Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg pim L Podcast. I'm pim Fox.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa A. Brahmowitz. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews
Speaker 1: for you and your money, whether you're at the grocery
Speaker 1: store or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p and
Speaker 1: L Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot Com.
Speaker 1: I'm pim Fox, and it is my pleasure to welcome
Speaker 1: our next guest, Joseph Stiglitz. Professor Stiglitz was born in Gary,
Speaker 1: Indiana in nine Of course, he is a Nobel Laureate,
Speaker 1: awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics along with two colleagues
Speaker 1: in the year two thousand and one. He is the
Speaker 1: author of many books, including Globalization and Its Discontents, and
Speaker 1: he joins us here in studio. Professor Stigletz, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for being here, and wonder if we could
Speaker 1: just start with a kind of anecdotal question having to
Speaker 1: do with Gary, Indiana, and we were just talking offline
Speaker 1: just a moment ago. Do you believe that growing up
Speaker 1: in Gary, Indiana influenced your perspective and your ultimate goal
Speaker 1: in learning about the way the world works oh very
Speaker 1: much so, uh, and I've actually written about that. UM.
Speaker 1: I became an economist because of what I saw growing
Speaker 1: up in Gary, Indiana. I had thought I was going
Speaker 1: to be a physicist, uh, theoretical physicist. But as I
Speaker 1: continued in my studies, what I had seen growing up,
Speaker 1: this enormous inequality, discrimination, episodic unemployment, labor strife kept gnawing
Speaker 1: at me, and I finally decided, Uh, I wanted to
Speaker 1: understand that better. I wanted to come to an understanding
Speaker 1: of how we could do better about these problems. And
Speaker 1: so that was really what drove me into economics. And
Speaker 1: I feel, you know, as I've studied economics, the perspectives
Speaker 1: that I bring are so different from those who grow
Speaker 1: up in a more privileged life in a rich suburb. UM.
Speaker 1: One of the standard views and economics is that markets
Speaker 1: work very well, everybody uh is well off, trickle down
Speaker 1: economics para to optimality. Concepts like that and UH sort
Speaker 1: of Pollyonish view of that uh of of the world.
Speaker 1: And I could never share that Pollyanish view because I saw,
Speaker 1: UH it wasn't working for the people that surrounded me.
Speaker 1: When I was growing up in as far as you
Speaker 1: were able to take that experience and then use it
Speaker 1: in your understanding of economics, you helped to pioneer something
Speaker 1: that has been described as asymmetrical information. In other words,
Speaker 1: how do you take information that may produce dissidence or
Speaker 1: a lack of conformity in its result? And I'm wondering
Speaker 1: if you could talk a little bit about how you
Speaker 1: sort of square the circle, so to speak, or or
Speaker 1: how do you reconcile a lot of those uh inconsistencies.
Speaker 1: The key issue that I faced as I began my
Speaker 1: research was too trying to understand, uh, the difference between
Speaker 1: the standard view of economics at that time Adam Smith,
Speaker 1: the market's invisible hand, uh, every pursued of self interested leagues,
Speaker 1: the world to be as if society's well being was
Speaker 1: being maximized, um with what I saw growing up. And
Speaker 1: that led to ideas about situations where artics don't work
Speaker 1: well and uncovering that there had been an implicit assumption
Speaker 1: that economists hadn't really recognized for two hundering some years,
Speaker 1: which was uh the idea that information was perfect and
Speaker 1: that a world in which information is very imperfect, whereas
Speaker 1: some people know things that others don't. Is totally different
Speaker 1: from uh, a world which information is perfect. It's a
Speaker 1: little bit like in physics. Uh. We we talked about
Speaker 1: a frictionless world and then a world with friction. And
Speaker 1: you would never construct an airplane based on a theory
Speaker 1: of a frictionless world. Uh. It just wouldn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: And yet we were trying to construct an economy based
Speaker 1: on a frictionless world and it wasn't working very well.
Speaker 1: Can you then take that perspective and speak to us
Speaker 1: about the current state of let's say, trade negotiations or
Speaker 1: trade relationship between the United States and the world. I mean,
Speaker 1: we can talk China, you can mention Mexico, Canada, and
Speaker 1: so on. But I wonder if you could use that
Speaker 1: to describe what do you believe is the current feeling
Speaker 1: about these trade negotiations, that they really headed somewhere intelligent
Speaker 1: or is this just a political game? Well, I think
Speaker 1: the trade negotiations are not going well, uh for anybody.
