WEBVTT - Bloomberg Wall Street Week: Thompson, Corwin, Goolsbee 0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:03.360 This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week. What's the state of 0:00:03.400 --> 0:00:06.360 corporate governance? Its deficit is a real issue. The US 0:00:06.400 --> 0:00:09.760 economy continues to send mixed signals to the financial stories 0:00:09.800 --> 0:00:12.680 that keep our world fed, action to con concerns over 0:00:12.760 --> 0:00:16.200 dollar liquidity, and encouraging China data. The five hundred wealthiest 0:00:16.239 --> 0:00:18.360 people in the world. Through the eyes of the most 0:00:18.480 --> 0:00:22.520 influential voices Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary, star Ward CEO, 0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:26.360 Kevin Johnson sec Chairman j Clayton. Bloomberg wool Street Week 0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:31.200 with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio, who knew equities can 0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:34.120 go down as well as up as we head into 0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:38.640 an uncertain election and companies continue their struggle with the coronavirus. 0:00:39.120 --> 0:00:42.120 This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week. I'm David Weston. The 0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:45.560 White House was pleased by the strong jobs numbers this week, 0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:49.080 but there is still weakness under the headline numbers of 0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:53.159 one point three seven million jobs added. We asked Austin Goulsbury, 0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:57.000 professor of economics at the University Chicago Booths School of Business, 0:00:57.000 --> 0:01:00.320 what the numbers really show us about the economy. We've 0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:05.479 had a nice rebound of the what were the temporary layoffs. 0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:08.000 So again, if you look at this report, you've got 0:01:08.080 --> 0:01:13.880 strong job growth, especially strong in temporary sensus employment from 0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:17.120 the government that was three something thousands. And then the 0:01:17.240 --> 0:01:22.000 two major sectors of job growth are retail and leisure 0:01:22.040 --> 0:01:27.120 and hospitality. Where you saw the giant increases of temporary layoffs, 0:01:27.160 --> 0:01:30.640 those people are mostly now all the way back or 0:01:30.800 --> 0:01:36.000 pretty close to back. The question is for the permanent layoffs, 0:01:36.640 --> 0:01:40.560 can we get them back to work? And if we 0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:45.200 recovered to something like half where we were before, uh, 0:01:45.240 --> 0:01:48.440 that's not really great. And so I think on the 0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:53.400 political side, we're gonna be in this dynamic where representatives 0:01:53.400 --> 0:01:56.000 of the Trump administration are clearly going to say, well, look, 0:01:56.280 --> 0:02:00.560 we're having strong months, and I think other analysts are 0:02:00.560 --> 0:02:03.320 gonna look at it and say, yeah, but the strength 0:02:03.440 --> 0:02:06.400 is getting weaker every month, and we're not even getting 0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:09.800 remotely close to to where we were even before the 0:02:10.400 --> 0:02:13.840 before the COVID recession began. So Austin, in your estimation, 0:02:13.880 --> 0:02:15.120 what was it going to take to get us to 0:02:15.160 --> 0:02:17.480 the goal we all share reposis of Democrats alike, I 0:02:17.600 --> 0:02:20.240 really getting back to or close to full employment. Is 0:02:20.240 --> 0:02:22.160 it a matter of that fiscal stimulus that seems to 0:02:22.200 --> 0:02:24.480 be hung up in Congress. Is it a matter of 0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:27.639 really getting our arms around the coronavirus? Yet? Look, I 0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:30.680 think everything has to do with that virus. As I've 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:33.639 said from the beginning, the viruses the boss, and the 0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:37.119 first rule of virus economics is that the only way 0:02:37.160 --> 0:02:39.880 to fix the economics is they get control of the virus. 