Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Markets Podcast. I'm Paul Sweeney alongside
Speaker 1: my co host Matt Miller. Every business day, we bring
Speaker 1: you interviews from CEOs, market pros, and Bloomberg experts, along
Speaker 1: with essential market moving news. Find the Bloomberg Markets Podcast
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts, and
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I want to get
Speaker 1: back to the big picture stories that have been swinging
Speaker 1: this market around, giving us the kind of volatility that
Speaker 1: we haven't certainly in the rates sector seen in decades,
Speaker 1: if ever before, And I want to do that with
Speaker 1: Chris Campbell. He is a senior policy analyst and sorry,
Speaker 1: he's the chief strategist at Kroll, but he has had
Speaker 1: a number of other important look at them before. Yeah,
Speaker 1: former assistant secretary from the US Department of Treasury, he
Speaker 1: went to FSOCK meetings, former Stack director of the Senate
Speaker 1: Finance Committee, and so lifetime member the accountl on Foreign Relations.
Speaker 1: You're basically plugged in on Wall Street and in Washington, Christ,
Speaker 1: So it's great to have you here in the studio
Speaker 1: with you. What do you make of the banking turmoil
Speaker 1: that we've seen in the government response, do you think
Speaker 1: it's behind us? As I say, the system worked, you know,
Speaker 1: like their banks will go under um, and you know,
Speaker 1: companies fail, but uh, and there's going to be an
Speaker 1: enormous amount of investigations going on, you know as to
Speaker 1: why the you know, these two banks failed in the
Speaker 1: United States. But the reality is the federals, federal Federal
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve and Treasury worked very quickly, very expeditiously, and
Speaker 1: decisively to make sure that depositors were taken care of,
Speaker 1: which is the way I think which is important. UM.
Speaker 1: It stopped a run on banks, which, as you know,
Speaker 1: is deeply emotional. And so with with that prevention and
Speaker 1: with the with confidence restored largely, UM, I think that
Speaker 1: we can now go back to a quote unquote normal system,
Speaker 1: if you will, where we're actually seen looking at fun
Speaker 1: mentals for banks and others in the market and uh
Speaker 1: and judging them on their fundamentals. Should we expand insurance
Speaker 1: beyond the two hundred and fifty thousand? How problematic is that?
Speaker 1: It's going to be deeply problematic and very very political
Speaker 1: in DC. UM. You know, it's you can kind of
Speaker 1: see the each side where they're going to come out
Speaker 1: the Democrats, like they're going to say that, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: two hundred fifty thousand dollars is a lot of money
Speaker 1: for most Americans. You know, the average American makes about
Speaker 1: fifty seven thousand dollars a year, So having two unrefty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in their bank account, it's just you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's like it's aspirational um and you know,
Speaker 1: and especially we're talking about savings accounts, right, so yeah,
Speaker 1: if if hopefully, uh, they can save up that much
Speaker 1: before retirement, because people live so long now and if
Speaker 1: you retire at sixty five or seventy, you still got
Speaker 1: another thirty years to fund. But they'll do it in
Speaker 1: different accounts. And there are four one ks and there's
Speaker 1: another issues that are not insured and so and so yeah,
Speaker 1: like I think that, you know, Republicans will take a
Speaker 1: different view of this, and so I just it's very deep,
Speaker 1: very tough to see, especially today's Washington, where there me
Speaker 1: be can census on on any legislation involving banks, changing
Speaker 1: Dodd Frank or anything like that in the current environment.
Speaker 1: But it's de facto done, isn't it. Raising the insurance?
Speaker 1: I mean, even though they're not going to officially do it. Um,
Speaker 1: if you have three hundred thousand, then your regional bank
Speaker 1: goes under, you can count on the government to bail
Speaker 1: you out. It's clear that the Federal Reserve has used
Speaker 1: its powers within Dodd, Frank and and supervisor authority to
Speaker 1: be able to step in and prevent and make sure
Speaker 1: the depositors will made whole. I think you know, again,
Speaker 1: you can argue moral hazard or not, but the reality
Speaker 1: is that that now the Federals Serve has done this.
Speaker 1: It's now well known that they can, and I think
Speaker 1: the depositors now I think you know it should have
Speaker 1: the Commons probably that that that Federserve likely step in
Speaker 1: in the future. Can I bring up a debt limit
Speaker 1: with you negotiating on Oh man, are we talking about
Speaker 1: the debt ceiling? Yeah? We are. I'm so well, we
Speaker 1: have to don't fortunately or not. I've I've actually negotiated
Speaker 1: the last twelve of them. So now is that you
Speaker 1: using that as a point of negotiation over whatever? Is
Speaker 1: that like playing Russian rule in It's very, very difficult
Speaker 1: and deeply problematic to suggest that the United States may
Speaker 1: walk up to the line and actually and not pay
Speaker 1: our bills. Um, it's you know, it's very and for
Speaker 1: for the listeners, it's really important to buy. For Kate,
Speaker 1: this is this is you know, not funding the Post
Speaker 1: office or the National parks. This is paying back our
Speaker 1: debt ors our debt and effectively, you know, and I
Speaker 1: think about this, and I tending which was already approved,
Speaker 1: was that's correct. Spening has already been improved, and actually
Speaker 1: it's already been spent. This is debt that we're paying back,
Speaker 1: and so um, you know, I think it's it really
Speaker 1: does affect the rate at which Treasury or where I
Speaker 1: used to work, can sell our our debt U and
Speaker 1: it'll affect that the amount of that and the confidence
Speaker 1: of people who buy buying our debt. And so the
Speaker 1: reality is, and we make quabble over this is the
Speaker 1: right thing to do or not, But if we you know,
Speaker 1: the government spends one point three dollars for every dollar
Speaker 1: takes in, we just we you know, the federal government
Speaker 1: likes to spend like drug and sailors, um, and they
Speaker 1: don't they don't balance the budget, and so we we
Speaker 1: just rely on debt to finance our operations in our
Speaker 1: in our government and so and so So John and
Speaker 1: I have covered uh these um impasses. The twenty eleven
Speaker 1: um one probably the most noteworthy. When we were our
Speaker 1: credit rating was lowered. You actually were in the room
Speaker 1: negotiating them UM as you said the last twelve. So
Speaker 1: this happens fairly often. Now at Kroll you're in a
Speaker 1: different role where you have to advise your clients on
Speaker 1: um You know what could happen around this in terms
Speaker 1: of the economy, in terms of the markets. What are
Speaker 1: you expecting this time? This will be the hardest one
Speaker 1: I've ever seen. When first, I'm so grateful that I'm
Speaker 1: out there. Uh, it's I really believe this is there
Speaker 1: actually maybe a chance we actually may do a technical
Speaker 1: default in this in this setting, UM, I really don't
Speaker 1: know how how you get there. You have we have
Speaker 1: a president who's unwilling to talk to House Republicans or
Speaker 1: House Republicans or have made it very clear that they
Speaker 1: want spending introductions in the package as an overall way
Speaker 1: to get to yes. And so with that, with those
Speaker 1: two postures, and we're and we're coming. We're going coming
Speaker 1: so quickly up to the to the deadline that there's
Speaker 1: really we're going to quickly come to a time where
Speaker 1: we're actually going to pass a red line where we can't,
Speaker 1: you know, because it just takes time to pass things
Speaker 1: in Congress. Hey, I just want to drain your experience.