Speaker 1: And the reason that's true is that is really the
Speaker 1: blame is I I put in the United States that
Speaker 1: uh Trump does not have uh any conception about what
Speaker 1: it is that he's trying to do. What is the
Speaker 1: problem facing the United States now? He says the problem
Speaker 1: is that we import more than we export. We have
Speaker 1: a trade deficit, and he attributes that to unfair trade
Speaker 1: UH that are taking advantage of us. But the basic
Speaker 1: inside of economics is that trade deficits are not UH
Speaker 1: based on trade um with any particular country, what we
Speaker 1: call multilateral UM. If we buy a little bit less
Speaker 1: clothes from China, will buy a little bit more from
Speaker 1: Malaysia or Indonesia, and UH it won't make much difference
Speaker 1: for anybody. UH. If we buy from somebody that's not
Speaker 1: the cheapest, our costs will be a little bit higher. UH.
Speaker 1: It will make a difference for Indonesia, but not for
Speaker 1: the American UH producers. UH. What determines the overall trade
Speaker 1: deficit is we call macro economics. That is spirity between
Speaker 1: what we invest inside the United States and what we
Speaker 1: save inside the United States. And if we aren't saving
Speaker 1: enough to finance the investment, we have to borrow from abroad.
Speaker 1: And that borrowing from abroad results in our exchange rate
Speaker 1: going up, and that leads to correspond to that will
Speaker 1: be a trade deficit. So the problem in the United
Speaker 1: States is that we've been borrowing a lot from abroad.
Speaker 1: And the tax bill in December two thousand seventeen and
Speaker 1: the increase in expenditures in January two eighteen, UH really
Speaker 1: blew a hole in our fiscal position. A lot of
Speaker 1: people talked about how we're going to have to borrow
Speaker 1: that much more from abroad and what does that mean?
Speaker 1: That means we will have an even larger trade deficit.
Speaker 1: And that's true. No matter what the outcome of any
Speaker 1: trade negotiations are, those outcomes will determine which countries we
Speaker 1: buy from, but not our overall trade deficit. So no
Speaker 1: matter what his negotiators do, uh, it won't affect that
Speaker 1: basic economics. Now, where the negotiations do make a difference
Speaker 1: is uh particular countries exporting particular goods or importing particularly goods. Now,
Speaker 1: this is another area where Trump is really very misconceived
Speaker 1: in his economics. Modern economics recognize that we are a
Speaker 1: service sector economy. Uh. We are are vibrant sectors are
Speaker 1: financial sector, actucation sector, or health sector. Um. These are
Speaker 1: among the areas where we're making you know, where we're
Speaker 1: really successful. There are other areas where uh, we've moved on. Uh, automobiles, UM,
Speaker 1: natural resources. UH. You know, take the presidents talked about coal. Uh.
Speaker 1: In all of the extractor sectors together, including coal, UH,
Speaker 1: there are about half the number of workers as professional
Speaker 1: sports people. So if you say we want to have
Speaker 1: a cold policy, you ought to say we ought to
Speaker 1: have a sports policy. And you know, if you're talking
Speaker 1: about jobs, there twice as many in those areas. There
Speaker 1: are five times as many jobs in solar install panel
Speaker 1: installation than in the coal industry. So this was not
Speaker 1: the case in nineteen fifty sixties. We didn't have a
Speaker 1: solar panel. He's keeping looking back at the world as
Speaker 1: it was seventy five years ago, next, not where we
Speaker 1: should be going. We should be going towards the century.
Speaker 1: So his focused on the old world, on the industrial
Speaker 1: world of the nineteen fifties, means that we're not reshaping
Speaker 1: our economy towards the century. Is there a political obstacle
Speaker 1: to get these kinds of things done that you describe,
Speaker 1: whether it be the shift from coal and the jobs
Speaker 1: that were in the coal industry to let's say solar
Speaker 1: just as an example of solar industry, Is there a
Speaker 1: political obstacle? Because you've also written about the money that
Speaker 1: influences elections very much. So um. Uh the problem is
Speaker 1: the existing interests. UH don't want to give them up.
Speaker 1: And UH they looked to government for subsident ease, for
Speaker 1: a monopoly power. Uh. We need There is an important
Speaker 1: role for government, but it's for facilitating a transition to
Speaker 1: the new economy. Uh. It's for helping people get the
Speaker 1: skills that they're going to need in the new economy.