0:02:39.919 --> 0:02:43.600 You've seen that in other countries where they've now gotten 0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:46.880 they've slowed the spread of the virus dramatically more than 0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:51.040 we have, and their economies are rebounding actually faster than 0:02:51.280 --> 0:02:55.919 than ours is. So hopefully we can get control of that. 0:02:56.120 --> 0:02:59.680 And if we do, I think that we could get 0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:03.079 on a faster path back to where we were and 0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:07.680 growing like we were before. If we don't, Look, we 0:03:07.720 --> 0:03:11.840 need relief, uh, but we shouldn't get ourselves that relief 0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:15.320 and rescue payments trying to keep people from being evicted. 0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:19.040 Um is going to fix the economy. It's not. I mean, 0:03:19.080 --> 0:03:21.720 we gotta we gotta get the engine going again if 0:03:21.760 --> 0:03:24.160 we If we don't, and we all want to really 0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:26.360 beat this virus, but if we don't get the vaccine, 0:03:26.400 --> 0:03:27.800 if we don't get to a world where we can 0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:30.400 go back to something like normal again, Do we need 0:03:30.480 --> 0:03:33.280 to lock down, because that's something that's certainly the problems. 0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:36.920 Last week accused Vice President Biden of saying that basically 0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:39.440 we should lock down the country. What is his view 0:03:39.480 --> 0:03:42.000 on that. Can we keep going with the economy, even 0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:44.880 with social distancing and masks and washing our hands and 0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:49.680 things without actually defeating the virus? Well, I don't speak 0:03:49.720 --> 0:03:51.960 for the Vice president. You know, you know you you 0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:55.080 would want to ask them what their view is. I 0:03:55.120 --> 0:03:59.600 think other countries have shown us that you don't need 0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:01.840 to have kay there's no vaccine in Germany, there's no 0:04:01.920 --> 0:04:04.200 vaccine in Australia. It's not in New Zealand, it's not 0:04:04.240 --> 0:04:07.080 in Taiwan, it's not in a whole bunch of countries 0:04:07.360 --> 0:04:10.560 where they have been able through public health measures, whether 0:04:10.600 --> 0:04:14.120 it's mass whether it's social distancing, whether it's a lot 0:04:14.160 --> 0:04:16.440 of testing so that you can get the people that 0:04:16.480 --> 0:04:19.640 are contagious out of the economy, so you don't have 0:04:19.720 --> 0:04:22.279 to shut down everyone. I don't think you have to 0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:26.559 have universal lockdowns. Uh, you just have to be smart 0:04:26.560 --> 0:04:29.640 about it. You've got to follow what works, and thus 0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:32.640 far we're mostly not following what works. And we got 0:04:32.680 --> 0:04:35.120 a lot of mixed messages coming out. We'll address that 0:04:35.200 --> 0:04:37.880 quite specifically. If it's a matter of doing it better, 0:04:38.160 --> 0:04:41.040 being smarter, and addressing a virus while it's with us, 0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:44.200 What would a President Biden do which would be materially 0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:47.159 different from what President Trump has done. President Biden has 0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:51.440 laid out at least twenty step detailed plan on the 0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:53.919 public health side of how you slow the rate of 0:04:53.960 --> 0:04:59.120 spread of the virus. And I'm not an epidemiologist or 0:04:59.160 --> 0:05:02.680 public health esk bert, I would refer everyone to those uh, 0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:06.720 to those documents. But the center of the of the 0:05:06.760 --> 0:05:11.240 federal response has got to be a clear, consistent approach 0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:15.240 coming from the very top from the President himself, who 0:05:15.320 --> 0:05:21.599 has clearly at many points downgraded what he perceives as 0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:24.680 the danger of this virus and said it's gonna disappear 0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:29.159 by a miracle. Initially said, oh, we have virtually no cases. 