Speaker 1: You were got about thirty seconds, Leff, you were Orange
Speaker 1: Hatch's right hand man. That mistaken could in an Orange
Speaker 1: Hatch function in today's Congress, or he'd be an outlier.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a couple couple I call statesmen left
Speaker 1: in the in the in the US and the US Congress,
Speaker 1: but they are a dying breed. And uh, I know,
Speaker 1: I'm so grateful to have been mentored by him. Um
Speaker 1: and I really our country would be much better off
Speaker 1: if we had more and more ore in hatches in
Speaker 1: the Senate today. Well, it's been awesome to have you
Speaker 1: in the studio and I hope we can get you
Speaker 1: back for more time. Chris Campbell, their chief strategist at Kroll,
Speaker 1: talking us through the bank. Well, we're not going to
Speaker 1: call it a crisis, right the bank. We camil is
Speaker 1: the word I think that we've landed on. You're listening
Speaker 1: to the Team Cancer Live program Bloomberg Markets weekdays at
Speaker 1: ten am Eastering on Bloomberg dot Com, the I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, and the Bloomberg Business app. We're listening on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcast. We have an opportunity
Speaker 1: to talk about steel right now at David Stickler. He's
Speaker 1: the CEO of High Bar. It's a newly formed company,
Speaker 1: comes with a lot of experience though as a CEO
Speaker 1: former CEO of Big River Steel, and he's in the
Speaker 1: studio with us right now. So I think it's a
Speaker 1: great opportunity to get a look at, you know, one
Speaker 1: of the underlying sort of signals of economic growth or
Speaker 1: you know, contraction. Thanks so much for joining us, David.
Speaker 1: What's the steel market like right now? Because it's obviously
Speaker 1: a primary building block of the economy. Sure, the steel
Speaker 1: market is if you look historically, it's in very very
Speaker 1: strong shape. It's been in strong shape for eighteen twenty
Speaker 1: four months now. But the steel market, when you talk steel,
Speaker 1: a lot of people look at just half of the equation.
Speaker 1: They look at what the steel price is. And today
Speaker 1: seventy percent of the steel in North America is made
Speaker 1: from recycled scrap metal, all right. Now, that's different where
Speaker 1: twenty years ago seventy percent was made from iron. Ore
Speaker 1: and coking coal. So there's been a huge, huge shift
Speaker 1: in the sustainability of steelmaking. But when you look at
Speaker 1: steel price, as I said a moment ago, that's just
Speaker 1: half the equation. It's what's the scrap metal price, And
Speaker 1: it's really the spread that everybody plays in, and that's
Speaker 1: where you make your money, the difference between scrap metal
Speaker 1: and steel. What are the benchmark contracts that you look
Speaker 1: at to find that price, So you you really in
Speaker 1: the steel industry, unlike the alunium industry or the oil
Speaker 1: industry or the gas industry, you don't have a liquid
Speaker 1: futures market. So you're really looking on a daily monthly
Speaker 1: basis on what the scrap price is trading at all, right,
Speaker 1: what you can buy scrap metal for, and then you're
Speaker 1: trying to add on your margin to set your steel price.
Speaker 1: And that's really gentleman. What's interesting, Manton John is with
Speaker 1: scrap metal, there's nothing else to do with it other
Speaker 1: than make new steel. But they have scrap metal overseas
Speaker 1: they do. And when I'm buying stuff like that, I
Speaker 1: would imagine as a purchaser, I'm just looking at, you know,
Speaker 1: who's the best producer, the best price I can get,
Speaker 1: And those are two different things, by the way, right,
Speaker 1: the best producer and the best price you can get
Speaker 1: are often too very different things. It's hugely different. Now
Speaker 1: you can buy steel. Steel isn't steel. Steel is not steel.
Speaker 1: You can buy steel from all the reaches of the
Speaker 1: globe pretty much. You can buy it from China, you
Speaker 1: can buy it from Russia, Brazil, India, Japan, Korea, Canada,
Speaker 1: the US and imported steel certainly is here and will
Speaker 1: always be here. The difference is the quality and more recently,
Speaker 1: the environmental sustainability. I will tell you the global average
Speaker 1: for carbon emissions per ton of steel. For each ton
Speaker 1: of steel, the world average is one point eight five
Speaker 1: tons of carbon. All right, one ton of steel one
Speaker 1: point eight five tons of carbon in the air. The
Speaker 1: last mill, prior to my high bar effort here, our
Speaker 1: carbon emissions was point one two three. But how would
Speaker 1: I know that as the consumer? I mean, does its
Speaker 1: stamped on the steel lumbered one way? By the way, David,
Speaker 1: you're not selling steel rebar to John for his home
Speaker 1: renovation projects. I've got You've got much bigger customers. These
Speaker 1: are bridge tunnel, airport projects, roadway projects, sixty seventy you know,
Speaker 1: floor office and condominium towers. And I've heard we are
Speaker 1: going to do a little bit of infrastructure spending in
Speaker 1: this control. We certainly are. And what's interesting, since the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties, anytime there's been a federal highway dollar used
Speaker 1: in a project, there's a concept called buy America. The
Speaker 1: rebar has to be melted, cast enrolled in the United States,
Speaker 1: all right. Now, That's been around since the nineteen sixties.
Speaker 1: So when you talk about, hey, can I buy some
Speaker 1: rebar from Turkey, absolutely you can. But if it's a
Speaker 1: federal highway project, you're restricted only two US produced rebar
Speaker 1: And I guess you know, especially with this administration, they
Speaker 1: probably want to do a better job for the environment.
Speaker 1: We import as a country like thirty million metric tons
Speaker 1: of steel every year, but that is incredibly pollutive, right.
Speaker 1: I'll give you an example. So on the West Coast,
Speaker 1: there's really no natural home for scrap metal, so it
Speaker 1: either has to travel east into Chicago, into Arkansas, into
Speaker 1: the Carolinas where steel a lot of steels produced Texas
Speaker 1: or gets shipped overseas. So you take your scrap metal
Speaker 1: off your West coast ports, ship it over to Asia,
Speaker 1: gets put on a truck that you don't want to
Speaker 1: be anywhere near, driving behind with all of the pollution
Speaker 1: coming out of the tailpipe, gets melted in those steel mills.
Speaker 1: That as I said, one point eight five tons of carbon,
Speaker 1: you know, per ton of steel put on a truck,
Speaker 1: put on a ship delivered to the West coast. That
Speaker 1: is not an environmental fuel both ways is not environmentally sustainable.
Speaker 1: So so what will you do? You were at Big
Speaker 1: River Steel, now you're at High Bar. You're focused on recycling,
Speaker 1: in the in the production. What will you do differently
Speaker 1: than your competitors? Oh? Number one will be LEAD certified.
