the detail there. Henrietta Treys a pro Invada partners
Speaker 1: there on fiscal and many conversations to come forward as well.
Speaker 1: Christopher low Over at f H and Financial makes the
Speaker 1: really important point that most of the drop and the
Speaker 1: good news unemployment rate six point seven and six point
Speaker 1: three was four hundred thousand fewer people who stopped looking
Speaker 1: for work. Tiffany Wilding joins at PIMCO with acute analysis
Speaker 1: at Tiffany. There's so many moving parts here. Is this
Speaker 1: unemployment report of almost desolation where people are just giving
Speaker 1: up looking. Um, well, yeah, so it certainly could be that,
Speaker 1: but but I also think there could be just some
Speaker 1: some pandemic related distortions here where you actually had people
Speaker 1: that the reason why they're they dropped out of the
Speaker 1: labor force and they're not looking and the reason is
Speaker 1: is maybe because they think they're going to get the
Speaker 1: jobs back soon. So this is sort of a temporary phenomenon,
Speaker 1: you know. And I think overall, what what the labor
Speaker 1: force reports sort of showed us though, was that pandemic
Speaker 1: related weakness in the economy at the end of the
Speaker 1: year um was actually you know, quite a bit more
Speaker 1: acute than than we had initially thought so, but I
Speaker 1: think that there maybe is some you know, some good
Speaker 1: news here in the sense that, um, you know, the
Speaker 1: reason why people might not be looking and dropped out
Speaker 1: of the labor forces because they think they're going to
Speaker 1: get their jobs back. Um, you know. And if that's
Speaker 1: the case, you know that that would be an I
Speaker 1: love what Chrysalis says in his report. I want you
Speaker 1: to come on us. Word it's such a delicate and
Speaker 1: unused word. He says, the forty nine thousand was scant,
Speaker 1: and it was just a whisper of an improvement. Did
Speaker 1: you extend your timeline, Tiffany today two so called employment
Speaker 1: recovery because of what you observed? Um? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: so the report was a little bit weaker than we thought.
Speaker 1: But but you also have to keep in mind again
Speaker 1: there you know, there's some quirks in the data. UM.
Speaker 1: I think seasonal factors um were unable to fully adjust
Speaker 1: for some of the issues. So things like warehousing and
Speaker 1: and retail temporary jobs, they're related to the holidays, they've
Speaker 1: become more pronounced. Um you know, so you kind of
Speaker 1: get these seasonal separations that you know, the seasonal factors
Speaker 1: don't fully account for UM, you know, so I think
Speaker 1: that's actually probably good. You know, I think the bottom
Speaker 1: line is all that is to say that, you know,
Speaker 1: forty or fifty thousand's not great, UM, you know, but
Speaker 1: this doesn't really change our outlook that much, you know.
Speaker 1: I think the other thing really that's important to keep
Speaker 1: in mind here is that UM spending did pick up
Speaker 1: in UM in January as a result of the UM
Speaker 1: you know, the payments that the Treasury payments to households
Speaker 1: that came with the gut COVID COVID relief bill, you know. So,
Speaker 1: and we expect more legislation, you know, from the Widen
Speaker 1: administration by March for more stimulus. So I think, you know, overall,
Speaker 1: this doesn't really change the outlook UM. You know, we
Speaker 1: know that things were a bit more acute, the weakness
Speaker 1: was a bit more acute at your end. But but
Speaker 1: I think that the outlook is still, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: towards a pretty decent size acceleration. Tiffany, what's the concern
Speaker 1: or what's the level of concern about some of this UM.