0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:32.159 It's gonna go to none. It's it's under lockdown. Don't 0:05:32.240 --> 0:05:34.440 worry about it. You don't need to wear masks. He 0:05:34.560 --> 0:05:38.200 himself won't wear masks. I think that the kind of 0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:43.040 approach got hundreds of thousands of people killed in this 0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:45.719 country that did not need to die. That's what the 0:05:45.760 --> 0:05:49.520 public health experts are saying that if we had moved earlier, 0:05:49.920 --> 0:05:53.719 with consistent with a consistent approach from the federal government, 0:05:54.120 --> 0:05:57.640 and done the testing at the beginning, we would be 0:05:57.680 --> 0:06:00.400 in a lot better spot. But it's not too late. 0:06:00.600 --> 0:06:04.760 That's what I don't understand. If we start more significant 0:06:04.800 --> 0:06:10.479 testing and more significant mask wearing in public and and 0:06:10.640 --> 0:06:14.719 in these places where people are in crowded conditions, we 0:06:14.800 --> 0:06:17.320 spaced them out, we can get the rate of spread 0:06:17.320 --> 0:06:22.159 of this virus down below one in their mathematical terminology. 0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:25.040 And in countries where they've done that, which is almost 0:06:25.080 --> 0:06:28.120 every rich country in the world, they've been able to 0:06:28.160 --> 0:06:31.919 bring their economies back. That was Austin Goulsby, former chairman 0:06:31.960 --> 0:06:34.960 of the National Council of Economic Advisors under President Obama 0:06:35.160 --> 0:06:39.600 and now an advisor to the Biden Harris campaign. Coming up. 0:06:39.800 --> 0:06:42.640 We've lost all those jobs because of the coronavirus and 0:06:42.640 --> 0:06:46.120 the shutdowns it triggered. Dr Steve Corwin of New York 0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:49.480 Presbyterian has fought the virus successfully but says we're not 0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:52.160 out of the woods yet. That's next on Wall Street 0:06:52.200 --> 0:07:01.440 Week on Bloombood. This is Bloomberg Street Week with David 0:07:01.480 --> 0:07:04.880 Weston from Bloomberg Radio. First it was New York and 0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:09.200 New Jersey, then California and Texas, and now the coronavirus 0:07:09.240 --> 0:07:12.480 crisis has moved on to the Midwest. The question is 0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:15.320 what comes next and what can we do to make 0:07:15.320 --> 0:07:18.960 sure we can get the economy going again safely, which 0:07:19.000 --> 0:07:21.960 is what we asked Dr Steve Corwin, CEO of New 0:07:22.040 --> 0:07:26.320 York Presbyterian, the largest hospital group in the New York area. Well, 0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:28.840 I think the moving average across the country is moving 0:07:28.920 --> 0:07:33.200 down and that that is good news. I think, as 0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:36.280 we've talked about before, David, as you start to open, 0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:39.800 you're gonna tight trade infections. You have to be capable 0:07:40.000 --> 0:07:42.800 of sort of dealing with those outbreaks, which is why 0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:46.880 testing becomes so important and contact tracing to try to 0:07:46.960 --> 0:07:50.760 keep a lid on this thing until we're capable of 0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:53.760 treating it and having a vaccine for it. So the 0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:56.680 moving average going down is positive. Some of these hot 0:07:56.760 --> 0:08:02.000 spots obviously are a problem. The opening of colleges, the 0:08:01.560 --> 0:08:06.120 the opening of schools presents a challenge, Indoor dining presents 0:08:06.160 --> 0:08:09.440 a challenge, opening theaters presents a challenge, and we have 0:08:09.520 --> 0:08:12.760 to be mindful of that so that we can scale 0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:16.400 it back if it looks like we're having an outbreak 0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:19.600 in a particular area. In New York, we're down to 0:08:19.680 --> 0:08:23.560 about two of our COVID peak, which is very comforting. 