Speaker 1: You know. That's the role of the government has traditionally played.
Speaker 1: Back after World War Two, we had to move from
Speaker 1: agriculture to a manufacturing economy. And after World War Two,
Speaker 1: we had the g I Bill, which said that everybody
Speaker 1: who had fought in the war, which was virtually every
Speaker 1: young man and a lot of women, could get as
Speaker 1: much education as they were qualified for. That was essential,
Speaker 1: not only as a basic sense of opportunity, but it
Speaker 1: was actually essential for the transformation from the of the
Speaker 1: United States from agriculture to manufacturing. Today, we need to
Speaker 1: do a similar transformation for manufacturing to a new service sector, innovative,
Speaker 1: non leach based economy, and government isn't there to help us.
Speaker 1: In fact, the trunk government is focusing on back on
Speaker 1: coal and all those other industries that we ought to
Speaker 1: be moving away from. UH. So we need the help
Speaker 1: of the government not to protect the old industries, but
Speaker 1: to help us move into the more dynamics sectors where
Speaker 1: will be a lot more prosperous and a lot healthier.
Speaker 1: I want to give you the opportunity to speak about
Speaker 1: the essential environmental industries that could be created or are
Speaker 1: being created, because this is a topic that you've done
Speaker 1: a lot of work on. Yeah. Well, I, as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: solar panels have the opportunity potential creating so many more
Speaker 1: jobs than the coal industry. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: we know what coal does to our health, the particular
Speaker 1: till it matter, the pollution, UH, not to speak of
Speaker 1: the global warming, and the impacts of global warming we
Speaker 1: are now realizing are much greater than when I began
Speaker 1: studying that matter twenty five years ago. I was on
Speaker 1: the Governmental Panel and Climate change UH and UH we
Speaker 1: looked at the climate change at that point we said
Speaker 1: it's really serious. But we made a mistake. We did
Speaker 1: not anticipate how fast things were going to change and
Speaker 1: how bad they were going to be. The dimensions of
Speaker 1: this the extremes of weather. UM, you know, the United
Speaker 1: States lost about one to two percent of GDP just
Speaker 1: last year in the hurricanes. These are weather related events,
Speaker 1: and there's absolutely no doubt that climate change global warming
Speaker 1: is leading to more severe weather events, whether it's the
Speaker 1: hurricanes or the drawings, the fires that have affected afflicted California. Uh,
Speaker 1: we're already paying an enormous price for that. So if
Speaker 1: we can make a little bit of investment in moving
Speaker 1: to these more dynamic, pro environmental green policies, I think
Speaker 1: it will stimulate our economy, but it will also help
Speaker 1: protect us against the ravages that we are already beginning
Speaker 1: to face. In about thirty seconds, what would you like
Speaker 1: young people to take away from your perspective about economics
Speaker 1: and what they can achieve. I think they should take
Speaker 1: away that, Uh, we can have as prosperous a world
Speaker 1: in the future as we had in the past, but
Speaker 1: it will not be done by the market on its own.
Speaker 1: We are going to have to have an active government policies,
Speaker 1: progressive policy UM and the strategy of blaming others, whether
Speaker 1: it's immigrants or foreign trade or UH, that is not
Speaker 1: going to bring America prosperity. What is going to bring
Speaker 1: American prosperity is investing in our future, not our past,
Speaker 1: but our future, and UH creating the kind of progressive
Speaker 1: environment that says, UH what we tried to achieve seventy
Speaker 1: years ago. UH. Secure retirement, housing for all, healthcare, education
Speaker 1: for our children, jobs for all. These are all things
Speaker 1: that are within our grasp. We are a much wealthier
Speaker 1: country than we were seventy five years ago. The question
Speaker 1: is can we deploy that wealth in ways that will
Speaker 1: benefit all of us? Thank you very much, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much for being with us. UH. Professor Joseph Stiglets,
Speaker 1: Nobel Lauria, Professor of economics at Columbia University and the
Speaker 1: author of Globalization and Its Discontent. Thank you very much
Speaker 1: for your time. Thank you. The topic now is Sears.
