WEBVTT - Surveillance: US Inflation Cools 0:00:05.120 --> 0:00:09.200 Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane, along 0:00:09.200 --> 0:00:13.200 with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Abramowitz. Daily we bring you 0:00:13.280 --> 0:00:18.600 insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations. 0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:23.799 Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, 0:00:23.920 --> 0:00:29.720 and of course on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're not gonna 0:00:29.720 --> 0:00:31.240 show the chart right now because we don't want to 0:00:31.280 --> 0:00:33.920 waste the second with Matthew Lozetti, chief US economist at 0:00:33.920 --> 0:00:35.880 Deutsche Bank. But Matt, I look at corese c P 0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:38.440 I and you've got to be kidding me. This is, 0:00:38.640 --> 0:00:40.600 you know, the to use a fancy phrase of David 0:00:40.640 --> 0:00:43.440 Fokas Landau would use, this is a teen tweets move 0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:46.440 and a turnaround. There's no way there's a vector here. 0:00:46.800 --> 0:00:50.200 So on the path it's six point three corps. What 0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:53.480 number do you need to see or you have John 0:00:53.479 --> 0:00:57.160 Farrell's vector of disinflation. Yeah, So I think we shouldn't 0:00:57.160 --> 0:00:59.560 over emphasize the zero point three. We've seen that a 0:00:59.560 --> 0:01:01.480 few times over the past year and a half. But 0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:03.720 I think when you do look at the underlying elements 0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:06.959 of this data, there's some support there. So owners equivalent 0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:09.559 rent coming off a little bit. We saw health insurance 0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:12.480 inflation come down, which was anticipated. You're seeing some of 0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:15.600 the goods deflation as we were. You know, everybody anticipates 0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:18.120 that we're going to see a power prices down, use 0:01:18.160 --> 0:01:20.280 cars everybody knew was gonna be down. Household furnishing is 0:01:20.319 --> 0:01:22.640 coming off. So I think the underlying elements of this 0:01:22.760 --> 0:01:25.480 report are actually you know, they're they're good, they're supportive. 0:01:25.920 --> 0:01:28.640 There's you know, some evidence that we are moving from 0:01:28.640 --> 0:01:31.920 peak inflation down lower. Where where do we end up? 0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.679 I think is the big question. But to John's point 0:01:34.760 --> 0:01:39.959 on vector six ish core inflation, at what point do 0:01:40.040 --> 0:01:42.600 you say, yeah, the arrows pointing down, is it five 0:01:42.640 --> 0:01:45.680 point eight? Is it five point two? How much move 0:01:45.800 --> 0:01:48.360 do you need to see in core to say vector 0:01:48.480 --> 0:01:50.560 in place? So I think we can't look at the 0:01:50.600 --> 0:01:53.560 year of a year data simply because you're building these 0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:55.360 point six point seven prints that we've seen over the 0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:56.960 past year. I think it's all about the month on 0:01:57.040 --> 0:01:58.480 month prints, and I think the market is right to 0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:02.200 focus on that. Um In those prints, you know we've 0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:05.480 gotten I would say some broad based deceleration and a 0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:07.320 lot of these categories I would expect the trim, mean 0:02:07.720 --> 0:02:10.880 and medium measures do look better today. It does support 0:02:10.919 --> 0:02:13.200 I think, what is the FEDS leaning towards wanting to 0:02:13.240 --> 0:02:16.040 downshift in in December? And then as we get into 0:02:16.120 --> 0:02:18.480 next year, you know, February March, it's all about can 0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:21.280 we maintain some deceleration and will you begin to see 0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:23.680 the labor market come into better balance over the next 0:02:23.680 --> 0:02:25.799 several months. And we're seeing the market down grade the 0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:28.800 expectation for a seventy five basis point rate hike in December. 