0:08:24.200 --> 0:08:28.200 But now we're gonna look at New York City schools reopening. Uh, 0:08:28.240 --> 0:08:31.160 there's gonna be a push for more indoor venues as 0:08:31.200 --> 0:08:34.520 the weather gets colder. We're gonna have influenza start in 0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:38.080 the fall. So I think seeing that moving average go 0:08:38.200 --> 0:08:42.560 down and seeing the daily infections go down below the 0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:46.000 ten thou numbers what Dr Fauci has said would be 0:08:46.040 --> 0:08:48.959 comforting if we could get to that by October. So 0:08:49.400 --> 0:08:52.040 a lot of challenges. Are we up to meeting the challenges? 0:08:52.080 --> 0:08:53.720 How are we doing on this because it looks like 0:08:53.920 --> 0:08:56.080 we may have to manage this disease for a while 0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:59.240 before there's this magical cure called a vaccine. Can't count 0:08:59.240 --> 0:09:01.920 on that and we reopen our economy? Can we reopen 0:09:01.920 --> 0:09:05.520 our schools to some extent prudently? I hope that we can. David, 0:09:05.600 --> 0:09:08.280 I think that we missed the boat a little, quite frankly, 0:09:08.320 --> 0:09:11.640 in terms of not tamping down the infection number. I 0:09:11.679 --> 0:09:16.160 think we had the debate over masks social distancing. I 0:09:16.440 --> 0:09:19.560 don't think that helped us as a country. We politicized it, 0:09:19.600 --> 0:09:24.080 which was unfortunate. But I think that maintenance of masks, 0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:28.640 maintenance of social distancing, getting the infection number dawn will 0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:32.920 allow us to cautiously reopen the economy as we're doing. Look, 0:09:32.920 --> 0:09:35.920 we have to reopen the economy. We can't still. We 0:09:35.960 --> 0:09:38.800 can't say still forever. But you want to do it 0:09:38.880 --> 0:09:42.000 in as prudent a manner as possible. Uh. You read 0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:45.480 in the Financial Times today as well as other venues 0:09:45.559 --> 0:09:48.240 that Germany thinks that they're having a V shaped recovery. 0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:50.959 Part of that is because they were able to control 0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:54.040 the pandemic to a greater extent than than than we have. 0:09:54.640 --> 0:09:57.400 Um So I think that the two go hand and glove. 0:09:58.120 --> 0:10:00.600 Are we making good progress on the testing front? You 0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:02.640 mentioned testing, and it seems like almost every day we 0:10:02.640 --> 0:10:04.520 have a new report, like Abbot Labs has something out 0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:06.840 that texts fifteen minutes, it doesn't cost very much money. 0:10:06.880 --> 0:10:09.439 Are we making substantial progress on testing? Not as much 0:10:09.480 --> 0:10:12.760 as I would like. We still have issues with reagent 0:10:12.880 --> 0:10:15.400 shortages and things of that nature, so we can't do 0:10:15.440 --> 0:10:18.000 as much testing as we would like. But let's just 0:10:18.040 --> 0:10:20.480 talk about the point of care testing for for for 0:10:20.520 --> 0:10:23.720 a moment um. Some of the point of care tests 0:10:23.760 --> 0:10:27.280 can do a test every fifteen minutes. That's for tests 0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:32.320 an hour um. The machines that we have uh made 0:10:32.320 --> 0:10:36.199 by sepied Ross and others, we can do batch testing 0:10:36.200 --> 0:10:39.240 where we can do thousands of tests a day. So 0:10:39.400 --> 0:10:42.440 if we had the reagents for it with these with 0:10:42.559 --> 0:10:45.160 these machines, we can do turnaround in less than twenty 0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:47.959 four hours, and we can get these things done quickly. 0:10:48.840 --> 0:10:51.120 The public ought to be mindful that point of care 0:10:51.160 --> 0:10:53.960 testing sounds great, but ultimately you want to be able 0:10:54.000 --> 0:10:57.640 to do a high volume of tests on a frequent basis. 