Speaker 1: Sears Holdings, hundred and twenty five year old retailer filed
Speaker 1: for bankruptcy protection. It has been settled with billions of
Speaker 1: dollars in debt, this as it struggled to adjust to
Speaker 1: shifts in online consumption. Noel Hibbert, our director of credit
Speaker 1: research for Bloomberg Intelligence, joins us now to tell us
Speaker 1: how did this happen and what's next? Alright, No, I
Speaker 1: have an idea how it happened. But I want you
Speaker 1: to explain how did it happen that Sears ended up
Speaker 1: saddled with all this debt, never mind the strategic issues
Speaker 1: having to do with competition in the retail world. How
Speaker 1: did it end up financially in this position? Boy, I
Speaker 1: think those two items are definitely not mutually exclusive, right,
Speaker 1: So I think you know when not to go too
Speaker 1: far back into the way back time machine. But when
Speaker 1: Eddie had kind of brought Kmart out of bankrupt you're
Speaker 1: talking about Eddie Lampert, the fund manager who basically owns
Speaker 1: Sirius correct so vias e s L investment fund. He
Speaker 1: had brought Kmart out of bankruptcy and then leverage that
Speaker 1: series back in oh five, and back then he had
Speaker 1: a new way to run retail, which was basically to
Speaker 1: not invest in it, right, So, don't invest in capital expenditures,
Speaker 1: try and cut back on employees, and do all these
Speaker 1: things to basically maximize cash flow, which is a great
Speaker 1: short term strategy, but it's not how retail works. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so through the accrual of that over years, they
Speaker 1: just you know, it worked for the first four or
Speaker 1: five years, and then they started lose money. And lose
Speaker 1: more money and lose more money, and the way that
Speaker 1: they funded that loss was to basically borrow money. What
Speaker 1: does Eddie Lampert want to do now with his holdings
Speaker 1: in sears given that they are in bankruptcy protection, because
Speaker 1: there's a discussion about buying a large portion of the
Speaker 1: company's store base. Yea, and I think, you know, for
Speaker 1: if I'm in Eddie Shoes, I think that that makes
Speaker 1: the most sense, right. I mean, to the degree that
Speaker 1: you've got four or five stores somewhere in this you know,
Speaker 1: nine plus store portfolio that are actually profitable and that
Speaker 1: you can build around, you start to think sort of
Speaker 1: the adjacent pockets of value that you're trying to maximize
Speaker 1: any credits trying to maximize here, right, which is stuff
Speaker 1: like Ken Moore or the services business, or the autoparts business,
Speaker 1: or speaking specifically to Eddie Lamport and his DSLF fund,
Speaker 1: the Sritage real estate spinoff that they had a few
Speaker 1: years back, Like, those are all things that you need
Speaker 1: to try and preserve the value of. And if you
Speaker 1: just let this thing sort of wind its way down
Speaker 1: into a liquidation, you lose that. So in order to
Speaker 1: kind of keep the value attached to some of those assets.
Speaker 1: The thing you need to do is sort of find
Speaker 1: a store base that you can build around. No, given
Speaker 1: the attempts in the past to revive Sears, is this
Speaker 1: an attempt to just get through this holiday shopping season
Speaker 1: rather than a big strategic rethink about what they do
Speaker 1: and how they do it. So, I think that's really
Speaker 1: going to come down to how contentious the court proceedings get. Right. So,
Speaker 1: I think if if he can't get enough creditors to
Speaker 1: sort of play along, uh, then it will be very,
Speaker 1: very difficult to sort of rebuild anything out of this,
Speaker 1: and you end up sort of in a Toys Rus
Speaker 1: situation where you've just got too many conflicting interests in
Speaker 1: the courts. No longer it drags on the heart it
Speaker 1: is to resuscitate whatever is left of the retail business.
Speaker 1: I think if he can leverage his position as the
Speaker 1: largest creditors, so of the five billion dollars in change
Speaker 1: of debt that the company has, he's half of that.
Speaker 1: If he can leverage that position somehow into buying or
Speaker 1: securing I guess, uh, you know, sort of relie from
Speaker 1: other creditors. And I think there's something he can do here,
Speaker 1: because again I think it's not just about SEARS itself,
Speaker 1: but it's about sort of how do you preserve uh,
Speaker 1: you know, value. So ken Moore would be a great example,
Speaker 1: whereas you know, there's some value attached to ken Moore
Speaker 1: if you have a still solvent SEARS, but if you're
Speaker 1: in insolvency, you're only bidding for intellectual property that maybe
Speaker 1: worth very very little to third parties without a SEARS. No,
Speaker 1: based on what you know from these kinds of negotiations
Speaker 1: between creditors and debtors in chapter eleven bankruptcy, can you
Speaker 1: tell us what the tone or indeed what kind of relationship,
Speaker 1: if any, do you believe would exist between those two
Speaker 1: groups at this point. Well, that's going to be an
Speaker 1: interesting dynamic because I think the only real big third
Speaker 1: party creditor that we know about right now is fair Home,
Speaker 1: who is involved with Eddie and e S. In terms
Speaker 1: of both on the equity side and on the credit side.