Speaker 1: At Big River we were the world's first LEADS certified
Speaker 1: scrap metal, recycling, steel production, facility leadership and environmental design
Speaker 1: and LEAD certification is typically for office buildings, hospital complexes,
Speaker 1: university building. We have it at the Bloomberg headquarters. When
Speaker 1: when people heard that we were going to get Big
Speaker 1: River Steel or attempt to get Big River Steel LEADS certified,
Speaker 1: they thought we had lost our minds. But we did it.
Speaker 1: And after two years of operation at Big River Steel,
Speaker 1: Dommler Mercedes called us up and said, Dave, are you
Speaker 1: going to be in town in three weeks. I said,
Speaker 1: well I am. They said, we want to give you
Speaker 1: our Environmental Supplier of the Year award, and not just
Speaker 1: for steel, not just in North America. Everything that Donler
Speaker 1: Mercedes buys plastic, glass, aluminum. Here's a two year old
Speaker 1: company at that point in time, given our lead certification,
Speaker 1: given our carbon footprint, and that really makes a difference. Now,
Speaker 1: what I will tell you is people don't pay more
Speaker 1: for our steel because it's environmentally sustainable, but everything else
Speaker 1: being equal, If my steel selling for a thousand bucks
Speaker 1: delivered in one of my competitors up along the Great
Speaker 1: Lakes that uses coal and iron ore to make steel
Speaker 1: selling for a thousand bucks, nine times out of ten
Speaker 1: will get the order. It's like a tiebreaker when you
Speaker 1: go to Vegas and the house has, you know, the
Speaker 1: blackjack tiebreaker. I'll take the tiebreaker. What's the future of
Speaker 1: the industry. Do you face competition from things like carbon fiber?
Speaker 1: You're always facing you replacement. You know, for a while
Speaker 1: it was going to be the cars are all going
Speaker 1: to be aluminum. The steel industry is going to be
Speaker 1: on its tail. Talk about an energy intensive deducing aluminum, yeah,
Speaker 1: can and energy intensive carbon intensive. You know, the one
Speaker 1: thing about aluminum is you do have you know, a
Speaker 1: high level of recycling. You're seeing a shift away from
Speaker 1: plastic bottles to now water and other drinks are being
Speaker 1: more and more in aluminum cans, aluminium bottles, what have you. So,
Speaker 1: the aluminum industry is here to stay. It's not going away.
Speaker 1: But to answer your question, the steel industry, the key
Speaker 1: is lightweight and strong. All right, lightweight and strong. And
Speaker 1: thirty years ago steel was you know, half inch thick.
Speaker 1: It was you know, you couldn't bend it, couldn't press it.
Speaker 1: It was tough for some of these applications, and aluminum
Speaker 1: and carbon fiber were quite frankly nipping it the tails
Speaker 1: of the steel industry. The steel industry, to their credit,
Speaker 1: has come out with advanced high strength steels, corrosion resists
Speaker 1: in steels, and really over the last twenty years has
Speaker 1: just done a complete life cycle change. When I first
Speaker 1: started this twenty years ago, steelmaking was eighty percent braun
Speaker 1: twenty percent brains. Today at High Bar and Big River
Speaker 1: it's ten percent braun ninety percent brains. We have this
Speaker 1: green market steel. Bloomberg Company Rebar report here available to
Speaker 1: our terminal customers. Is there do you think enough support
Speaker 1: for sustainability around this industry. I don't think you'll see
Speaker 1: a green premium. All right. There's a lot of people
Speaker 1: in the industry saying you're going to be sustainable, you'll
Speaker 1: be able to get an extra ten percent for your
Speaker 1: steel products. I don't believe that. What I believe it's
Speaker 1: a tiebreaker. If you're the most sustainable, you're going to
Speaker 1: get the order, everything else being equal. But I do
Speaker 1: not expect a developer or a builder to pay me
Speaker 1: a premium because my steal is green. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be hearing more from you at this roundtable
Speaker 1: discussion here at Bloomberg. So we're glad you could stop
Speaker 1: by the radio booth and talk to us because it's
Speaker 1: a fascinating topic and I think John and I love
Speaker 1: all the things that are made of steel. No, I'm
Speaker 1: in the market for rebar for my basement, So keep
Speaker 1: you in mind. Thank you very much, Thank thank you
Speaker 1: so much. You're listening to the tape. Ken's a our
Speaker 1: live program Bloomberg Markets weekdays at ten am Eastern on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio, the tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com, and
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on
Speaker 1: Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say
Speaker 1: Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty. We want to get right
Speaker 1: now to James Lanthier. He's a CEO at Mindset Pharma
Speaker 1: and they have it's it's a business that I am
Speaker 1: very interested in psychedelics, plant based psychedelics to treat What
Speaker 1: do you treat James with these psycho delics other than
Speaker 1: you know, the duldrums? Well, you know, I think we're
Speaker 1: at a pretty fascinating point. There are a couple of
Speaker 1: clinical trials that are in their later stages. Um, for
Speaker 1: for the use of psilocybin, which is a psychoactive component
Speaker 1: of magic mushrooms rooms exactly three of resistant depression and
Speaker 1: m DMA to treat PTSD. But there are literally hundreds
Speaker 1: of clinical trials right now, and uh, you know, academic
Speaker 1: studies exploring different indications, you know, for psilocybin, DMT, a
Speaker 1: whole range of different psychedelics. You know. But you are
Speaker 1: actually so I'll just tell listeners, um, this is a
Speaker 1: publicly traded company, Mindset Pharma. The ticker is MSSTF. You
Speaker 1: actually sell like shrooms in ecstasy to clients in Canada. No,
Speaker 1: we're we're a classic biotech. So what we are doing
Speaker 1: is we are trying to develop new psychedelic drugs that
Speaker 1: have been really optimized to make up for some of
Speaker 1: the shortcomings of the of the known drugs, so that
Speaker 1: they're gonna work better as medicines. They'll be safer, more predictable,
Speaker 1: have potentially different durations. So better than like SSRIs the
Speaker 1: prozacts of the world is what you're saying. Well, better
Speaker 1: not only than the established therapies. Yeah, absolutely better than
Speaker 1: the SSRIs, but but better than the psychedelic drugs that
Speaker 1: we are you know, studying today. So you know, for instance, psilocybin,
Speaker 1: there's amazing data to show that it can do a
Speaker 1: really great job of helping people with uh, you know,
Speaker 1: different depressive disorders, but the durations really long. You have
Speaker 1: to spend you know, up to eight hours in clinic
Speaker 1: and be supervised by multiple therapists, and we just think
Speaker 1: that's not really a very convenient model for you know,
Speaker 1: either for therapists or you know, or for patients. So
Speaker 1: we're trying to you know, develop drugs that still you know,
Speaker 1: have the same benefit are still going to likely induce
Speaker 1: the same you know, psychedelic experience, but have a shorter duration.
Speaker 1: All right, since you mentioned startup, I got to ask
Speaker 1: the obligatory tangential question about funding and how svb's collapse
Speaker 1: may have affected you or your industry. Well, it hasn't
Speaker 1: affected mindset. We're in a bit of a unique position.