0:10:58.200 --> 0:11:01.040 You want a low enough level of an infection so 0:11:01.080 --> 0:11:04.439 that you know if you identifying infection, you can do 0:11:04.520 --> 0:11:08.080 contact racing and then test the contact traces in a 0:11:08.120 --> 0:11:10.760 three to five day period to make sure they're not infected. 0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:15.040 That's the key. I thought it was unfortunate that the 0:11:15.080 --> 0:11:18.400 CDC came out with guidelines for less testing. You need 0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:21.960 more testing um, and I don't think there's much dispute, 0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:24.600 at least in the scientific community and the people I've 0:11:24.600 --> 0:11:27.240 been speaking to about that. Well, I wonder about that. 0:11:27.360 --> 0:11:29.400 I mean, you're a doctor, you head up one of 0:11:29.400 --> 0:11:31.840 the major hospitals in the country. You can sort of 0:11:31.840 --> 0:11:33.800 sift through this. For those of us out here in 0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:36.079 the real world, how do we figure out what the 0:11:36.080 --> 0:11:38.079 truth is? Because, as you say, c DC came out 0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:40.480 and said you don't need to test people who are asymptomatic. 0:11:40.480 --> 0:11:43.120 We had a flurry of people experts come out and say, no, 0:11:43.200 --> 0:11:45.680 that's not right at all. Are they undermining their own 0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:48.199 credibility of some extent? And then we have this condalescent 0:11:48.240 --> 0:11:50.600 plasma thing where the government says it's just fine now 0:11:50.600 --> 0:11:52.400 we're here, and I says, well, I'm not sure we know. 0:11:52.679 --> 0:11:55.719 I think it was very unfortunate and it does undermine 0:11:56.240 --> 0:12:00.920 the credibility of of the f d A and the CDC. 0:12:01.679 --> 0:12:06.040 The f d A mistake was egregious, that should never 0:12:06.120 --> 0:12:10.720 have happened. You're talking about a subset of patients, and 0:12:10.800 --> 0:12:15.040 you're talking about a misrepresentation of the statistics, even according 0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:18.400 to the people who did the study. Um and that 0:12:18.480 --> 0:12:21.880 then so what are the consequences of that? Then then 0:12:21.960 --> 0:12:25.680 gives everyone to say I want convalescent plasma as opposed 0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:29.520 to let's study this more rigorously and see whether it 0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:32.319 works or not. And we got into that same conundrum 0:12:32.400 --> 0:12:36.280 with hydroxy chloroquine. So I think that was very unfortunate. 0:12:36.600 --> 0:12:40.600 I think the CDC um you know, uh, quite frankly, 0:12:40.679 --> 0:12:45.240 that was unfortunate as well. The simple answer is, we 0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:49.959 need to rigorously test various therapies to see if they work. 0:12:50.480 --> 0:12:53.400 We need to do the rigorous testing on the phase 0:12:53.520 --> 0:12:56.920 three of the vaccine trials to make sure that if 0:12:56.960 --> 0:12:59.920 we're going to inoculate and mass inoculate, that that we're 0:13:00.679 --> 0:13:04.480 and there can't be any appearance that this is politicized, 0:13:04.840 --> 0:13:08.520 either for the President's benefit or the or or the 0:13:08.559 --> 0:13:12.520 benefit of Mr Biden. It's got to be that we're 0:13:12.520 --> 0:13:16.480 in this together and that we're trying to to improve 0:13:16.520 --> 0:13:18.520 the public health. So I don't think we're in a 0:13:18.559 --> 0:13:21.480 good place in terms of that. You've got now, this 0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:24.400 is a Democrat Republican issue, and it should not be 0:13:24.880 --> 0:13:27.240 Dr Corey. You of course are a physician, and you 0:13:27.280 --> 0:13:29.600 were chieve a medicine before you were CEO. But you 0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:32.319 are CEO now and you've got a really big company, 0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:35.520 a business that to run. You've said before that your 0:13:35.559 --> 0:13:37.880 company may lose as much as a billion dollars out 0:13:37.880 --> 0:13:40.720 of operating come because the coronavirus this year. How are 0:13:40.720 --> 0:13:43.520 you doing financially? And in particular, there was a hundred 0:13:43.600 --> 0:13:46.640 billion dollars appropriated in the Cares Act to go to hospitals. 