Speaker 1: They're going to be one of the largest creditors going in,
Speaker 1: and they obviously got hurt pretty substantially, not only on
Speaker 1: their equity exposure, which they've largely ex exited excuse me, um,
Speaker 1: but also in the eight percent notes, which is their
Speaker 1: biggest piece, which are trading you know, call it low teens.
Speaker 1: And that's obviously paper that they owned at par right,
Speaker 1: So they're pretty substantially impaired. So figuring out where they're
Speaker 1: going to be in this is going to be a
Speaker 1: big part of it. If they choose to make it contentious, um,
Speaker 1: then this this will probably have a pretty challenged ND.
Speaker 1: Is this why they couldn't reach a resolution out of court? Well?
Speaker 1: I think, uh, I guess there's probably a different number
Speaker 1: of different ways to sort of play that one my
Speaker 1: you know, tea leaves or you want to phrase it,
Speaker 1: would be that it more came down to you need
Speaker 1: assets to restructure around. So if you think back to E.
Speaker 1: S L's proposal from a few weeks back, which basically
Speaker 1: envisioned recapitalizing the entire balance sheet, um, but it also
Speaker 1: meant moving a lot of the assets that remain off
Speaker 1: the balance sheet. Uh. You know, the board is probably
Speaker 1: looking at that and saying, if we're going to restructure
Speaker 1: around anything, we can't do it without ken More, we
Speaker 1: can't do it without the real estate, etcetera. Uh. And
Speaker 1: so you know they might have been having a half
Speaker 1: an eye towards their own liability if this thing went
Speaker 1: into a chapter eleven and what happened if they had
Speaker 1: just pretty much shipped all the valuable assets off the
Speaker 1: balance sheet and into E S l um so. So
Speaker 1: I think there's a couple of dynamics that play there.
Speaker 1: I want to thank you very much for sharing your
Speaker 1: information and experience with us. Noel Hebert is our director
Speaker 1: of credit research for Bloomberg Intelligence. Speaking about Sears Holdings
Speaker 1: filing for bankruptcy, President Donald Trump said that he is
Speaker 1: sending U S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet
Speaker 1: with Saudi King Salmon to discuss the fate of a
Speaker 1: Saudi dissident journalist who disappeared after entering the Saudi consulate
Speaker 1: in Istanbul. Here to tell us more about the situation
Speaker 1: is Ali al Ahmed. He is the founder and director
Speaker 1: of the Institute for Gulf Affairs based in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: And joining me here in studio is Toby Harshaw, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Opinion editor. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here.
Speaker 1: Ali al Ahmed. Maybe you could just describe what do
Speaker 1: we know at the moment, what we know the moment
Speaker 1: is that the Turkish government has the fault proof that
Speaker 1: Mr was killed inside the consulate, and we know the
Speaker 1: identity of the killers H. And it's absolute no doubt
Speaker 1: that the Saudi team, the fifteen member team, including two
Speaker 1: members of the conference bodyguards, were involved in the crime. UH.
Speaker 1: And the Turks are waiting to negotiate some kind of
Speaker 1: a deal between them and the Saudis. And I think
Speaker 1: you meet the Americans because this is now becoming an
Speaker 1: international incident and the King's nephew and governor of Mecca
Speaker 1: is an Ancora beating with President Arregon to come to
Speaker 1: a solution or two an exit out of this UH,
Speaker 1: out of this crisis. MR is dead and he was
Speaker 1: killed in a very horrifle commander, I would say, is
Speaker 1: the style murder. So we'll see what happens. Hang on
Speaker 1: just a second because I want to bring in Toby Harshaw,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion editor, to comment on this. Toby, why should
Speaker 1: Americans pay attention to the disappearance of a Saudi dissident journalist? Well,
Speaker 1: I think we should pay attention to the disappearance of
Speaker 1: all journalists. UM. I think that given the tremendous support
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration, particularly the President and Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: have given to the Saudis, which UH many people saw
Speaker 1: as them giving the green light, for example, to their
Speaker 1: attempts to isolate Cutter, Um to continue prosecuting this disaster
Speaker 1: of a war in Yemen. Um that you know and
Speaker 1: and support for for Mohammed bin Salman, the Prime Prince
Speaker 1: really runs the country. UM that we need to look
Speaker 1: at that policy and think about whether we have to
Speaker 1: be more critical. Well Ali al Ahmed, the President said
Speaker 1: that he spoke earlier with the King of Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: and described the conversation that the king denied any knowledge
Speaker 1: of whatever may have happened to us. He says, quote
Speaker 1: our Saudi Arabian citizen, Do you believe that that is
Speaker 1: the contact content of that conversation? But I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: Obviously I was not listening in. But I would want
Speaker 1: to say that this is the greatest involved with him
Speaker 1: and of an American president ever in any issue relating
Speaker 1: to Saudi human rights violation. So you give Mr Trump
Speaker 1: his his due. He has been the most spokes UH.
Speaker 1: You might not like his position, but he has spoken
Speaker 1: about it more than any American president all the Americans
Speaker 1: in fact combined that that's the reality. I followed all
Speaker 1: the Americans. The President the States was on Saudiast, So
Speaker 1: this is surprising and maybe refreshingly. So I of course
Speaker 1: King Salmon might not have been aware of it because
Speaker 1: he's he's not he's not that healthy, especially because he
Speaker 1: has a publement with his you know, amnesia son. But
Speaker 1: definitely it is done by people in the Royal Palace
Speaker 1: close to him. He doesn't know, he doesn't know, but
Speaker 1: you cannot believe the politicians in general, especially the partic one. Uh.
Speaker 1: The reality is Mr Trump, I think also will use
Speaker 1: this to gain some some some favors with the Drawing
Speaker 1: family and and or maybe in terms of having mb
Speaker 1: as the conference deliver on his promises that he he
Speaker 1: failed to do in terms of investing in certain projects
Speaker 1: or delivering certain policies in the region. So I really
Speaker 1: think this is going to continue because it's not about
Speaker 1: the killing of jamaatoc Alon, which is deserving obviously, but
Speaker 1: it has to do with other policies that the Mohammed
Speaker 1: Salman is carrying out. And I think Mohammed Salman is
Speaker 1: what I call is growing his own wings. He wants
Speaker 1: to be more independent. He's carrying his own vision. He
Speaker 1: wants to do things without America's support or approval. And
Speaker 1: I think that you will see that coming uh in
Speaker 1: the next few weeks, with maybe changing into oil production
Speaker 1: and realigning his position in the region. There's ira is
Speaker 1: a bit of warnum in which the US supported from
Speaker 1: the Obama administration time. Mr al Ahmed, just quickly, do
Speaker 1: you have separate intelligence information other than what the Turkish
Speaker 1: government has released or said in concerning the fate of
Speaker 1: Mr Kashogi. My my sources in Turkey, and he heard
Speaker 1: the video, he heard the audio of the killing, and
Speaker 1: so the collaborating videos that that puts the killers in
Speaker 1: in in that space of time, in the council that
Speaker 1: during the form Mr Kashov entered and after he was killed,
Speaker 1: So everything there. I I know the individual who who
Speaker 1: actually watched it. He is close to the government, but
Speaker 1: he's a friend of Jamal Kaso and somebody I know,
Speaker 1: so he actually saw it. So I'm not I have
Speaker 1: no doubt my additional information separately, and I hope the
Speaker 1: US government will contacts us. We have information on the
Speaker 1: team that we have obtained through our own sources in
Speaker 1: the country through the Palace. We have more information that
Speaker 1: we we have we we owned right now, Toby Harshaw,
Speaker 1: just to come to you for thirty seconds, what would
Speaker 1: this issue due to US Saudi relationships visa v arms sales? Well,
Speaker 1: as you know, the Congress has been tossing around the
Speaker 1: idea of boycotting or putting limits on arms sales to
Speaker 1: study Arabia based on the civilian casual Louis and Yemen.
Speaker 1: I think this could you know, obviously put to give
Speaker 1: more support to that and put a lot of pressure
Speaker 1: on the White House to actually join in. Thanks very
Speaker 1: much for being with us, gentlemen, Toby Harshaw, Bloomberg Opinion
Speaker 1: editor and Ali Al Ahmed, founder and director of the
Speaker 1: Institute for Gulf Affairs in Washington, d C. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or
Speaker 1: whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm pim Fox. I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramo
Speaker 1: wits one. Before the podcast, you can always catch us
Speaker 1: worldwide on Bloomberg Radio.