WEBVTT - Former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers Talks Markets 

0:00:02.320 --> 0:00:06.680
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:06.880 --> 0:00:09.160
<v Speaker 2>I'm David Weston and I'm joined now by the former

0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:12.680
<v Speaker 2>US treasure Sectory Larry Summers of Harvard. Larry, thank you

0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:14.480
<v Speaker 2>for being back with us. When we talked just a

0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:17.160
<v Speaker 2>week ago on Wednesday, the day of the announcedent tariffs,

0:00:17.560 --> 0:00:19.960
<v Speaker 2>there was a lot yet to be determined. The markets

0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:23.720
<v Speaker 2>have been through an amazing amount of volatility since then.

0:00:23.880 --> 0:00:27.040
<v Speaker 2>Three down days, they're sharply up today. You've been quite

0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:30.720
<v Speaker 2>explicitly critical of what President Trump has announced here. Do

0:00:30.760 --> 0:00:33.560
<v Speaker 2>you feel better today because the markets are coming back?

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:41.919
<v Speaker 1>Sure? I feel better anytime instability seems to be calming.

0:00:42.560 --> 0:00:48.520
<v Speaker 1>But be not confused. There's only one reason why instability

0:00:48.800 --> 0:00:54.480
<v Speaker 1>is being reduced, and that is there's a growing hope

0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:59.200
<v Speaker 1>in markets that a larger part of these policies are

0:00:59.240 --> 0:01:05.360
<v Speaker 1>going to prove transitory and reversible. This does not reflect

0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:09.120
<v Speaker 1>any kind of market endorsement of the approach that the

0:01:09.160 --> 0:01:14.320
<v Speaker 1>President has followed. Rather, it reflects a judgment that the

0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:20.160
<v Speaker 1>president might recognize the reality that markets are telling him about,

0:01:20.319 --> 0:01:23.560
<v Speaker 1>that many of his advisors are telling him about that

0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:29.760
<v Speaker 1>corporate CEOs across the country are articulating that this kind

0:01:29.800 --> 0:01:37.360
<v Speaker 1>of wholesale tariff of policy is simply bad for economic performance.

0:01:38.400 --> 0:01:42.959
<v Speaker 1>We're seeing some signs that the administration may recognize that.

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 2>We're seeing signs. But do we have a better sense

0:01:46.880 --> 0:01:50.360
<v Speaker 2>of the goals in the process today than we got

0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:53.640
<v Speaker 2>from the Rose Garden last Wednesday.

0:01:53.760 --> 0:01:59.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so. I think this is fundamentally a

0:01:59.520 --> 0:02:05.200
<v Speaker 1>improvaizational effort. You could tell that when you knew that

0:02:05.600 --> 0:02:09.799
<v Speaker 1>there was a policy based on tariff reciprocity that didn't

0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:13.520
<v Speaker 1>use any data on the tariffs of other countries in

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:18.760
<v Speaker 1>figuring out how to reciprocate. You could tell that from

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:25.720
<v Speaker 1>the blatant contradictions between what presidential advisor Navarro was saying

0:02:25.800 --> 0:02:31.760
<v Speaker 1>and presidential advisor Treasury Secretary Scott Bessen was saying. You

0:02:31.760 --> 0:02:39.160
<v Speaker 1>could tell that from the degree of division between close

0:02:39.200 --> 0:02:45.240
<v Speaker 1>outside advisor Elon Musk and many members of the president's

0:02:45.280 --> 0:02:51.160
<v Speaker 1>economic team. This is a policy, it's a hugely consequential policy,

0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:59.000
<v Speaker 1>but by all appearances, it's being improvised on a daily basis,

0:02:59.080 --> 0:03:04.000
<v Speaker 1>and that's creating huge uncertainty. But it's only uncertain There's

0:03:04.040 --> 0:03:08.080
<v Speaker 1>only uncertainty if things go in both directions. And today

0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:11.600
<v Speaker 1>happened to be a day when things moved in a

0:03:11.639 --> 0:03:17.520
<v Speaker 1>positive direction. I hope that the moves to back off

0:03:18.680 --> 0:03:24.320
<v Speaker 1>these policies can continue, but we'll have to see. I

0:03:24.440 --> 0:03:28.320
<v Speaker 1>suspect we're going to have volatile markets for some time

0:03:28.480 --> 0:03:32.239
<v Speaker 1>to come, and no one can know, but my judgment

0:03:32.560 --> 0:03:36.760
<v Speaker 1>is that I'd be surprised if the bottom is yet

0:03:36.800 --> 0:03:43.680
<v Speaker 1>in with respect to this phase and markets.

0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:45.640
<v Speaker 2>How bad could it get?

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:52.160
<v Speaker 1>Oh, I think the likelihood. I think it's more likely

0:03:52.240 --> 0:03:57.040
<v Speaker 1>than not that we're going to have a recession. And

0:03:57.840 --> 0:04:01.520
<v Speaker 1>in the context of a recession, and we'll see an

0:04:01.600 --> 0:04:08.080
<v Speaker 1>extra two million people be unemployed, We'll see losses in

0:04:08.240 --> 0:04:17.039
<v Speaker 1>household income that are five thousand dollars a family or more.

0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:21.279
<v Speaker 1>We are very likely, in the context of a recession,

0:04:21.839 --> 0:04:29.680
<v Speaker 1>to see markets reach levels significantly below their current levels.

0:04:30.200 --> 0:04:34.440
<v Speaker 1>So I think we could be looking for fairly serious

0:04:34.520 --> 0:04:38.320
<v Speaker 1>economic problems. And I think it will cash the shadow forward,

0:04:38.440 --> 0:04:41.720
<v Speaker 1>because if we have a recession, the budget deficit will

0:04:41.760 --> 0:04:44.599
<v Speaker 1>go up, the accumulated debt that we have to deal

0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:49.279
<v Speaker 1>with will go up, There'll be financial distress that will

0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:58.080
<v Speaker 1>affect higher risk companies and also higher risk countries in

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:02.960
<v Speaker 1>the global economy. But David, there's a central thing to

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:10.080
<v Speaker 1>understand about this moment of economic and financial difficulty. To

0:05:10.200 --> 0:05:14.520
<v Speaker 1>borrow a word from the doctors, it is our first

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:24.479
<v Speaker 1>iatrogenic recession, our first diatrogenic financial crisis. Iatrogenic illness is

0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:26.880
<v Speaker 1>when you go into the hospital and you catch an

0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:31.520
<v Speaker 1>infection there. It's when the people whose job it is

0:05:31.560 --> 0:05:36.120
<v Speaker 1>to make things better are the active agents of making

0:05:36.200 --> 0:05:41.919
<v Speaker 1>things worse and Yatrogenic illness, staff, infections and alike in

0:05:42.000 --> 0:05:47.800
<v Speaker 1>hospitals is a major preoccupation for doctors. This is an

0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:55.520
<v Speaker 1>iatrogenic economic challenge. There is nothing in the outside world

0:05:56.080 --> 0:06:01.080
<v Speaker 1>that is causing this challenge. It is in due by

0:06:01.160 --> 0:06:08.240
<v Speaker 1>the words and deeds of President Trump and his administration.

0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:11.520
<v Speaker 1>The good news about that is it could be resolved

0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:17.520
<v Speaker 1>with words and deeds of President Trump if they backed

0:06:17.520 --> 0:06:22.159
<v Speaker 1>off these policy errors. I think there would be a

0:06:22.520 --> 0:06:28.640
<v Speaker 1>substantial resumption of normality. But as long as a hospital

0:06:28.720 --> 0:06:35.120
<v Speaker 1>maintains unsanitary conditions, it's patients get infections when they enter,

0:06:35.720 --> 0:06:40.200
<v Speaker 1>And as long as these policies are being pursued, we're

0:06:40.240 --> 0:06:46.320
<v Speaker 1>going to see substantial volatility and markets, substantial recession risk,

0:06:46.600 --> 0:06:50.800
<v Speaker 1>substantial damage to middle class families.

0:06:51.200 --> 0:06:53.680
<v Speaker 2>So just to follow up on that is there any

0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:57.520
<v Speaker 2>remedy for the patient other than for the chief doctor

0:06:57.720 --> 0:07:00.120
<v Speaker 2>that is President Trump to back off what you you

0:07:00.160 --> 0:07:02.640
<v Speaker 2>just describe as policy errors. Is there anybody else who

0:07:02.640 --> 0:07:03.240
<v Speaker 2>can save us?

0:07:05.240 --> 0:07:09.080
<v Speaker 1>Look, depending on what happens with other countries and how

0:07:09.120 --> 0:07:14.280
<v Speaker 1>they handle their diplomacy, it may be easier or harder

0:07:15.200 --> 0:07:22.280
<v Speaker 1>for him to back off these policies. Depending upon how

0:07:22.320 --> 0:07:26.600
<v Speaker 1>the business community responds. There may be more or less

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:34.360
<v Speaker 1>ability to create an environment where there's a backing off

0:07:34.440 --> 0:07:41.000
<v Speaker 1>of these policies. But there's nothing complicated about this. You

0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:49.880
<v Speaker 1>impose huge tax increases on households in an uncertainty creating

0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:58.760
<v Speaker 1>way that's also damaging to establish business patterns, and the

0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:07.040
<v Speaker 1>economy turns downwards. There's nothing subtle or sophisticated about this.

0:08:07.040 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 1>This is introductory economics. It's the kind of question that

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:15.800
<v Speaker 1>could have been on an introductory economics exam for decades.

0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:21.720
<v Speaker 1>Suppose the president of the United States decides suddenly to

0:08:21.880 --> 0:08:31.119
<v Speaker 1>impose a massive tariff tax increase on products from all

0:08:31.160 --> 0:08:36.320
<v Speaker 1>over the world. What will happen to the economy? And

0:08:37.040 --> 0:08:41.040
<v Speaker 1>any b student will know that the answer to that

0:08:41.960 --> 0:08:46.880
<v Speaker 1>is that it's a supply shock that raises prices and

0:08:48.000 --> 0:08:54.760
<v Speaker 1>raises unemployment as well, and makes the economy less efficient

0:08:55.360 --> 0:09:05.520
<v Speaker 1>and adds substantially to uncertainty in some sophisticated, complicated thing

0:09:06.000 --> 0:09:06.800
<v Speaker 1>to analyze.

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:09.320
<v Speaker 2>Larry, thank you so much for being back on I

0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:12.920
<v Speaker 2>really appreciate that is. Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers

0:09:12.960 --> 0:09:13.480
<v Speaker 2>of Harvard