Speaker 1: We're the only biotech startup out there that actually has
Speaker 1: a big pharma collaboration. So we're we're partnered with the
Speaker 1: development arm of Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, which is a top psychia
Speaker 1: psychiatric drug company, and they fund the majority of our expenses.
Speaker 1: I think generally speaking, you know, the psychedelic space has
Speaker 1: not had a ton of exposure to SVB or you know,
Speaker 1: any of the other regional banks that have Why is
Speaker 1: it structured that way? The does big farma not want
Speaker 1: to touch this or they'd rather have somebody like you
Speaker 1: and if it is successful, take you over or whatever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the I think it's it's it's really more of the latter,
Speaker 1: you know, we're most of the new drug work is
Speaker 1: is still at a kind of a pre clinical stage,
Speaker 1: which is just you know a little bit early for
Speaker 1: big pharma and so the way that you know a
Speaker 1: law you know, not only in psychedelics, but you know,
Speaker 1: a kind of a cross farma now have a lot
Speaker 1: of these, you know, early stage collaborations where pharma's uh,
Speaker 1: you know, partner up with promising biotechs that have you know,
Speaker 1: have some promising kind of early results before they actually
Speaker 1: you know, go all the way into a licensing partnership. So, um,
Speaker 1: what could what are you finding in terms of treatments
Speaker 1: because um, you know, you mentioned the psychedelic experience, and
Speaker 1: I thought the way people use sila cybin to treat
Speaker 1: um disorders was through micro dosing. At least that seems
Speaker 1: to be the kind of trendy way that people are
Speaker 1: doing it in Silicon Valley and some others here on
Speaker 1: the East Coast as well. Um, well, what's the most
Speaker 1: successful way that you're that you found so far? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm really glad you asked that question because it's actually
Speaker 1: a kind of a common misconception because you do hear
Speaker 1: a lot about microdosing, but but actually the the the
Speaker 1: approach that has had you know, the most positive data
Speaker 1: so far is what we call macrodosing. So you go
Speaker 1: into a clinic, you take a large dose of a
Speaker 1: psychedelic drug. You know, it puts you off into a
Speaker 1: real psychedelic trip for you know, a period of time. Um,
Speaker 1: and you've got to do it, you know, in clinic
Speaker 1: under supervision, typically with multiple therapists. Yeah. Yeah, Typically there's
Speaker 1: there's you know often there's music too, and and uh
Speaker 1: and it's really interesting. All the data suggests that, you
Speaker 1: know that that that profound psychedelic experience is really kind
Speaker 1: of essential to to getting you know, the relief from
Speaker 1: depressive symptoms. It's almost like a we still don't really
Speaker 1: fully understand like how this all works, but you know,
Speaker 1: the assumption is that there's some level of kind of
Speaker 1: rewiring and it helps, you know, helps give you kind
Speaker 1: of a break from being stuck in uh, in these
Speaker 1: negative thought patterns. That's you know, really a hallmark of
Speaker 1: people who are suffering, you know, badly from depression. How
Speaker 1: far are you from something prescribable? If you look across
Speaker 1: the psychedelic space, the drug that's going to get likely
Speaker 1: get to FDA approval first is going to be MDMA. Uh,
Speaker 1: psilocybin is going to come and that could be as
Speaker 1: early as you know, next year. Psilocybin is probably another
Speaker 1: twelve months behind that. We have a couple of candidates
Speaker 1: that are just entering, uh you know, clinical trials. Now,
Speaker 1: are you actually like growing mushrooms in the basement? I mean, went,
Speaker 1: how does this work? No? This is all this is
Speaker 1: all synthetic. So the problem with using the mushroom in
Speaker 1: a therapeutic you know, regulated context, is that the psilocybin
Speaker 1: content can really vary, you know, wildly, you know, from
Speaker 1: mushroom to mushroom by as much as you know ten x.
Speaker 1: So the mushroom, you know, you there's really no way
Speaker 1: for for physicians to kind of dose it appropriately. You
Speaker 1: really have to use the synthetic versions, and that's what
Speaker 1: we're working with. Also, Uh, John, if you haven't been
Speaker 1: watching The Last of Us, you might not know that
Speaker 1: fungus can cause a global pandemic, could be world ending.
Speaker 1: I have no idea what you're telling you about. Which
Speaker 1: show is the HBO The Last of Us? Um? All right,
Speaker 1: James the Pleasure from Narcos? Right, yeah, Okay, No, that's
Speaker 1: pretty cool, James Pleasure talking to you. And I obviously
Speaker 1: find this, uh topic absolutely fascinating, and you know, I
Speaker 1: think SSRIs have been fairly successful, but there are obvious
Speaker 1: drawbacks and side effects, so it would be quite cool,
Speaker 1: um if you were successful. Great for the mental health
Speaker 1: of the world. John Lanthier there the CEO at minds
Speaker 1: at Farm. Sorry, James Lanthier, the CEO of Mindset Farmer.
Speaker 1: The ticker again is mss TF. This is Bloomberg. You're
Speaker 1: listening to the team can'cer live program Bloomberg Markets weekdays
Speaker 1: at ten am, easting on Bloomberg dot com, the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, and the Bloomberg Business app. We're listening
Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcast. Hannah Elliott has
Speaker 1: probably the best job at Bloomberg News. You did no well.
Speaker 1: I mean I read all everything, she writes, everything, she
Speaker 1: puts out follower on all social media, and she has
Speaker 1: just put out a piece on the update the follower
Speaker 1: to what is my probably favorite car of all time,
Speaker 1: the Lamborghini evented Door. Hannah, I must tell you that
Speaker 1: we had a talk it was like last week about
Speaker 1: Lamborghini's and you were very upset about one model that
Speaker 1: was I don't know, naturally aspirated but with a turbo
Speaker 1: charger or whatever. No, is that right? No, it's not
Speaker 1: the case. What was it. I'm not I'm not in
Speaker 1: love with the urists. The power train for the Lamborghinists. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, that's fair. I have to say I love
Speaker 1: the earists. I just had the Performante last week and
Speaker 1: drove it out to Palm Springs. How for how does
Speaker 1: that work? How do you hook me up? You know
Speaker 1: I can help you with that. Um, as Matt said,
Speaker 1: I agree. I have the best job at at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: and I had it for um let's call it a
Speaker 1: long weekend, four days over the weekend. So um it was.
Speaker 1: It was a great experience. And I really you know,
Speaker 1: I just drove the Farie par Songua the Ferrari Suv,
Speaker 1: so it was very interesting to check back to back
Speaker 1: the Lamborghini Suv versus the Ferrari Suv. I have to
Speaker 1: say I give the Lambo the edge. Actually, well the Lamb.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, the Lambo is a great car, But
Speaker 1: is it just a Porsche Kayen with a different steel
Speaker 1: on top? They have the same don't they have the
Speaker 1: floor leader va with the twin turbos and oh sure,
Speaker 1: but you know, there's a lot more power in the
Speaker 1: earthst There's a lot more. There's a lot more power
Speaker 1: in torque, I will say, I mean the performance figures
Speaker 1: are stronger. It's it's a very cool car. But I
Speaker 1: just personally I prefer a naturally aspirated engine. But I'm
Speaker 1: old and there are new things. You're a purist, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, hey, I don't believe it. You're you're a purist.
Speaker 1: I mean, so that brings me to well, how do
Speaker 1: you feel about Lamborghini making a hybrid? I feel very
Speaker 1: good about that. I have. I've always said there's no
Speaker 1: replacement for displacement, but I think now there is, and
Speaker 1: that is okay, battery power, because of the instant torque,
Speaker 1: because of um, just the incredible performance. Tell us about
Speaker 1: the new car. I can't even pronounce the name. What's
Speaker 1: the new eventidor the Eventador successor called? So I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go with Rouelto. Um. You know, some people are saying
Speaker 1: velto and some people are saying Rouelto. I think Rowelto
Speaker 1: is a bit easier to say, basically the word. Of course,
Speaker 1: it's named after a fighting bowl a bull that fought
Speaker 1: in of s in Spain in Barcelona in the eighteen eighties.
Speaker 1: John and a lot of our listeners may not know
Speaker 1: that all, most all Lamborghinis are named after famous bulls.
Speaker 1: This is this is firmly in line with Lamborghini heritage.
Speaker 1: So the roualto. That word also means mixed up in Spanish.
Speaker 1: It can be used to mean mixed up some people
Speaker 1: even have you even told me, well, it kind of
Speaker 1: means like scrambled eggs, and that's a very fitting name
Speaker 1: for a vehicle that combines three electric motors with that
Speaker 1: V twelve engine. So we've got a mixed up drive
Speaker 1: train here. It's not really about like you said, this
Speaker 1: is the successor to the evented door. It's the hybrid function.
Speaker 1: Is not really about a fuel efficiency because we only
Speaker 1: get six miles on an all electric charge, so it's
Speaker 1: it's not about that. It's exactly what you say. It's
Speaker 1: about instant torque, really um and some really seamless power,
Speaker 1: which I think sounds fabulous. Who buys this? Oh? I
Speaker 1: you know what, I expect that Lamborghini will have no
Speaker 1: problem selling this vehicle. They mister Winkleman, Stefan Winkleman told
Speaker 1: me that their order books are full through twenty twenty four. So, oh,
Speaker 1: I forgot to mention. Can we just say the Roberto
Speaker 1: has a thousand and one horsepower. Yes, so this How
Speaker 1: could I forget? Um top speed of over two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventeen miles an hour two point five zero to
Speaker 1: sixty two. Okay, here's here's my other stupid question. Where
Speaker 1: do you drive this? It's not going to be on
Speaker 1: the turnpike. I think you actually could take it right
Speaker 1: down the turnpike. I mean speeds like well, no, I
Speaker 1: don't think there are some people who do those speeds,
Speaker 1: but I think you know, you know, so the numbers,
Speaker 1: that performance is truly impressive. It's almost as impressive as
Speaker 1: the Dodge Challenger Demon one seventy but not quite. Design
Speaker 1: is amazing, I think, Hannah, it's absolutely gorgeous too. What's
Speaker 1: your take? Yeah, I love it. Okay, so let's get
Speaker 1: some background. This was the head designers, Mitya Borkert, who
Speaker 1: we all love. He actually came from Porsche, so he's
Speaker 1: been at Lamborghini for some time. He led design on
Speaker 1: this and I love it because it combines elements of
Speaker 1: heritage Lamborghinis that we've seen. You can see a little
Speaker 1: bit of a contosh in the front. You can see
Speaker 1: a bit of a Mercy lago as well. The demensions
Speaker 1: are a sort of a Diablo size, so I feel
Speaker 1: like we can see the heritage of Lamborghini. But then
Speaker 1: also we have really new elements, like a totally exposed
Speaker 1: engine in the rear, which let's not forget. You know,
Speaker 1: Bugatti has done that before, but I don't think we've
Speaker 1: seen that at Lamborghini. So we've got a totally exposed engine,
Speaker 1: which I think is really cool and still twelve thank god.
Speaker 1: Exactly exactly, yeah, And we still have these design elements
Speaker 1: of the shape of a Yum throughout the car, from
Speaker 1: the led headlights at the front to inside in the
Speaker 1: cockpit it's oriented in a Y shape to a funneling
Speaker 1: to the rear. I think it's really really cool. I
Speaker 1: think it's very cool. As well, n turn off your mic.
Speaker 1: You can't talk anymore. No, I just as well. I'll
Speaker 1: turn off back. I'm going to ask one final question.
Speaker 1: I'll go away because I don't know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: What kind of um looks did you get while driving
Speaker 1: in the car. What's what's the reaction when you're in
Speaker 1: this car driving around your neighborhood. Well, I must admit
Speaker 1: I have not yet driven this vehicle, and I don't
Speaker 1: think anybody is. They're going to This is the world debut,
Speaker 1: so we haven't had press drives yet, but my prediction
Speaker 1: is people are going to love it or hate it,
Speaker 1: which is pretty much what Lamborghini does. You know, it's
Speaker 1: a very strong statement. You're you're either on board or not.
Speaker 1: But I do think one nice thing about this is
Speaker 1: with that electric powertrain, you can kind of sneak out
Speaker 1: of your neighborhood without all the belching and popping and
Speaker 1: growling in the engine, which your neighbors might appreciate. And
Speaker 1: then once you get on the get on the you
Speaker 1: know the highway, they're turnpike, then you can turn your
Speaker 1: engine on. Now, so maybe that'll go over well, well,
Speaker 1: we'll see it. It'll be here at the New York
Speaker 1: Auto Show next week, so and Hannah will be here too. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I have to preface this next comment with a warning.
Speaker 1: I am a reactionary. I often have very strong feelings
Speaker 1: about things right away and voice them in a pretty
Speaker 1: loud tone. Then after thinking about it or debating it
Speaker 1: or reading it for a while, I realize I'm wrong
Speaker 1: and I go back. So but at least I do
Speaker 1: change my opinion. To me this new Ferrari puro sang
Speaker 1: is the ugliest thing that they've ever aid and it
Speaker 1: to me, it looks so cheap. I mean, they spent
Speaker 1: so much money to develop a Mazda MX thirty. I
Speaker 1: saw that mean too? What what on earth? And yeah,
Speaker 1: I think in the Alps, which sounds awesome. I'm the
Speaker 1: powertrain is so cool, but what Yes, this is one
Speaker 1: reason why I do give the edge to the eurists
Speaker 1: in terms of SUVs from Lamborghini versus Ferrari. I do
Speaker 1: think the Earist looks cooler and more in line with
Speaker 1: Lamborghini heritage. The Ferrari. Yeah, look, it looks better in person.
Speaker 1: I don't think it photographs very well. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to argue with you that it's not the greatest looking Ferrari.
Speaker 1: It's not, you know. I love the roma, the classic
Speaker 1: lines of the roma. It's so minimal and elegant, and
Speaker 1: I agree I think they missed it a little bit
Speaker 1: on the persang way. Um. I don't find it personally.
Speaker 1: I'm not personally offended by it. I actually think the
Speaker 1: Ferrari California was the worst calif Ferrari they made because
Speaker 1: it was so bland and just so boring. Um, at
Speaker 1: least there's something with the parrosangway. But yeah, you're right,
Speaker 1: it's not it's not great. I think they pulled some
Speaker 1: punches that maybe they could have gone a little harder. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I haven't seen it in person, and as I said,
Speaker 1: I maybe i'll see it and in a few years
Speaker 1: fall in love with it. I do love the ff
Speaker 1: is my favorite Ferrari. Okay, but I just I'm glad
Speaker 1: they left the power to V twelve there as well,
Speaker 1: so at least we haven't lost that. And I really
Speaker 1: look forward to seeing you next week. I'm so glad
Speaker 1: you're coming to New York Auto Show. And yes, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'll bring John Tucker along. I'm gonna give him
Speaker 1: a history lesson, a few books to read. I'll tell
Speaker 1: him to also follow you on Twitter and on Instagram.
Speaker 1: And thank you for not telling the kitty litter story.
Speaker 1: Tucker put kitty litter in his car. No, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean sprinkled it around. Is this the reef thing? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Well no, it's spilled gas. Somebody I sent to get
Speaker 1: gasoline in a can, a five gallon can, came back
Speaker 1: with three gallons and said, oh, I filled it up
Speaker 1: with five, so I won't name names. It's actually good.
Speaker 1: It's a good trick if you need to get it
Speaker 1: didn't quite work because they refused to park the car
Speaker 1: in the garage across the stream. In any case, Hannah Elliott,
Speaker 1: go on the Bloomberg dot Com read her stuff, or
Speaker 1: go on social media. Hannah, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the tape. Catch our live program Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Markets weekdays at ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, Tuna half,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and the Bloomberg Business Half. You can
Speaker 1: also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New
Speaker 1: York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty. Let's
Speaker 1: get over to Washington, DC so I can ask one
Speaker 1: of my favorite Bloomberg intelligence analysts the same question I
Speaker 1: always ask him about the salt deduction that we so
Speaker 1: badly need. Nathan Dean joins US senior policy analysts and King.
Speaker 1: Before you came out, we were comparing property taxes me
Speaker 1: in New Jersey, Manton, Westchester, so and it's here. It's
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if I can remain solvent
Speaker 1: until the salt deduction restriction sunsets in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Why did Donald Trump and the Republicans do this to me?
Speaker 1: Because unfortunately, for those of you who live in New
Speaker 1: Jersey and New York, it's just it's easy money to
Speaker 1: take and pay for something else. And that's the problem
Speaker 1: with the salt deduction going forward, is that you know,
Speaker 1: if you're going to give it back, you got to
Speaker 1: pay for some pay for it somewhere else. And it's
Speaker 1: easy for the forty eight other states, maybe not California,
Speaker 1: but it's easy for the book the rest of the
Speaker 1: states and say, yeah, you know, New York, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: they've got great pizza and they've got great food and
Speaker 1: so forth. But you know, we don't we don't need
Speaker 1: to give them back their salt deduction. So you know,
Speaker 1: the best I think you could hope for is it
Speaker 1: just being in the conversation. And I think the policymakers,
Speaker 1: especially from New Jersey, are really pushing this, so at
Speaker 1: least you can prepare for that twenty twenty five date.
Speaker 1: But obviously we'll have a new Congress and a new
Speaker 1: president and so forth like that. So unfortunately, you're just
Speaker 1: gonna have to live with your good pizza for the
Speaker 1: time being, I just you know, the other what I
Speaker 1: want to do is move to Connecticut where taxes are like,
Speaker 1: what is it going to be extended? Do you do
Speaker 1: you think? I mean it's supposed to sunset then, but
Speaker 1: is there a chance it will be extended? Well? The
Speaker 1: challenge is is that then you have to decide how
Speaker 1: are you going to pay for it? And you know
Speaker 1: it's I mean, will the lack of the deduction continue? Well,
Speaker 1: And that's my point is is that if you were
Speaker 1: to say, if you were to bring it back, it's
Speaker 1: sort of like in an entitlement, it's like, okay, if
Speaker 1: you you know, once you give it, it's hard to
Speaker 1: take away. Once it's out there and it's gone, it's
Speaker 1: hard to bring back. And so you know, I think
Speaker 1: the best you could hope for at this point is
Speaker 1: these policymakers to continue to put it into the conversation
Speaker 1: and for you know, other states. You know, because we
Speaker 1: haven't seen other states. You know, other states and property
Speaker 1: values have gone up dramatically since COVID. You know that
Speaker 1: there are more states that are now impacted by this. Illinois,
Speaker 1: for example, I think the folks there have already started
Speaker 1: talking about this as well. So I don't want to
Speaker 1: be optimistic, but I just want to say that it
Speaker 1: is part of the conversation and hopefully in two years
Speaker 1: it's a better resort for those of you in the Northeast.
Speaker 1: I mean, temporary tax hikes never go away. Let's be honest.
Speaker 1: And my question is why are taxes in Westchester so
Speaker 1: much higher? Why are taxes in the state of New
Speaker 1: York so much higher than every other state? But we
Speaker 1: I don't need to belabor this point. We need to
Speaker 1: get to the banks. You know, a lot of people
Speaker 1: are talking about dougcass again was telling us that he's
Speaker 1: buying some of these banks have been hit. He thinks
Speaker 1: a little bit too hard. The reason other people aren't
Speaker 1: is because they think there's a real regulatory over hang.
Speaker 1: And Nathan, is it inevitable that we just see a
Speaker 1: lot more banking regulation come into play. Inevitable but manageable.
Speaker 1: And what I mean by that is is that this
Speaker 1: report that's going to come out on May first will
Speaker 1: essentially have two things that I think investors should really
Speaker 1: pay attention to. The First one is the special FDIC assessment.
Speaker 1: You know, yesterday Chairman FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg said that,
Speaker 1: you know, they have to make up the twenty two
Speaker 1: point five billion dollars that the lost on Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: Bank and Signature Bank. And it put in perspective the
Speaker 1: last time the special assessment, or one of the special
Speaker 1: assessments in two thousand and nine for five point five billion,
Speaker 1: ended up with a six hundred and seventy five million
Speaker 1: dollar hit for JP Morgan. And they've already said that
Speaker 1: they want big banks, or at least not community banks,
Speaker 1: to pay for it. So that's going to be out
Speaker 1: via a notice proposed rulemaking. So there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: lot of time to figure out how that impact works out,
Speaker 1: but that's important. The other one is the ongoing regulatory matters,
Speaker 1: and this is where I think you're gonna see what
Speaker 1: is known as enhanced prudential standards for banks that are
Speaker 1: one hundred billion in assets and up, so like Huntington
Speaker 1: Key Corps fifth third examples. And what you're gonna see
Speaker 1: here is not only just higher capital but tougher liquidity
Speaker 1: coverage ratios. But I think ultimately that if you were
Speaker 1: to talk to those hundred billion dollar banks, they'd see
Speaker 1: in the long run, this is manageable. So I'm not
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to be the heavy hand
Speaker 1: regulatory hit that some people are thinking. Do they get
Speaker 1: stress tested? The regionals, the smaller banks at some point
Speaker 1: they do, So it's actually a tiered process, you know.
Speaker 1: And so banks that are one hundred to two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion due to stress tests. But this is
Speaker 1: where the problem with Silicon Valley banking in is Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley Bank rose from eighty billion to two hundred and
Speaker 1: eleven billion almost instantly over a year, you know, almost
Speaker 1: just under two years. And the way that the transition
Speaker 1: played from the first stress to the next, it was
Speaker 1: actually gonna be twenty twenty five until their next stress test.
Speaker 1: And I think that's going to be one one of
Speaker 1: the solutions you came from the regulators is these banks
Speaker 1: that are hundred billion and up a lot more stress
Speaker 1: tests and a lot more tougher stress tests when all
Speaker 1: this have come up in a stress test, the longer
Speaker 1: dated whatever they were, you know, yes and no. So
Speaker 1: you know, I think there is a regulatory issue here.
Speaker 1: And what I mean by that is I think the
Speaker 1: regulators and this was the San Francisco Fed plus some
Speaker 1: of the others were a little hesitant to actually sound
Speaker 1: the alarm on Silicon Valley Bank. You know, Vice Chairman
Speaker 1: bar said that he got his first briefing in February,
Speaker 1: but they said that they've been looking at this. The
Speaker 1: mria's matters requiring immediate attention had been placed on the
Speaker 1: bank a year ago. And you know they're Camel's rating,
Speaker 1: which is this super secret rating that every bank gets
Speaker 1: and nobody knows what it is. You know, their Camel's
Speaker 1: rating was three, which is actually bad, but it's a
Speaker 1: rating of one to five, one being great, five being bad.
Speaker 1: And if you're going to give the bank of three
Speaker 1: and their liquidity portion was a two, but then weeks
Speaker 1: later it's a contagion risk or a systemic risk. My
Speaker 1: question here is maybe the regulators need to actually get
Speaker 1: sort of their ducks in a row as well, not
Speaker 1: just put more regulations. As a depositor, i'd want to
Speaker 1: know what that index is out and unfortunately this is
Speaker 1: this is confidential, so the Camel's ratings are never made public.
Speaker 1: But what I can say is is that you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of the deposit insurance argument that's going on
Speaker 1: right now, you've seen several policymakers float the idea of
Speaker 1: going to a billion dollars. I'm sorry, a million dollars
Speaker 1: or five million dollars. I don't think there's going to
Speaker 1: be a congressional solution here. I think what's going to happen, though,
Speaker 1: is you'll see the Treasury and the FED say that
Speaker 1: we still have this bank term funding program out there
Speaker 1: that allows banks to borrow to achieve liquidity so that
Speaker 1: their deposits are secured. And this program extends up until
Speaker 1: March of twenty twenty four. But if we're in this
Speaker 1: situation where you're not comfortable putting your money in a
Speaker 1: regional bank and it's an election year, don't be surprised
Speaker 1: if Treasury in the FED just saying, ay, maybe we
Speaker 1: just need another year of this funding program, all right? Uh?
Speaker 1: Nathan Dean Bloomberg intelligence analyst. He knows. This guy knows
Speaker 1: everything about what goes on in Congress. So when it
Speaker 1: comes time for the debt ceiling to be renegotiated, you
Speaker 1: don't want to talk about because I could tell you
Speaker 1: I'm already bored by it. I is it? You know what?
Speaker 1: I remember when, Nathan, I remember when we were downgraded
Speaker 1: by SMP. I think it was SMP, and we had
Speaker 1: we all had, all the anchors had to come in,
Speaker 1: all hands on deck for a special episode of Bloomberg Whatever,
Speaker 1: and everyone bought treasuries. We lost our triple A rating
Speaker 1: and everyone bought treasuries. Nathan Dean from Bloomberg Intelligence talking
Speaker 1: to us about what's going on in the hallowed halls
Speaker 1: of Is that actually a show Bloomberg Whatever? I can't
Speaker 1: remember what it was. That was way back, that was
Speaker 1: twenty eleven. I had hair. You're listening to the tape.
Speaker 1: Ken's are live program Bloomberg Markets weekdays at ten am
Speaker 1: Eastern on Bloomberg Radio, tune in app, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live
Speaker 1: on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just
Speaker 1: say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty. Really sad news once
Speaker 1: again with Blackhawk helicopters going down and US military members
Speaker 1: of the US military perishing in that tragedy. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a reminder of the sacrifices that are made on
Speaker 1: a daily, hourly basis by men and women in this
Speaker 1: country to keep us safe. Absolutely, and we should we
Speaker 1: do and we should always thank them for their service.
Speaker 1: One such man is Mick Mulroy. He is a co
Speaker 1: founder of the Lobo Institute, and he spent many years
Speaker 1: in the US Marines and infantry officer as well as
Speaker 1: a paramilitary operations officer at the CIA. Mike, it's always, uh,
Speaker 1: it's always awful to have to talk about these things. Um,
Speaker 1: I wonder what your take is on the Blackhawk incident
Speaker 1: that we that we're looking at now, and is there
Speaker 1: a problem with this helicopter because it's um, you know,
Speaker 1: famously had issues in the past. So good to be
Speaker 1: with you guys, But absolutely, it is hard to talk
Speaker 1: about these things. You know, obviously, I'm a retiree, I'm
Speaker 1: a father of a currently serving an Army officer, and
Speaker 1: every American I'm sure our hearts go out to the
Speaker 1: families of these these soldiers. The helicopter has had problems,
Speaker 1: most helicopters do. I'm not I'm a I'm a ground guy,
Speaker 1: not a pilot, but helicopters are exceedingly difficult to fly,
Speaker 1: and we fly them at night in the military because
Speaker 1: that is how we conduct our operations. Our soldiers pilots
Speaker 1: are incredibly competent, and the equipment generally is too. But
Speaker 1: this obviously shouldn't have happened, and I think the US
Speaker 1: Army will do an extensive investigation to determine what exactly
Speaker 1: happened here. The training is realistic, and the training by
Speaker 1: its very nature is going to be incredibly dangerous. I
Speaker 1: mean you know firsthand right it absolutely is. Any training
Speaker 1: is dangerous, especially when you're using helicopters, especially at night. Again,
Speaker 1: that's why we train, because we are most effective because
Speaker 1: we can utilize all of the high technology that we
Speaker 1: have that they of our adversaries don't. If you think
Speaker 1: about it, there those pilots are looking down the equivalent
Speaker 1: of two tubes, which is their nbgs, So it doesn't
Speaker 1: give you great peripheral vision estially, you can look straightforward,
Speaker 1: you can turn your head, but it's very it's very restricted.
Speaker 1: So that might be one of the reasons why this
Speaker 1: Apparently they ran into each other or they collided, and
Speaker 1: I think that's one of the things are going to investigate,
Speaker 1: and then maybe going forward, we can come up with
Speaker 1: a better night vision system where it doesn't have that
Speaker 1: kind of utrich all right, Well, as you say, our
Speaker 1: hearts go out to the families of these soldiers, and
Speaker 1: as John said, you know it's it's a horrible tragedy,
Speaker 1: but it does remind us of the sacrifices that are
Speaker 1: made on a daily basis by the soldiers that the
Speaker 1: troops that are protecting us and really not just us,
Speaker 1: kind of the free world. Let me let me ask
Speaker 1: you in that vein about Evan Gerskovich. Not a soldier,
Speaker 1: He's a journalist that was detained in Russia and has
Speaker 1: been accused of espionage. My first thought, Mick was, as
Speaker 1: someone who reads, you know, spy novels extensively, there's no
Speaker 1: way that we're going to put a spy embedded with
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal I mean the Journal for example.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't want to do it, and I can't understand
Speaker 1: why we would think that. But time and time again
Speaker 1: in China and now in Russia, these journalists are being
Speaker 1: sidelined under the accusation that they're spies. What do you
Speaker 1: what do you make of it? So you're absolutely right,
Speaker 1: we would not use a journalist to collect intelligence. In
Speaker 1: the fact, we're legally restricted from doing it. We have
Speaker 1: been since the nineteen seventies. So there's a zero chance,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, that any journalists overseas collecting intelligence for
Speaker 1: the United States. I think this is essentially perhaps they
Speaker 1: do that, they being China and Russia, so they just
Speaker 1: assume we do. But it's pretty it's pretty clear that
Speaker 1: we do not, and you can simply just look it
Speaker 1: up and see that. I think they're using Evan as
Speaker 1: a political hostage, and they're going to try to get
Speaker 1: some of their people out that have been incarcerated in
Speaker 1: say like Germany for example, that we're actually convicted for
Speaker 1: real crimes in that case, murder, and I think they're
Speaker 1: trying to gather enough Americans where we'll actually approach the
Speaker 1: German government and see if this is possible. So I
Speaker 1: think that's what it. Then was it a mistake to
Speaker 1: trade a war criminal for Brittany Grinder? I mean, and
Speaker 1: the worst part about that is that we left one
Speaker 1: of our soldiers over there. But was it you know,
Speaker 1: it was that encouraging to the Russians And now they're
Speaker 1: trying to do more of this. So I do think
Speaker 1: that it did encourage them to do more of this. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I don't know what else we would have done. Bertie
Speaker 1: Griner should have been returned. Obviously, Paul Willen as well.
Speaker 1: But this is how Russia operates. We probably should do
Speaker 1: war to keep Americans out of Russia. It is the
Speaker 1: highest level of Travis and Travel Advisory Level four, which
Speaker 1: says don't go to Russia. Whether we can do more
Speaker 1: than that, I don't know. It probably requires legislation, but
Speaker 1: it does give Russia this opportunity to simply grab Americans,
Speaker 1: fabricate charges in cars them for years, and then use
Speaker 1: them as leverage points against US, both to get their
Speaker 1: people out and potentially other things that they would like
Speaker 1: to see United States do. Hey, man, can I back
Speaker 1: up and ask you a really broad question? As co
Speaker 1: founder Lobo Institute, how do you assess where we are
Speaker 1: in the world today? Is it a more dangerous place?
Speaker 1: Is it less dangerous? So, unfortunately, I would say it's
Speaker 1: getting more dangerous. We're seeing country like Russia who have
Speaker 1: just decided to completely violate the international rules based order,
Speaker 1: an order that every country benefits from, but apparently not
Speaker 1: every country wishes to defend when it comes to another country.
Speaker 1: I think that's very problematic. China is certainly trying to
Speaker 1: gain prominence. They are building up their military. We're seeing
Speaker 1: countries that are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: like Iran. I don't want to be a doomsdayer here,
Speaker 1: but it's simply the facts that the world is not
Speaker 1: getting safer and the United States needs to recognize that,
Speaker 1: and that's part of why we spend so much of
Speaker 1: our resources on our national defense. And as a citizen,
Speaker 1: I need to be prepared for, you know, gladly paying
Speaker 1: more taxes to protect me and my family and advancing
Speaker 1: my country's interests. I think, well, I don't know that
Speaker 1: we need to pay more taxes, and I'm not going
Speaker 1: to advocate for that, but I do think that our
Speaker 1: defense budget is in line with the threats that we
Speaker 1: currently face in the world, and to be prepared for
Speaker 1: things that we don't foresee. You know, it could be
Speaker 1: a Chinese attempted invasion of Taiwan. It could be Russia
Speaker 1: going past Ukraine, potentially even into a NATO country, which
Speaker 1: of course we draw the United States in to that
Speaker 1: war under Article five of the NATO Treaty. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot of things that could happen. We need to
Speaker 1: be ready now and not wait and try to catch
Speaker 1: up later. And I think that's part of why we
Speaker 1: do spend someone when it comes to our national offense
Speaker 1: here our defense budget, what do we do about Iran?
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously how to deal with Russia and Ukraine
Speaker 1: as being hotly debated right now, and China is something
Speaker 1: that we talk about on a regular basis, we don't
Speaker 1: talk that much about Iran. What what can America do
Speaker 1: about this, you know, aspiring nuclear power, So that is
Speaker 1: a really good question. I guess the immediate issue is
Speaker 1: the level of Iranian attacks that we're sustaining in Iraq,
Speaker 1: in Syria against our military presence. That's got to stop.
Speaker 1: And you know, I was just look up the statistics today.
Speaker 1: We've been hit about eighty times in the last two years.
Speaker 1: We responded about six. We need to get a lot
Speaker 1: more strong, stronger in our responses. We need to make
Speaker 1: them do a calculation that it's simply not worth striking
Speaker 1: an American facility in either of those countries. So I
Speaker 1: think that the chairman yesterday, General Melly, was pretty specific
Speaker 1: about how this is going to escalate as far as
Speaker 1: our responses if we are hit again, and I think
Speaker 1: that's good. The other issue is, as you pointed out rightly,
Speaker 1: they're on the version of getting a nuclear weapon. Most
Speaker 1: analysts thinks it could take two weeks to get to
Speaker 1: the level of enrichment to get the typer Ran ammunied,
Speaker 1: and then a couple of months to actually weaponize and
Speaker 1: into a deliverable weapon. That's a big problem. There's no
Speaker 1: easy answers. Should the United States strike when we decided
Speaker 1: it's that closed. Potentially will Israel strike regardless of whether
Speaker 1: we want them to or not. Potentially, in fact, they've
Speaker 1: said they would. So there's a lot of things that
Speaker 1: could happen in the next few months that could even
Speaker 1: increase the level of international instability and conflict, and I
Speaker 1: think that's one of the things we're going to be
Speaker 1: determining as we go forward. Hopefully Round pulls back from
Speaker 1: the level of getting a nuclear weapon back into the
Speaker 1: community nations, but they haven't shown any interest lately to
Speaker 1: do that. All right, Mick, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: Mick mulroy there, co founder of the Lobo Institute, former
Speaker 1: US Marine and paramilitary operations officer at the CIA as well.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Markets podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to interviews with Apple Podcasts or whatever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. I'm Matt Miller. I'm on Twitter
Speaker 1: at Matt Miller nineteen seventy three. And I'm fall Sweeney.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide at Bloomberg Radio