Speaker 1: Some of these folks, I've been unemployed for a very
Speaker 1: long time than perhaps this is more maybe more permanent,
Speaker 1: maybe than maybe we initially thought. Yeah, I mean, so
Speaker 1: that's that's the concern, right, is that you basically, the
Speaker 1: longer that people are unemployed, UM, you have you know,
Speaker 1: sort of longer term effects happening. So you have skills
Speaker 1: that atrophy. UM. You know, you know, have training that
Speaker 1: people that people get on the job that stops happening
Speaker 1: because they're unemployed. UM. And effectively what happens is is that,
Speaker 1: you know, the longer they're unemployed, it's almost like the
Speaker 1: less likely they are to to get employed because they
Speaker 1: don't have those skills. You know. Now you know the
Speaker 1: this is the one thing or one of the um
Speaker 1: the conclusions that came out of the Federal Reserves UH
Speaker 1: FEDS LISTENS and Monetary policy review that happened in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years is that if you can get
Speaker 1: back to a hot labor market, then those people that
Speaker 1: were you know, unemployed for long periods of time they
Speaker 1: actually benefit. So, you know, the hot labor market with
Speaker 1: few labor supply that's low really draws those types of
Speaker 1: people back in. They start getting the training again, and
Speaker 1: that's better for the broader economy. So, you know, I
Speaker 1: think we really want to focus here on on bringing
Speaker 1: the labor market back to potential, creating kind of a
Speaker 1: hot situation as soon as possible, you know, so you uh,
Speaker 1: you know, to the extent that you do have those
Speaker 1: longer term unemployed, you can really draw them back into
Speaker 1: the labor market. So, Tiffany, it appears that we're getting
Speaker 1: some movement on fiscal stimulus here. We take a look
Speaker 1: at the jobs data today, the uh, the employment data today.
Speaker 1: What don't you think this economy really needs from Washington
Speaker 1: here in terms of fiscal stimulus, including this package however
Speaker 1: it may come out, and then maybe even something more
Speaker 1: permanent down the road. Yeah, I mean, I think I
Speaker 1: think the focus should be here first and foremost on
Speaker 1: on pandemic relief. I mean, you have to keep in
Speaker 1: mind that that we still have labor market slack. You know.
Speaker 1: Now we can argue about the size that's needed for
Speaker 1: that pandemic relief, um, you know, and exactly how to
Speaker 1: do that, but I think overall, first and foremost that
Speaker 1: should still be the focus. Um. But then after that
Speaker 1: we need to focus on some of these longer term
Speaker 1: initiatives and investments in the economy. Um. You know that
Speaker 1: that creates supply, create longer term growth you know, productivity growth, infrastructure,
Speaker 1: um and things like that. And keep in mind, if
Speaker 1: the focus on these longer term investments is more towards
Speaker 1: the supply side of the economy, that's actually not inflationary. Um,
Speaker 1: that's a good thing, Tiffany welding with us with Pimcoe. Tiffany,
Speaker 1: how do you share holes? Of course, writing it up
Speaker 1: on the labor economy the Economic Policy Institute, Folks, this
Speaker 1: is a liberal thing to tank. The conservatives read because
Speaker 1: it's smart, smart, smart, even if you disagree with the articles.
Speaker 1: She has a working number of high of excuse me, Tiffany,
Speaker 1: of twenty six to seven million workers of team percent
Speaker 1: of the workhorse workforce is in some way affected by
Speaker 1: all this. What's the Pimco working number of the number
Speaker 1: of people struggling in this labor economy? Yeah, I mean clearly,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's high. Um. I mean I think I
Speaker 1: think that's the that's the issue here, is that there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people, um, that that were affected. And
Speaker 1: even if you if even if you didn't lose your job, um,
Speaker 1: you know that. I think that there, um, there are
Speaker 1: effects in terms of uh, you know, education and things
Speaker 1: like that being disrupted, So you still have to to
Speaker 1: do you know, you have to have more flexible working environment,
Speaker 1: things like that. So I think there are certainly a
Speaker 1: lot of people that are impacted by this, you know,
Speaker 1: And I think that's the point here, is that um
Speaker 1: for the fiscal policy measures, you know, you still have
Speaker 1: to focus on pandemic relief as a result of that,
Speaker 1: We're not out of the out of the woods yet
Speaker 1: in terms of the pandemic, although the outlook is much
Speaker 1: better now than it was, you know, six months ago.