0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:49.360 Did you see some of that money will lose uh 0:13:49.600 --> 0:13:52.400 in the two to three hundred million dollar range through June. 0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:55.079 And that's uh, far less than we would have lost 0:13:55.080 --> 0:13:58.560 that we not received the Care's money. We've advocated that 0:13:58.640 --> 0:14:02.280 the Medicare and answers for all hospitals around the country, 0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:05.880 rural and otherwise be converted into grants that would help 0:14:05.920 --> 0:14:09.240 as well. We still are anticipating a loss anywhere between 0:14:09.280 --> 0:14:12.120 seven hundred million and a billion dollars towards the end 0:14:12.120 --> 0:14:15.560 of the year. We do see our volumes coming back. 0:14:16.160 --> 0:14:21.040 That's been very encouraging. Uh. The fact that again the 0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:24.600 volumes are coming back, is completely coincident with the fact 0:14:24.640 --> 0:14:28.840 that people feel safer. Um. That being said, I think 0:14:28.920 --> 0:14:32.440 that um, you know, we're looking for a twenty that 0:14:32.520 --> 0:14:35.680 will be rough, uh and we're hoping the twenty one 0:14:35.720 --> 0:14:38.800 will be better, and we're looking that that by twenty 0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:41.120 two will be out of the worst of it from 0:14:41.200 --> 0:14:44.560 from a from a perspective of a major institution. That 0:14:44.640 --> 0:14:48.720 was Dr Steve Corwin, CEO of New York Presbyterian coming up. 0:14:48.760 --> 0:14:51.880 A tsunami hit the news media over the last few years, 0:14:51.960 --> 0:14:54.960 taking much of the newspaper industry with it. We talked 0:14:54.960 --> 0:14:57.000 with the man who led The New York Times not 0:14:57.160 --> 0:15:00.600 just to survive, but to thrive, Mark Thompson, It's CEO 0:15:00.800 --> 0:15:04.920 through a remarkable and a remarkably challenging time. That's next 0:15:04.920 --> 0:15:10.680 our Wall Street Week on Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Wall 0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:14.840 Street Week with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. For all 0:15:14.880 --> 0:15:18.640 the difficulties experienced by most of the traditional newspaper business, 0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:21.120 the New York Times over the past eight years has 0:15:21.160 --> 0:15:24.040 managed to embrace the future. And we asked it CEO 0:15:24.160 --> 0:15:27.160 Mark Thompson, how he went about doing it what we 0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:30.000 decided to do. There were four revenue streams when when 0:15:30.040 --> 0:15:33.680 I arrived at the company still are today. Print advertising, 0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:35.920 which once had been more than eighty percent of the 0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:39.480 total revenue of the company have been print advertizing, print subscription, 0:15:40.320 --> 0:15:44.120 digital advertising, and digital subscription. And really my kind of 0:15:44.120 --> 0:15:47.720 bed I narrative on on digital subscription as the as 0:15:47.760 --> 0:15:52.040 the revenue stream we should really grow, and indeed had 0:15:52.080 --> 0:15:55.920 to grow, because ultimately, for different reasons, all of the 0:15:55.960 --> 0:15:58.840 other revenue streams seemed to me were in trouble potentially 0:15:59.120 --> 0:16:02.520 and ultimately I even disappear. So we double down on 0:16:02.560 --> 0:16:08.040 the very simple idea of great journalism packaged effectively in 0:16:08.040 --> 0:16:12.560 good digital products, which established a very close relationship with 0:16:13.080 --> 0:16:16.280 people who are prepared to pay to get that journalism, 0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:20.120 and that becoming really the bedrock of the entire future 0:16:20.160 --> 0:16:23.760 of the company. And to do that, we invested in 0:16:23.800 --> 0:16:25.640 our news room. We actually built the news room. We've 0:16:25.640 --> 0:16:28.920 got hundred and fifty more journalists now than then when 0:16:28.920 --> 0:16:31.280 I walked into the building. And we also got smart 0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:35.040 about digital product. We had hundreds of software engineers and 0:16:35.160 --> 0:16:40.200 data scientists, machine learning people, and graphic designers and videographers 0:16:40.440 --> 0:16:42.840 and and really worked on the digital product. And and 0:16:42.880 --> 0:16:44.960 we've ended up with a kind of virtuous circle where 0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:47.960 I think the content is as rich and and broaders 0:16:48.040 --> 0:16:51.160 has ever been. It's much more effectively packaged up in products, 0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:53.520 and people are flocking to buy the products as as 0:16:53.600 --> 0:16:56.240 as new subscribers. So Mark, you described it as simple, 0:16:56.560 --> 0:16:59.200 but it was far from conventional wisdom when you took 0:16:59.200 --> 0:17:02.400 over I mean most newspaper people, as you and I 0:17:02.440 --> 0:17:04.119 both know in the United States, and said, look at 0:17:04.320 --> 0:17:06.560 we made the mistake early out of making this free 0:17:06.680 --> 0:17:09.280 on the internet. There's no way we can charge with it. 0:17:09.320 --> 0:17:11.560 With the possible exception of the Financial Times maybe the 0:17:11.560 --> 0:17:15.159 Wall Street Journal because it's especially business publication. So what 0:17:15.320 --> 0:17:17.159 you did may have been simple, but it was not 0:17:17.280 --> 0:17:19.560 what most people thought would work. That's true of my industry. 0:17:19.560 --> 0:17:22.359 But if you step back, I mean read Hastings was 0:17:22.520 --> 0:17:25.879 thinking the same thought about about high quality TV and 0:17:26.000 --> 0:17:29.639 in relation to Netflix. Daniel Eck and co at Spotify 0:17:29.720 --> 0:17:31.800 were thinking the same about music, that there was a 0:17:31.800 --> 0:17:35.240 way of getting great entertainment of great music to the 0:17:35.280 --> 0:17:38.199 world's public, and enough people out there would pay for 0:17:38.240 --> 0:17:40.640 it to make a great business. And really all we're 0:17:40.680 --> 0:17:44.080 really doing I think we're part of a broader trend 0:17:44.600 --> 0:17:49.400 towards direct digital subscription relationships with people who want really 0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:52.960 good stuff, and that's a that's an entire sector which 0:17:53.000 --> 0:17:55.479 is growing very rapidly, and in a way, it's a 0:17:55.480 --> 0:17:58.000 little bit like the moment when cable TV arrived in 0:17:58.040 --> 0:18:00.920 the US and suddenly the was a choice there was 0:18:00.960 --> 0:18:05.000 a choice of something beyond regular broadcast TV television. And 0:18:05.040 --> 0:18:08.359 I think that although it's true that the broadcast model 0:18:08.400 --> 0:18:11.120 is happening to broadcast TV right now, is is post 0:18:11.200 --> 0:18:12.720 growth and it is going to be very difficult to 0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:15.960 stay even its current level. Um it turns out these 0:18:16.000 --> 0:18:19.440 other forms of getting TV and music and news could grow. 0:18:19.720 --> 0:18:23.400 There was once a really big market in in paid 0:18:23.440 --> 0:18:25.680 news in America. And it wasn't just The New York Times. 0:18:25.680 --> 0:18:29.120 It was local newspapers, it was metros, it was magazines. 0:18:29.200 --> 0:18:32.640 Know that people paid billions and billions of dollars as 0:18:32.640 --> 0:18:36.520 subscribers and buying buying these products from newsstands. There's no 0:18:36.600 --> 0:18:40.440 reason why that market can't be recaptured. But how would 0:18:40.440 --> 0:18:42.920 that happen? Marcus A practical markers. When you came in, 0:18:43.160 --> 0:18:45.720 the New York Times still had a very robust newsroom 0:18:45.920 --> 0:18:48.879 directed toward print, larger but very US newsroom. A lot 0:18:48.960 --> 0:18:51.479 of newspapers across the country, these are regional as well 0:18:51.480 --> 0:18:53.639 as local papers, really have had to cut back so 0:18:53.680 --> 0:18:56.520 far they've let those newsrooms go. Is it possible this 0:18:56.560 --> 0:18:59.359 point to rebuild that. Can your model apply beyond the 0:18:59.400 --> 0:19:01.119 New York Time? And I guess that's what I'm asking. 0:19:01.359 --> 0:19:03.400 And the answer is because so few people have even 0:19:03.440 --> 0:19:06.479 tried it, I don't think we know. But but to me, 0:19:06.720 --> 0:19:09.720 I mean, I think there's one basic, big caveat which 0:19:09.760 --> 0:19:11.760 is this is a kind of horse and buggy to 0:19:12.200 --> 0:19:16.480 automobile moment, and that requires capital. You have to risk 0:19:16.560 --> 0:19:19.720 some money, you have to invest to make the change. 0:19:19.920 --> 0:19:23.680 But assuming someone wants to invest, I don't see at 0:19:23.720 --> 0:19:30.280 all why if you rehire your journalists, rebuild that newsroom, 0:19:30.600 --> 0:19:34.080 start doing great reporting, and start getting smart about how 0:19:34.119 --> 0:19:35.560 you get it to the public while you can't really 0:19:35.600 --> 0:19:38.280 build a new business. I think the mistake made was 0:19:38.280 --> 0:19:40.320 thinking that you could kind of eke your way to 0:19:40.400 --> 0:19:44.080 the digital future without putting any fresh money in. And 0:19:44.359 --> 0:19:46.880 no one could do that. Nobody could take a to two, 0:19:46.920 --> 0:19:50.879 could take a a kind of horse carriage factory and 0:19:50.960 --> 0:19:54.640 turn it into a car company without vast fresh investment. 0:19:54.720 --> 0:19:58.560 And this is one of those periods in media, which 0:19:58.600 --> 0:20:01.239 is very capital intensive, requires lots of money. But for 0:20:01.280 --> 0:20:03.560 people who prepared to put the money in, I think 0:20:03.600 --> 0:20:05.600 there are great businesses to be built. But the other 0:20:05.640 --> 0:20:08.320 thing we saw was people take a look at Facebook 0:20:08.359 --> 0:20:10.840 and Google and say they're so massive there are audience 0:20:10.920 --> 0:20:12.959 is so large, we have no choice but to go 0:20:13.040 --> 0:20:15.400 through them. We have to hitch our wagon to them, 0:20:15.400 --> 0:20:18.679 even though they will have the direct relationship with our subscriber, 0:20:18.720 --> 0:20:21.359 our customer. I mean even New York Times flirted with 0:20:21.400 --> 0:20:23.919 that for a time. So is it possible for if 0:20:23.920 --> 0:20:25.560 you do this directly, I mean, you have a direct 0:20:25.640 --> 0:20:30.920 relation to the subscriber. And we believe that although um 0:20:31.359 --> 0:20:34.159 uh digital social media, Facebook and the rest of it, 0:20:34.400 --> 0:20:37.840 Google Search and all of these platforms are really important 0:20:37.840 --> 0:20:41.119 in people finding our content, hearing about the Times and 0:20:41.400 --> 0:20:45.320 making sure our journalism is really influential, that we really 0:20:45.359 --> 0:20:49.040 needed a kind of trail of breadcrumbs from these other 0:20:49.080 --> 0:20:52.240 platforms back to the mothership, back to the New York 0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:55.600 Times experience. That was Mark Thompson, outgoing CEO of the 0:20:55.600 --> 0:20:58.560 New York Times company. Coming up, we wrap up the 0:20:58.600 --> 0:21:02.320 week with our special contributor, Larry Summers. This is Wall 0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:12.840 Street Week on Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Wall Street Week 0:21:13.040 --> 0:21:16.280 with David Weston from Bloomberg Radio. It was a week 0:21:16.280 --> 0:21:19.440 of ups and downs and sometimes just playing moving sideways. 0:21:19.600 --> 0:21:21.159 To wrap it up for us, we welcome now our 0:21:21.200 --> 0:21:25.520 special contributor and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers of Harvard. So, Larry, 0:21:25.520 --> 0:21:27.359 we had a lot of information on the stock market 0:21:27.359 --> 0:21:28.480 towards the end of the week. I mean, in the 0:21:28.560 --> 0:21:30.480 early week it was going up. The Latin part of 0:21:30.520 --> 0:21:32.400 the week it really sold off quite a bit. How 0:21:32.480 --> 0:21:34.240 much of this is signal and how much is this 0:21:34.280 --> 0:21:37.119 as noise? To Barro from Nate Silver, you know, David 0:21:37.440 --> 0:21:42.200 uh Bob Rubin famously told everybody in the Clinton White House, 0:21:42.880 --> 0:21:46.159 markets go up, markets go down. I think it's a 0:21:46.280 --> 0:21:51.520 mistake always to make judgments about deep and profound things, 0:21:52.119 --> 0:21:55.680 even about the future of markets, from how they behave 0:21:55.800 --> 0:22:00.719 over a period of uh several days. So I'd be 0:22:01.600 --> 0:22:05.840 very surprised if the events of the last couple of 0:22:05.920 --> 0:22:12.960 days are historically memorable. My uh, my son, who's in 0:22:13.040 --> 0:22:16.320 his mid twenties, UM, sent me a note in the 0:22:16.320 --> 0:22:21.120 middle of the day saying, uh, hell of a correction, Dad, 0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:27.120 And I wrote back, by the standards of your young life, UM, 0:22:27.680 --> 0:22:32.000 and he had the good grace to write back, uh 0:22:32.040 --> 0:22:39.080 fair enough. UM. So I don't know whether where markets are. 0:22:39.400 --> 0:22:45.320