0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.040 It seems like a fifty basis point rate hike is 0:02:31.080 --> 0:02:33.880 being locked in as well as a lower terminal rate 0:02:33.919 --> 0:02:36.600 than perhaps they were thinking just a couple of minutes 0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:39.919 before this report came out. How much does that change 0:02:40.000 --> 0:02:42.120 your assessment of how far the feder will have to go? 0:02:42.320 --> 0:02:45.720 If we get ongoing down shift in the inflation reads, 0:02:45.720 --> 0:02:48.280 if we get another softer than expected print in December, 0:02:48.760 --> 0:02:52.200 does that cause you to rethink a at recession and 0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:54.399 be that it's going to be deep? Yeah? I think 0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:56.359 the big if is do these into these continue because 0:02:56.360 --> 0:02:59.760 we've seen these point three prints before, UM, but no 0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:03.000 out if you continue to see these come off, UM, 0:03:03.040 --> 0:03:05.400 it's certainly supportive for the Fed not having to get 0:03:05.480 --> 0:03:07.760 too much higher levels. Our terminal rate has been at 0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:10.200 four point nine percent. I think that still seems like 0:03:10.200 --> 0:03:12.679 a reasonable view at the moment um. We wrote a 0:03:12.680 --> 0:03:15.240 piece yesterday. There's a lot of focus on financial conditions, 0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:17.280 and certainly with equity markets really taking off here, there 0:03:17.280 --> 0:03:20.160 will be a lot of focus on our financial conditions 0:03:20.160 --> 0:03:22.520 easing in a way that Chapal does not want. What 0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:24.360 I would highlight that is maybe a little bit different 0:03:24.360 --> 0:03:26.679 than that is the bank lending channel and we get 0:03:26.680 --> 0:03:29.280 the Senior Loan Officer survey. It's a really good leading 0:03:29.320 --> 0:03:33.440 indicator when you see tightening of lending standards on commercial 0:03:33.480 --> 0:03:37.440 and industrial loans UM, commercial real estate UM. And we've 0:03:37.480 --> 0:03:40.360 seen a material tightening there. So it's a question of 0:03:40.520 --> 0:03:42.200 has the Fed done enough? How much more do they 0:03:42.240 --> 0:03:44.520 need to do. The bank lending channel tells us you 0:03:44.560 --> 0:03:46.960 may not need to have a materially higher terminal rate 0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:48.839 than than what's being priced. It's a three percent move 0:03:48.920 --> 0:03:52.640 on some futures, it's a nineteen basis point twenty basis 0:03:52.640 --> 0:03:54.880 point move in some places on the curve in the 0:03:54.920 --> 0:03:57.400 bond market. Let me ask you this. You said something 0:03:57.440 --> 0:03:59.440 that is of interest to make this gives the FETE 0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:01.120 the spice to what that we're going to do anyway, 0:04:01.280 --> 0:04:03.680 which is back away from seventy five basis point hikes. 0:04:04.240 --> 0:04:06.760 If this FED had this data going into the last 0:04:06.800 --> 0:04:11.560 meeting with that news conference has been any different, I 0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:14.800 don't think so. I mean, you know, I think the 0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:17.839 worry is when you downshift that you ease financial conditions 0:04:17.839 --> 0:04:19.160 in a way kind of like where we saw in 0:04:19.240 --> 0:04:23.719 July that is counterproductive from the Fed's perspective. This is 0:04:23.720 --> 0:04:26.360 one data point. We had points six the previous month. 0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:29.080 This is point three. There are some encouraging elements within 0:04:29.120 --> 0:04:31.240 this data point, so I definitely want to emphasize that, 0:04:31.520 --> 0:04:33.640 but the FED needs to see more to to say, 0:04:33.880 --> 0:04:35.880 you know, we we can decelerate them from fifty down 0:04:35.880 --> 0:04:38.120 to twenty five and ultimately pause at some point. It 0:04:38.200 --> 0:04:41.200 is something that I think helps them along that path um, 0:04:41.240 --> 0:04:44.320 but it's no, it's not conclusive evidence. I think that 0:04:44.360 --> 0:04:47.320 they can peak up at five percent and be fine 0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:49.400 for this Watching this and listening right now, they won't 0:04:49.440 --> 0:04:51.360 just have the hope that FED backs away from seventy 0:04:51.360 --> 0:04:53.560 five and goes with fifty and this data. If we 0:04:53.600 --> 0:04:55.720 get the data like this again on December thirteenth. That 0:04:55.760 --> 0:04:58.840 would endorse that approach. They're hoping that the second piece 0:04:58.839 --> 0:05:02.000 of a communication from chair and Pal also gets readdressed, 0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:05.479 so it's slower seventy fifty maybe twenty five. He also 0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:08.400 said higher. Does this remove the risk or help to 0:05:08.400 --> 0:05:10.919 remove the risk that the terminal rate scope for the 0:05:11.000 --> 0:05:13.200 terminal rates much higher than where we are priced right 0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:16.000 now is removed. Yeah. I think some of the contexts 0:05:16.000 --> 0:05:17.960 around those comments was lost. You know, when chair Pal 0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:20.640 is talking about a higher terminal rate, he's usually referencing 0:05:20.680 --> 0:05:23.960 what the sep dot plot was showing in September that 0:05:24.080 --> 0:05:26.000 terminal rate was four point six as a medium, up 0:05:26.040 --> 0:05:28.400 from three up, up from three a D. But I 0:05:28.400 --> 0:05:30.320 think he was saying higher than what they had projected 0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:32.599 as of September. The market went with it and went 0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:35.600 to five and a quarter for someone what we priced already, 0:05:35.640 --> 0:05:38.400 absolutely sure, and so I think there's there's some context there. 0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:40.680 He was guiding towards something that was higher than where 0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:43.760 they were in September, not necessarily something that was materially 0:05:43.839 --> 0:05:45.599 higher than what the market was pricing at the time. 0:05:45.920 --> 0:05:48.480 A viewer just wants to know your view as we 0:05:48.600 --> 0:05:51.240 got the CPI report, we got initial jobs claims, and 0:05:51.279 --> 0:05:54.559 we see the continuing claims ticked up to one point 0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:58.839 four nine million. How much are we looking at increase 0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:01.920 in employment rates that perhaps people have not really priced 0:06:01.960 --> 0:06:05.080 in fully. Yeah, so on our re continuing jobs claims 0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:07.679 are the best real time indicators of recessions. UM. There's 0:06:07.680 --> 0:06:10.720 been a lot of difficulty in interpreting that data. UM. 0:06:10.760 --> 0:06:12.320 At least if you look to the prior weeks, you 0:06:12.360 --> 0:06:14.440 had seen this uptick take place, but it was only 0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:16.000 in the seasonally just the data was not in the 0:06:16.080 --> 0:06:18.680 n s A data. So I think there's some caution 0:06:18.920 --> 0:06:21.160 because there's been a lot of difficulties seasonally adjusting the 0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:24.640 data UM post the pandemic. But if you continue to 0:06:24.680 --> 0:06:27.279 see that rise, uh, it is something that tells you 0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:29.480 that the labor market is beginning to materially usen and 0:06:29.480 --> 0:06:31.640 it is the best real time indicator of recession. This 0:06:31.720 --> 0:06:33.479 was awesome gotten into the print coming out of it. 0:06:33.480 --> 0:06:35.320 I hope we can do it again December thirty for 0:06:35.360 --> 0:06:37.800 that and it's our real something. Okay, look forward to 0:06:38.040 --> 0:06:51.240 your bank looking forward to it too. Kathy Jones Jones Down, 0:06:51.279 --> 0:06:54.680 Chief Fixed Income strategistic Charles Swabs, so she could join. 0:06:54.880 --> 0:06:57.080 That's warning, Kathy, I want to get right to the reality. 0:06:57.120 --> 0:06:59.480 You know, I've been on this. I don't care about spreads, 0:06:59.839 --> 0:07:02.640 I don't care about fancy convexity and the rest of 0:07:02.680 --> 0:07:08.080 the frank fibosy world. I'm down in some flavor of 0:07:08.200 --> 0:07:14.880 quality bonds. How do I begin the recovery? Well, yeah, 0:07:14.920 --> 0:07:17.440 there's a couple of choices you have, so you know, 0:07:17.640 --> 0:07:20.680 most likely what you want to do is start reinvesting 0:07:20.680 --> 0:07:25.000 and higher coupon bonds. So in order to recoup your money, 0:07:25.200 --> 0:07:29.400 you want that coupon money, right, because that's what you 0:07:29.440 --> 0:07:32.480 get out of the bond market. It's much less about 0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:36.120 capital gains. Obviously that was when when deals were falling 0:07:36.160 --> 0:07:40.880 to zero, But in reality, most income you get from 0:07:40.920 --> 0:07:45.440 fixed income is the coupon payment. So frankly, to repeat 0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:49.000 what we had this year and get another fourteen percent down, 0:07:49.040 --> 0:07:51.000 you need rates to go to nine percent. Now I 0:07:51.040 --> 0:07:53.000 know a lot of parish people, I don't know anybody 0:07:53.080 --> 0:07:56.240 talking about nine percent. So even in a static or 0:07:56.960 --> 0:08:00.200 higher interest rate environment, if you have higher coupon hang 0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:02.920 bonds and you're going to have a positive tone return, 0:08:03.240 --> 0:08:08.160 what quality of quality corporates is the best positioning point? 0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:11.800 Is it the no brainer triple A. I'm not using 0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.960 it as a credit rating basis, but just the emotional 0:08:15.040 --> 0:08:17.720 triple A quality or do you want to go some 0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:22.760 shades of quality down to find that coupon? Well, in 0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:24.600 the corporate bond world, there's not a lot of triple 0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:27.760 A paper out there anymore, but you know you want 0:08:27.760 --> 0:08:31.360 to stay investment grade. We think um high yield is 0:08:31.800 --> 0:08:35.439 it's very appealing at nine percent yield. The problem is 0:08:35.520 --> 0:08:37.920 we haven't really I don't think discounted the weakness in 0:08:37.960 --> 0:08:41.120 the economy that's coming and there's probably more shake out. 0:08:41.200 --> 0:08:44.200 They are so pretty cautious on high yield, but sticking 0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:47.400 with higher credit quality and with munis too, or if 0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:50.480 you're in a higher tax bracket, the mini market still 0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:53.880 offers from very attractive tax exempt returns. How until you 0:08:53.960 --> 0:08:56.679 staying in cash are short term bonds? I mean, we 0:08:56.800 --> 0:08:59.200 just heard from Phil camp Rally over at JP Morgan 0:08:59.600 --> 0:09:02.280 temper percent of his portfolio in cash because there is 0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:04.840 an alternative. Are you finding the same thing in fixed 0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:08.040 income and avoiding, for example, long duration simply because of 0:09:08.080 --> 0:09:13.440 the uncertainty Right now? Yeah, we're seeing a lot of people, 0:09:13.880 --> 0:09:17.640 you know, stay short relatively, stay short duration. We think 0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:21.280 that's actually a mistake to stay all in cash because 0:09:21.679 --> 0:09:24.520 to lock in higher yields right now, we think as 0:09:24.559 --> 0:09:27.360 an opportunity we are looking for inflation to come down. 0:09:27.840 --> 0:09:29.920 We are still looking at a rocky road ahead for 0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:33.160 the economy, and you're not locking in some of that 0:09:33.480 --> 0:09:37.040 income right now. You're probably going to ride ride it 0:09:37.120 --> 0:09:38.800 up and ride it all the way down and be 0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:41.680 looking at lower yields down the road. So we're not 0:09:41.760 --> 0:09:45.880 extending duration too, you know, uh, thirty years, but would 0:09:45.920 --> 0:09:48.040 definitely think you should be moving out to at least 0:09:48.040 --> 0:09:51.320 an egg like duration in portfolios. Do you think that 0:09:51.679 --> 0:09:54.199 longer term we're going to see an average tenure yield 0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:57.319 closer to say three percent or even two percent? Is 0:09:57.360 --> 0:09:59.839 that the more likely kind of target that you're looking at. 0:09:59.840 --> 0:10:03.280 Just get people an understanding of the rate of change 0:10:03.280 --> 0:10:07.040 and where we may be headed. Yeah, we do. I 0:10:07.080 --> 0:10:10.480 think some of the basic fundamentals haven't changed, so and well, 0:10:10.520 --> 0:10:13.800 hey we've got some you know, weakness in the economy 0:10:13.840 --> 0:10:16.199 coming to just a cumulative effect of all the typing 0:10:16.280 --> 0:10:20.040 we've seen globally. We should see the economy continue to 0:10:20.160 --> 0:10:23.160 weekend and inflation come down, But then we haven't really 0:10:23.240 --> 0:10:28.120 changed the demographic profile globally and domestically of an aging population. 0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:30.720 We still have a lot of savings around the world, 0:10:31.000 --> 0:10:33.120 and frankly in the US, we still have the world's 0:10:33.120 --> 0:10:36.960 reserve currency that people flocked to when you know, things 0:10:37.040 --> 0:10:39.800 get tough. So I don't know why we wouldn't go 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:42.840 back we get inflation down to around our roughly three 0:10:43.120 --> 0:10:46.600 three percentage tenure yield because the Iro Jersey over at 0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:49.839 Bloomberg Intelligence just publishes and he talks about a ten 0:10:49.920 --> 0:10:53.679 year yield that will be hovering and that there will 0:10:53.679 --> 0:10:56.880 be almost the stasis. Are you assuming we come out 0:10:56.920 --> 0:11:01.800 of bond volatility and yield volatility towards a hovering sense 0:11:01.840 --> 0:11:06.200 of the fixed income market? Well, I would love volatility 0:11:06.200 --> 0:11:08.440 in the bond market to come down, but I think 0:11:08.480 --> 0:11:10.800 we have to get the FED to slow down or 0:11:11.320 --> 0:11:14.360 stabilize before that happens. I think one of the concerns 0:11:14.360 --> 0:11:18.280 I have is that this this volatility, this rate of 0:11:18.400 --> 0:11:22.000 change has been so dramatic and so high that it's 0:11:22.040 --> 0:11:25.080 kind of destabilizing a lot of other things. So, you know, 0:11:25.160 --> 0:11:28.400 because bonds are used to price other assets, if you 0:11:28.440 --> 0:11:31.840 have a highly volatile treasury market, you can't really price 0:11:31.880 --> 0:11:34.840 those assets very well. So I think down the road, 0:11:34.920 --> 0:11:37.080 sure we should get lower volatility, but I think we 0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:39.600 need to see the FED plateau at least before that's 0:11:39.640 --> 0:11:42.960 going to happen. Kathy one of the best time, so 0:11:42.960 --> 0:11:50.720 always Kathy Jones. That changed to up climate. It was 0:11:50.760 --> 0:11:52.840 one of the themes in the election. Maybe below the 0:11:52.920 --> 0:11:57.640 radar of crime, immigration, inflation, the economy of America, but 0:11:57.800 --> 0:12:01.319 nevertheless it is always of this. Michael Reagan joins US 0:12:01.320 --> 0:12:05.520 now administrator, yes, of the Environmental Protection Agency, but far 0:12:05.880 --> 0:12:08.800 more from the backbone in the fields the hills of 0:12:08.880 --> 0:12:12.400 North Carolina. He's got an understanding of the value of 0:12:12.520 --> 0:12:16.280 climate to ourselves. Michael, thank you so much for joining us. 0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:19.480 From copy seven. The problem with these interviews, as we 0:12:19.520 --> 0:12:22.200 tend to go big and broad, I want to go narrow. 0:12:23.000 --> 0:12:26.640 And it does go to the President's back and forth 0:12:26.800 --> 0:12:31.440 on hydrocarbons, on oil, on net gas, and also on 0:12:31.679 --> 0:12:36.160 methane emissions from oil. Take us into that little narrow 0:12:36.280 --> 0:12:44.800 window of methane emissions and what can be accomplished. Well, 0:12:44.840 --> 0:12:47.520 thank you for having me, and you know the President 0:12:47.520 --> 0:12:50.640 has pledged that will continue to move forward UH to 0:12:50.760 --> 0:12:54.920 reduce global warming, to reduce these emissions that cause global warming. 0:12:55.480 --> 0:12:57.280 He never pledged that we would get out of it 0:12:57.320 --> 0:13:00.600 immediately overnight, but he pledged that we would work our 0:13:00.640 --> 0:13:03.040 way out of this. And so I think when we 0:13:03.120 --> 0:13:06.440 talk about methane in particular, the conversation is that I'm 0:13:06.440 --> 0:13:10.760 having with the oil and gas sector, with technology providers, UH, 0:13:10.760 --> 0:13:13.880 with you know, the US Chamber of Commerce, is that 0:13:13.960 --> 0:13:18.440 we see an opportunity to deploy technology to reduce methane 0:13:18.920 --> 0:13:22.559 UH and actually save the loss of gas and gas 0:13:22.600 --> 0:13:26.000 products while saving the planet and protecting public health. We 0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:29.240 know the technologies exist, We know that there are advanced 0:13:29.240 --> 0:13:32.760 technologies and business models that can aggt to reduce in methane, 0:13:32.800 --> 0:13:35.200 and so E p a's job is to put some 0:13:35.320 --> 0:13:38.640 rules of engagement in the role so that all companies 0:13:38.679 --> 0:13:41.160 know and can make these longer term investments. How does 0:13:41.200 --> 0:13:45.280 EPHS job change with the election including a big Republican 0:13:45.320 --> 0:13:49.960 win in your North Carolina. I'm fascinated how the oil 0:13:49.960 --> 0:13:53.800 and gas industry that has a GOP ben will change 0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:59.920 an amend coming off this election. Well, you know, we're 0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:03.520 the president has had a historic two years and passing 0:14:03.679 --> 0:14:07.440 historic legislation with the Biparts and Infrastructure Law, the Inflation 0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:10.920 Reduction Act. You know, resources coming to e p A 0:14:11.440 --> 0:14:15.280 UH to help with and enhance the regulations UH that 0:14:15.320 --> 0:14:17.840 we are required to put in place by law. So 0:14:17.960 --> 0:14:20.400 I don't think the elections will change the fact that 0:14:20.440 --> 0:14:24.680 e p A has legislative authority or authority provided by 0:14:24.840 --> 0:14:30.360 the legislature or Congress to pursue the reduction of greenhouse 0:14:30.360 --> 0:14:33.280 gas emissions to protect public health and protect the planet. 0:14:33.280 --> 0:14:35.800 We're gonna continue to move forward and do our job. 0:14:36.160 --> 0:14:39.280 But the resources that flow from the UH, from the 0:14:39.280 --> 0:14:43.240 Inflation Reduction that just help with that public private partnership 0:14:43.360 --> 0:14:46.640 to pursue these reductions, So we're not solely reliant on 0:14:46.720 --> 0:14:50.040 regulations alone. How complicated is it right now, Michael, to 0:14:50.160 --> 0:14:52.840 be with this mandate to reduce submissions at a time 0:14:52.840 --> 0:14:55.480 where people are prioritizing fossil fuels in light of some 0:14:55.520 --> 0:14:58.400 of the shortages, in light of the war in Ukraine, 0:14:58.880 --> 0:15:02.480 Is it perhap taking some energy away from what you're 0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:04.800 saying or making it more difficult to argue your cause. 0:15:08.080 --> 0:15:09.600 You know, it's a it's a it's a it's a 0:15:09.600 --> 0:15:12.320 speed bump, right I mean, I think we find ourselves 0:15:12.760 --> 0:15:16.520 in this position where many countries are overly reliant on 0:15:16.600 --> 0:15:20.720 fossil fuels provided by UH, you know, countries like Russia 0:15:21.080 --> 0:15:23.520 at a time where it's it's inconvenient, and we are 0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:28.920 seeing that this unprovoked war with Ukraine is causing pain globally. 0:15:29.080 --> 0:15:31.600 If we were not so dependent on these fossil fuels, 0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:35.640 if we had made the proper investments in clean technologies 0:15:35.680 --> 0:15:41.400 and energy efficiency and more domestic opportunities, we would not 0:15:41.440 --> 0:15:45.240 see the price volatility that we're seeing internationally. So it's 0:15:45.280 --> 0:15:47.600 a wake up call, right. Number one, it is very 0:15:47.640 --> 0:15:51.960 inconvenient obviously, but number two, UH, it is really forcing 0:15:52.040 --> 0:15:55.280 all of us UH here at cop UH to think 0:15:55.320 --> 0:15:58.680 through how we continue to double down and invest in 0:15:58.840 --> 0:16:03.120 alternatives to fossil fill with Michael Reagan, Thank you, sir, 0:16:03.520 --> 0:16:15.400 Michael Reriggan, there have the e p A. This is important, 0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:18.200 John and you alluded to it one an election. To 0:16:18.280 --> 0:16:20.840 speak to Terry Haynes. He has a certain perspective. He 0:16:20.920 --> 0:16:23.000 got it right, He just got it right out into 0:16:23.040 --> 0:16:25.240 all of this. I've almost looking for that massive red wave. 0:16:25.320 --> 0:16:27.960 It dominated the conversations on this show when that's not 0:16:27.960 --> 0:16:30.480 what's Harry was looking for? Terry Haynes, founder of PANCHEA Policy, 0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:32.480 joined us right now, Terry, why don't you start with 0:16:32.520 --> 0:16:35.160 what you were looking for and why and we'll take 0:16:35.200 --> 0:16:39.080 it from there. Good morning, John, And uh, you know, 0:16:39.120 --> 0:16:41.240 I'm kind of old school. I I look at the 0:16:41.320 --> 0:16:43.440 data as much as possible. I weigh in a bunch 0:16:43.520 --> 0:16:47.800 of other things. I do pay attention to what some 0:16:47.880 --> 0:16:51.040 of the aggregators are are looking at, whether it be uh, 0:16:51.200 --> 0:16:55.520 you know, real clear politics, ornate silver sight, or whatever. 0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:59.240 It's kind of a spice. But I've been been around 0:16:59.320 --> 0:17:01.280 us and doing this a long time, and in the end, 0:17:01.800 --> 0:17:04.119 what you get from me is my own view. I 0:17:04.160 --> 0:17:06.639 wasn't seeing a way. I was seeing a you know, 0:17:06.720 --> 0:17:11.360 slight reddening of the map, certainly, but probably what probably 0:17:11.359 --> 0:17:13.800 a small house majority and uh, you know, the Senate 0:17:13.800 --> 0:17:16.040 is still up for grabs, but I think right now 0:17:16.119 --> 0:17:18.600 a little more likely to go are than D. But 0:17:18.680 --> 0:17:20.840 it wasn't gonna happen. So you know, I mean what 0:17:20.920 --> 0:17:23.000 you get out of this is, you know, you get 0:17:23.240 --> 0:17:27.040 continued but what you already have continued for firstability, nothing 0:17:27.040 --> 0:17:30.720 in the domestic and uh continued unimity on foreign policy Terry, 0:17:30.760 --> 0:17:33.840 Will there be a set of Joe Mansions in the House. 0:17:34.040 --> 0:17:38.280 Will there be centrist Republicans looking to two thousand and 0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:43.800 twenty four that will push against more conservative Republicans. I'll 0:17:43.840 --> 0:17:47.400 let Joe Mansion and the Democrats in the Senate. Oh sure, 0:17:47.480 --> 0:17:49.879 and well there already are. You know, Mansion by no 0:17:49.960 --> 0:17:53.200 means is alone. Everybody knows Mansion in cinema. But yeah, 0:17:53.200 --> 0:17:56.240 I always look at them and know that they're they're 0:17:56.280 --> 0:18:00.840 representing others on issues, whether it be energy issues or 0:18:01.040 --> 0:18:05.399 you know, frankly the regulation of financial services, because remember 0:18:05.400 --> 0:18:08.240 they've rejected a bunch of people. Those people exist in 0:18:08.240 --> 0:18:11.399 the House as well. So sure, these are four factions, 0:18:11.480 --> 0:18:13.880 not two parties, I always say, and there then that's 0:18:13.920 --> 0:18:16.520 still true. Well, this is really important. I don't think 0:18:16.560 --> 0:18:19.399 it's in the zeitgeist right now, Terry. It's not a 0:18:19.480 --> 0:18:22.600 unified GOP in the House. I get that, But do 0:18:22.720 --> 0:18:27.600 they have real power to steer GOP legislation with the 0:18:27.720 --> 0:18:31.640 GOP majority in the House. Well, if if they can 0:18:32.240 --> 0:18:34.920 unify around something, sure, and there will be lots of 0:18:35.280 --> 0:18:40.400 responsible people, uh Patrick McHenry and financial services being one 0:18:40.880 --> 0:18:43.280 who will look to do that exactly. But it won't 0:18:43.320 --> 0:18:45.359 be an easy process for them, just like it wasn't 0:18:45.359 --> 0:18:48.560 an easy process for Democrats in the last cycle. Uh. 0:18:48.720 --> 0:18:52.119 You know, it'll take some time. It won't be instantaneous. Uh. 0:18:52.160 --> 0:18:55.359 And of course if the Senate does not go whether 0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:58.520 or not the Senate goes Republicans way, you need sixty 0:18:58.640 --> 0:19:02.360 votes to to proceed the legislation in the Senate. They 0:19:02.359 --> 0:19:04.520 won't have anywhere near that. So the net net of 0:19:04.600 --> 0:19:07.560 that is you won't see very much legislation be successful. Terry, 0:19:07.600 --> 0:19:09.320 is it too soon to say that Rhoda Santis is 0:19:09.320 --> 0:19:14.920 a new leader of the Republican Party? Um? No, probably not, Lesta, 0:19:14.960 --> 0:19:17.879 It's probably not too soon to say that. You know. 0:19:18.000 --> 0:19:23.760 Certainly the direction that the Santis points, which is, you know, 0:19:23.840 --> 0:19:27.600 kind of unapologetic on policy while at the same time 0:19:28.000 --> 0:19:31.320 having having a winning way about if not only personally 0:19:31.359 --> 0:19:35.359 but but through election results, is exactly the direction the 0:19:35.400 --> 0:19:38.480 party wants to go in. And Uh, then so sure, 0:19:38.520 --> 0:19:40.840 I think that's probably true. From a substance perspective, How 0:19:40.840 --> 0:19:44.320 does that differ from Donald Trump from a what perspective? 0:19:44.720 --> 0:19:50.119 From a substance perspective? Substance perspective, I think what, what 0:19:50.200 --> 0:19:53.639 and how it changes. Is that kind of consistency of 0:19:53.800 --> 0:19:58.960 purpose and consistency of message. What always dogged former President 0:19:59.000 --> 0:20:03.600 Trump was was a lack of consistency in messaging and 0:20:03.600 --> 0:20:06.840 and a lack of consistency in substance. To some extent, 0:20:06.920 --> 0:20:09.479 Now there were he had some successes where he was 0:20:10.880 --> 0:20:14.200 laser sharp on both of those, trying to tearriffs being one, 0:20:14.520 --> 0:20:16.560 but a lot of other things that Trump White House 0:20:16.600 --> 0:20:18.040 is a little bit all over the map, and that 0:20:18.200 --> 0:20:20.960 was bad for them. Uh. De Sanders has shown in 0:20:21.080 --> 0:20:25.040 his governorship that he's he's learned from that. It's Terry. 0:20:25.080 --> 0:20:26.760 Tom's talked about this. I just want to build on 0:20:26.800 --> 0:20:29.000 it a little bit more too close down this conversation. 0:20:29.640 --> 0:20:34.400 The failure to embrace men in voting on the Republican side, Terry, 0:20:34.440 --> 0:20:36.920 how did they address that? How do they even talk 0:20:36.960 --> 0:20:41.040 about it in the coming months? Uh? The what? John? 0:20:41.080 --> 0:20:44.320 I'm sorry? There to embrace mail in votes on the 0:20:44.359 --> 0:20:46.720 Republican side, it just hasn't been part of the strategy 0:20:46.760 --> 0:20:53.160 for the party. Yeah. That's strange, isn't it. It's Uh, 0:20:53.960 --> 0:20:56.320 They're they're gonna have to. Uh And I think this 0:20:56.400 --> 0:20:58.640 is probably a wake up call for that. I don't 0:20:58.680 --> 0:21:00.359 know why they've been laid to the post done that, 0:21:00.440 --> 0:21:02.639 but they have been. But they're going to have to 0:21:02.680 --> 0:21:05.760 figure out that there's really two h two elections here, 0:21:05.800 --> 0:21:09.200 the mail in vote election in the day of vote election. Uh, 0:21:09.200 --> 0:21:12.000 Pennsylvania is a perfect example that I could never understand 0:21:12.040 --> 0:21:16.680 why uh why Republican why Oz agreed to debate Veterman 0:21:16.800 --> 0:21:19.960 so late after there were so many votes already starting, 0:21:20.400 --> 0:21:23.840 and uh, they're already in and that's probably what election 0:21:23.880 --> 0:21:27.639 against him. Terry, Yeah, Terry, don't feel bad that you 0:21:27.680 --> 0:21:30.679 didn't understand John. I didn't understand him either. There, you know, 0:21:30.760 --> 0:21:33.159 like about every fifth word with John, I just with 0:21:33.200 --> 0:21:35.560 the accident, I just I don't I didn't get the 0:21:35.560 --> 0:21:38.520 mail in thing there as well. It wasn't just like no, 0:21:38.640 --> 0:21:40.679 it's just like a pinky blinders thing. I have to 0:21:40.680 --> 0:21:44.800