Speaker 1: Timing Wild you needed that update, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: With the Pacific Investment man, I love saying that Sack
Speaker 1: Investment Management Company very place to say that giving us
Speaker 1: some of that time is how to Bushek of the
Speaker 1: U S Council of Economic Advisors had the great to
Speaker 1: catch shove you thankfully time this morning. Just help me understand,
Speaker 1: just to begin with, how the incoming dates is informing
Speaker 1: the decision that you're making around fiscal stimulus in the
Speaker 1: package is set to deliver down in d C. Well,
Speaker 1: the numbers that we got this morning really do underscore
Speaker 1: the cost of inaction. The January numbers are quite disappointing.
Speaker 1: They show that the pace of job growth has is slow,
Speaker 1: and it's certainly over the past three months, it's a
Speaker 1: lot slower than it was earlier at the end of
Speaker 1: and it just it underscores that without further aid, our
Speaker 1: economy is going to continue to struggle. We need to
Speaker 1: get that aid out to the families and businesses that
Speaker 1: need it. We need to make sure that we spend
Speaker 1: the resources we need to contain the virus so that
Speaker 1: we can all get back to work. And this report
Speaker 1: really is make that quite clear. How they you use
Speaker 1: that word aid, but given the size of the package,
Speaker 1: some people would just call it stimulus. It's huge. Why
Speaker 1: is that word a different to the word stimulus and
Speaker 1: why do you think it's a not stimulus. Well, at
Speaker 1: this point in this crisis, our first goal is to
Speaker 1: contain the pandemic. So a lot of the funds that
Speaker 1: are in the American Rescue Plan are about making sure
Speaker 1: that schools can reopen, making sure that we get the
Speaker 1: vaccine now, making sure that all the things we need
Speaker 1: to do to keep Americans safe and healthy our first priority.
Speaker 1: And while we do that, we need to make sure
Speaker 1: that businesses have the resources they need, and importantly families
Speaker 1: have the resources they need so they can weather this crisis.
Speaker 1: So it still is it. We're still really thinking about
Speaker 1: this as relief until we can contain the virus. Larry
Speaker 1: Summers is in the Washington Post today asking some important
Speaker 1: questions about the size of this package relative to the
Speaker 1: output gap. How that could you weigh in on that
Speaker 1: if it's all what the right size of the package
Speaker 1: should be relative to the output gap that we need
Speaker 1: to fill. It's certainly you know, this package was built
Speaker 1: from the ground up. We looked at the needs all
Speaker 1: across our economy and calculated how much it was that
Speaker 1: we were going to need to spend again to contain
Speaker 1: the virus, to make sure that schools could reopen, open,
Speaker 1: to make sure that child care centers can reopen, to
Speaker 1: make sure that workers have paid leave, all of those
Speaker 1: sorts of things, and then to make sure that workers
Speaker 1: have those unemployment benefits as long as they need them,
Speaker 1: those direct checks for all the families that need them.
Speaker 1: So so we built that in that way, and um,
Speaker 1: you know, the goal here is to make sure that
Speaker 1: you know, families and businesses can weather this crisis and
Speaker 1: we'll worry. Uh, you know it may be that um
Speaker 1: that uh, this this report from this from January really
Speaker 1: does show that the high unemployment, especially for communities of color,
Speaker 1: the job losses for women, um and then and the
Speaker 1: lower label first participation really do show that we need
Speaker 1: to continue to act, and we need to do so quickly.
Speaker 1: What happens everything goes right, That's the question that Larry Summers,
Speaker 1: I think, is asking what's the contingency plan if everything
Speaker 1: starts to go right and maybe too right? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: was a really rough year, and we know that we
Speaker 1: have a hard time predicting the shape of this pandemic.
Speaker 1: And we know that without aid, families and businesses supper
Speaker 1: and today's jobs report really is the proof of the now.
Speaker 1: The proof is in the pudding here that without continued
Speaker 1: to support, we're going to see an economy that is performing,
Speaker 1: um much much more worse than it needs to be.
Speaker 1: So I am quite frankly, far more worried about the
Speaker 1: cost of an action than I am doing too much
Speaker 1: at this point. I think that echoes what many people
Speaker 1: are talking about down in d C at the moment,
Speaker 1: on both the monetory policy side on the fiscal side.
Speaker 1: In this administration, let's get to one of the policies,
Speaker 1: the checks. If I owned seventy five dollars and I
Speaker 1: can get a big check from the US government, why
Speaker 1: is the aid and not stimulus? Well, that is a
Speaker 1: that is a great question. So here's the thing. You know,
Speaker 1: we saw the checks were an incredibly effective tool when
Speaker 1: they win out last spring. Families used them, They helped them,
Speaker 1: you know, when they experienced unemployment or added expenses because
Speaker 1: of the crisis. And we know that millions of families
Speaker 1: are struggling right now, and that is the purpose of
Speaker 1: topping up the checks from December, to get that two
Speaker 1: thousand dollars out there to um uh to all the
Speaker 1: families that need them. Talk to me about eligibility and
Speaker 1: the conversation within the administration at the moment some concern
Speaker 1: that maybe the pool of people that could receive these
Speaker 1: checks it's just a little bit too wide. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: the President has been very clear that getting those um
Speaker 1: those checks at total two thousand dollars out to families
Speaker 1: is his priority, and he's been open to negotiation on
Speaker 1: the margins. But you know, I think what's really important
Speaker 1: is that you know, all those kindergarten teachers, those firefighters,
Speaker 1: those folks who were pulling in you know, sixty thou
Speaker 1: dollars or so that they get this aid. We have
Speaker 1: seen how important it is that those checks get out
Speaker 1: there and provide those cushions for families. They still have jobs, though,
Speaker 1: have it. And I'm not saying to advocate either side
Speaker 1: of this debate. I'm just trying to understand this just
Speaker 1: a little bit more because the word I keep hearing
Speaker 1: down in d C is bipartisan. But this seems to
Speaker 1: be very ideological, the idea of trying to address some
Speaker 1: of the social injustices of the last several decades, maybe
Speaker 1: even longer, and not to relieve people from the effects
Speaker 1: of the pandemic. There's pandemic relief and then there's relief
Speaker 1: because of injustice or perceived injustice of the last decades.
Speaker 1: Several decades in this country had the which one is it?
Speaker 1: You know? I think that this is uh, this is
Speaker 1: about relief, but it is also about the fact that
Speaker 1: we are in a K shaped recovery. It continues to
Speaker 1: be the case that folks at the top end of
Speaker 1: the income distribution have done very well. Those folks that
Speaker 1: have been able to tell a commune safely. You know,
Speaker 1: at the very very top end is you started this
Speaker 1: segment folks, um you know who are in the stock
Speaker 1: market seeing record highs, But the reality is for millions
Speaker 1: of families who are not in those top eche lines,
Speaker 1: this has been an incredibly stressful and economically damaging time.
Speaker 1: So we need to make sure to get relief out there.
Speaker 1: You know, we need to make sure that those essential
Speaker 1: workers get that relief. We need to make sure that
Speaker 1: families who are struggling have the support they need. Do
Speaker 1: you think it should be based on regions and the
Speaker 1: cost of living in those regions? Do you think one
Speaker 1: check for everyone, regardless of where they live makes sense. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, we're a big country, and certainly economic conditions
Speaker 1: are different across the country. But we are one country
Speaker 1: and this is a federal policy to make sure that
Speaker 1: we're providing that support that we need to people all
Speaker 1: across these United States. So that seems like the right
Speaker 1: policy for this moment. Had to come back soon, love
Speaker 1: to continue the conversation. Appreciate your time this morning, Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. How do we share that the U. S.
Speaker 1: Council of Economic Advices on this job to port a
Speaker 1: stimulus effort down at d S. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio