Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast and I'm Tom
Speaker 1: Keane jay Ley. We bring you insight from the best
Speaker 1: in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and of course,
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg John, I guess here in New York City,
Speaker 1: I'm ready place to say, is no real Rebeti Rebetti
Speaker 1: macrob Associates chairman and n y U Stunt School of
Speaker 1: Business professor. No real good morning to you, sir, Good
Speaker 1: morning Donathan. Instead of a bunch of fancy n y
Speaker 1: U economics, I want to talk about somebody listening to
Speaker 1: this in Iowa or Oklahoma, or maybe it's lumber up
Speaker 1: in Montana or Washington State, John, somewhere, you know, like
Speaker 1: dairy in Wisconsin. Whatever. We got this mumbo joe umboard
Speaker 1: trade stuff, and it's everybody in suits and ties and
Speaker 1: fancy white shirts like you're wearing. Forget about it. What
Speaker 1: does that tariff mean for producers in services and goods?
Speaker 1: Not in three zip codes in New York, not in
Speaker 1: two zip codes in Washington. Well, it means two things.
Speaker 1: One is that any farmers selling soybeans or other products
Speaker 1: to China is going to face now massive tariffs, and
Speaker 1: therefore they're starting to hurt and complain and too as
Speaker 1: a consumer, think of it. If you impose it tw
Speaker 1: tariff on five hundred billions of inputs from China, that's
Speaker 1: like tax of a hundred and twenty five billion dollar
Speaker 1: a year on the US consumer. It's a massive tax
Speaker 1: increase hundred and twenty five billion. So it hurts the consumer,
Speaker 1: it hurts the producer, and it makes the US economy
Speaker 1: works off. It's a disaster. When the President sends China's
Speaker 1: paying that tax, is that a campaign message? Do you
Speaker 1: think the cons directly directly? Do you think the consumers
Speaker 1: understand that they are the individuals paying this Well, he's
Speaker 1: saying China is paying the tax in the same way
Speaker 1: we say that Max is going to pay for the wall.
Speaker 1: That's nonsense, because once you impose the tax, what's gonna
Speaker 1: happen is that the price of imported goods from China
Speaker 1: the United States is gonna go up, mostly by the
Speaker 1: amount of the tax. Now could go out by less
Speaker 1: than the amount of the tax if the Chinese cut
Speaker 1: down the dollar price of their goods and there will
Speaker 1: be some impact of that, but most of the impact
Speaker 1: of a tariff is imposed on importers. There is the
Speaker 1: U S consumers as simple as that is a hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty five billion dollars tax on the US consumer,
Speaker 1: on the U S assholes. And it's the most regressive
Speaker 1: tax of all because those consumer goods about from China
Speaker 1: that you buy wal match that are cheap goods that
Speaker 1: allow you to have per capita income rising and your
Speaker 1: present power. So is there a regressive tax or not
Speaker 1: only is the tax, but the regress sime tax is
Speaker 1: the most exective tax of all. Translate this for John
Speaker 1: Pharaoh of the Midlands. Is the Midlands? Is that work
Speaker 1: is the lake country that's further north, that's over, that's
Speaker 1: my lake superior. But but if you look at the
Speaker 1: Middlands of England, you go back to the corn laws.
Speaker 1: Is President Trump dragging the corn laws of England Pharaoh's
Speaker 1: great great grandfather? Are you dragging the corn laws into
Speaker 1: the twenty one century? Is that all we're doing effectively
Speaker 1: is the same thing? Is protection? Is that protection is
Speaker 1: might benefit and the margin some producers in the import
Speaker 1: computing sectors. But that's a very small number of people,
Speaker 1: but it hurts all consumers. So the same workers as
Speaker 1: consumers are worse off. And anyone was in an export
Speaker 1: producing business, their jobs, that income, their profits are gonna
Speaker 1: go down. So you're making worse off consumers and exporters
Speaker 1: for the benefit of a very small number of essentially producers.
Speaker 1: And that would be like Lord Ferrell back in the
Speaker 1: seventeenth century. John there wasn't a Lord Frown. He was
Speaker 1: probably insistily. The cost are huge, you know. Like you know,
Speaker 1: a few years ago we imposed the taxes on tires
Speaker 1: imported by China. Was estimated that the cost for every
Speaker 1: job that was saved in the tarry industry West was
Speaker 1: a million dollar. I mean, you can just give a
Speaker 1: substitut to those workers and not impose the tax on
Speaker 1: all the consumers. So it's a tax that is totally distory.
Speaker 1: A final question, it's an important one. The Chinese behavior
Speaker 1: hasn't changed towards trade. It needs to change. That's an overwhelm.
Speaker 1: We can census among economists that it needs to change.
Speaker 1: The objective of this administration is to get the Chinese
Speaker 1: to change. You're saying this is the wrong way. What's
Speaker 1: the right way. Well, it's the wrong way because they're
Speaker 1: going to retaliate. They cannot lose face. You want to
Speaker 1: control the rise of the power of China, the right
Speaker 1: way is to do it the multilaterally, not just alone,
Speaker 1: but with Europe, Japan in others way of complained about China,
Speaker 1: and do it in a way that you start negotiation
Speaker 1: and you put pressure of them. If you start unilateral tariffs,
Speaker 1: they're gonna retaliate, and yes, they will live to a
Speaker 1: much ate on goods, but they can impose massive restrictions
Speaker 1: on hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign direct investment
Speaker 1: by Apple GM and hundreds of business they've done business
Speaker 1: in China, so they're gonna hurt. They lend their currents
Speaker 1: in a weekend by eight percent, and they could even
Speaker 1: eventually have the corruption of dumping US treasury. So that
Speaker 1: a wide variety of options, and they take the long
Speaker 1: term view. They don't have election in three months, so
Speaker 1: they can wait and play it out over the next
Speaker 1: two decades. Our nuclearruption is the joy of having you
Speaker 1: hear from Milan. And of course, with John Ferrell's love
Speaker 1: for a Simolan, we go out to segment with the
Speaker 1: A Simon fight, So you are not realists, not gonna
Speaker 1: come back now interest of her life. That's beautiful, Thank
Speaker 1: you tell King full of months of pain, this makes
Speaker 1: up for it. I appreciate that we're gonna do a
Speaker 1: more learned view here on the financial system that the
Speaker 1: U S confronts right now in emerging market Stephanie Siegel
Speaker 1: out of Chapel Hill and the Johns Hopkins University School
Speaker 1: of Advanced International Studies, does this looking sort of broader
Speaker 1: and deeper where Rubini is looking at more of the
Speaker 1: crisis dynamics and the actual political dynamics. How about just
Speaker 1: where are we in finance, Stephanie. Good morning Stephanie Siegal
Speaker 1: and I love your idea of first best responses. Do
Speaker 1: they need the International Monetary Fund to make first best
Speaker 1: response or is there a new em responsibility? Well, first off,
Speaker 1: good morning, it's nice to be with you. UM. I
Speaker 1: think the point of the piece I think that you
Speaker 1: were referring to was to differentiate between countries that are
Speaker 1: facing just fundamental economic vulnerabilities and um, those countries that
Speaker 1: could potentially get swept up in a broader e M
Speaker 1: contagion and the first best response that I was referring
Speaker 1: to was first off just stronger, more fundamental policies that
Speaker 1: address some of the economic imbalances. But then also recognizing
Speaker 1: that we're going into a period of vulnerability for e
Speaker 1: m s. We're going into a period of um of
Speaker 1: interest rate hikes and dollar strengthening, and that leaves EMS
Speaker 1: more vulnerable. Um. And so if you're in a world
Speaker 1: where financing for those em starts to dry up, UM,
Speaker 1: what are the options that those countries have? And but
Speaker 1: nique unique here? Dr seagells the idea of dollarization. That's
Speaker 1: a new word, and that I'm sure we had it
Speaker 1: eight we had it in two thousand seven. But am
Speaker 1: I right that the dollarization, the dollar denominated effect of
Speaker 1: all this debt on EM is dramatically different this time? Um?
Speaker 1: I don't know if I would say that it's dramatically different.
Speaker 1: So what is different this time? So we've had a
Speaker 1: decade of very low global interest rates UM that has
Speaker 1: actually encouraged a great deal of borrowing, including from non
Speaker 1: financial corporates, and a lot of that emerging market borrowing
Speaker 1: by those corporates has been in foreign currency, in dollars.
Speaker 1: So as the dollar is strengthening, it becomes that much
Speaker 1: harder for those e m s to repay those debts.
Speaker 1: And that's that's part of the phenomenon right now that's
Speaker 1: driving some of the broader e M weakness Apart from
Speaker 1: just the pure fundamentals. Stephanie, what's the dominant channel for
Speaker 1: contagion UM? That is an excellent question. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think you would first look at what are the real
Speaker 1: economic linkages between some of the vulnerable em so, thinking
Speaker 1: in terms of of just pure trade and those trade linkages,
Speaker 1: I think most people think that the e m s
Speaker 1: that are under the most stressed right now, that they're
Speaker 1: economic linkages to the rest of the world are are manageable.
Speaker 1: And so then you look to financial linkages that are
Speaker 1: their banks and other investors that have exposure to the
Speaker 1: those e M s UM, and I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people feel like those UM exposures are also manageable,
Speaker 1: in part because of the cleanup that took place after
Speaker 1: the global financial crisis. UM. The third area, and this
Speaker 1: is kind of the unknown right now, is just the
Speaker 1: broader risk sentiment UM and how investors feel about the
Speaker 1: overall environment. And I think that's where you start to
Speaker 1: get into UM. What are what are some of the
Speaker 1: unknowns right now? And and first and foremost in a
Speaker 1: lot of people's mind is where does this trade war
Speaker 1: between the US and China UM end up? And are
Speaker 1: we looking at something that would potentially be resolved quickly
Speaker 1: or are we looking at something that could be much
Speaker 1: more protracted and have much broader impacts UM beyond just
Speaker 1: the US and China, Stephanie. Investors look at those three
Speaker 1: things that you just described. They look at those three
Speaker 1: things and they conclude that the United States will be unaffected,
Speaker 1: it will be insulated. Is that your conclusion as well?
Speaker 1: Or do you look at it differently? Um? I look
Speaker 1: at it differently in the sense that I think if
Speaker 1: this is kind of a near term phenomenon it um
Speaker 1: it is certainly manageable. And in particular, if the US
Speaker 1: knows what it is that it's asking of China and
Speaker 1: they can actually enter into a negotiation where each side
Speaker 1: can make some progress, then then you're looking at a
Speaker 1: quicker resolution. I think where people get concerned, and I
Speaker 1: agree with this is if we're looking at a much
Speaker 1: broader trend toward um deliberalization and deglobalization, and what does
Speaker 1: that mean for the global outlook. Um, And there I
Speaker 1: think the much bleaker story. And what's so interesting year
Speaker 1: is the overlay which we heard a little bit from
Speaker 1: Lawrence Cudlow yesterday at the Economic Club of New York,
Speaker 1: and we heard it a lot Stephanie Siegel from Nora
Speaker 1: Robini an hour ago, is the overlay of US fiscal policy.
Speaker 1: We talked about Chairman Powell is central Banker to the world.
Speaker 1: Is our fiscal deficit the fiscal impulse to the e
Speaker 1: M world? Right? And so you're are you kind of
Speaker 1: asking what the implications are for our Absolutely at one
Speaker 1: point three one point for chronic deficit, we get some
Speaker 1: form of slowdown, we go out to one eight two
Speaker 1: trillion deficit. How does that affect Ecuador? How does that
Speaker 1: affect Indonesia? Yeah, and I think there's um. There are
Speaker 1: a couple of channels. Again. I think one this immediate
Speaker 1: fiscal impulse that we're seeing the fact that growth is
Speaker 1: much higher in the US as a result of this
Speaker 1: fiscal stimulus. UM. On the one hand, because of those
Speaker 1: real linkages, that's actually positive for the global economy, except
Speaker 1: it also presents a very large financing need. And so
Speaker 1: in this environment where you've got higher interest rates in
Speaker 1: the US and dollar strength and an additional financing need.
Speaker 1: Are we the United States then pulling financing away from
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. UM, So that poses a
Speaker 1: risk to e M S and then a risk two
Speaker 1: E M S UM and to ourselves. Frankly, is what
Speaker 1: happens after this kind of sugar high of fiscal stimulus
Speaker 1: wears off, And that I think is a concern for everybody.
Speaker 1: It's definitely the first concern. It's a concern that the
Speaker 1: Central Bank Governor of India race several months ago that
Speaker 1: the Treasury together with the ballet sheet roll off at
Speaker 1: the FED, which just going to suck up dollar liquidity
Speaker 1: from e M. Is that playing out already? That I
Speaker 1: think is hard to tell. I mean, we we have
Speaker 1: already seen UM outflows from EMS UM in UH in
Speaker 1: the first half of the year. So I think you
Speaker 1: know there are a couple of drivers behind that. Is
Speaker 1: UM increased demand from the United States and specifically for
Speaker 1: US treasuries UM. Is that is that a factor playing
Speaker 1: into it? I think? So it's definitely great to cant
Speaker 1: shout with you, C S I S Deputy Director and
Speaker 1: senior fellow. So let's talk to Jane Furley joining US
Speaker 1: sound of the Global Capital of FEORIG Exchange in London. Rabbabanks,
Speaker 1: Senior currency analyst, Jane, let's get to the big debate.
Speaker 1: It's the US dollar debate and an unloved rally through
Speaker 1: the front half of this year. What's your base case now, Jane, Well,
Speaker 1: we still think that you'd be better off holding long dollars.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think what we've probably seen is some
Speaker 1: position adjustment. And let you mentioned that rally in the
Speaker 1: dollar has gone a long way, but there has been
Speaker 1: I know it shift perhaps and some of the factors
Speaker 1: that the market is talking about a shift perhaps and
Speaker 1: in concerns about where US growth is going to go
Speaker 1: on the back of a trade excuse me, trade wars,
Speaker 1: a new debate back growth potentially been hit there, and
Speaker 1: also some concerns about that flowing or capped inflation potential.
Speaker 1: Also in the US, we had softer data on that
Speaker 1: front last week, So I think this is profit taking.
Speaker 1: I still think that emerging markets are going to be
Speaker 1: vulnerable in the wake of the pressure on China, and
Speaker 1: I do think that the long dollar positions will win through.
Speaker 1: But I do think right now we are seeing some
Speaker 1: position adjustment. What do you think, Jane, right now is
Speaker 1: the dominant concern for e m f X the dominant
Speaker 1: concern and where is it coming from? Most people on
Speaker 1: the morning light this morning might point to trade. Kit
Speaker 1: Jukes is calling the trade situation Washington water torch. Just
Speaker 1: this drip drip of tariff news together with FED hikes.
Speaker 1: What do you look at. Well, I think this has
Speaker 1: been the theme all year, But I think what's different.
Speaker 1: There's the emphasis. If you go back to the beginning
Speaker 1: of the year, though there was a lot of optimism
Speaker 1: that the trade situation would brush over, that the it
Speaker 1: would be a short run thing, there would be a compromise,
Speaker 1: and by now we've more or less a forgotten about it.
Speaker 1: But I think right now, you know, many more commentators
Speaker 1: are coming to recognize that this can really be a
Speaker 1: drawn out process. And I think that's the change, that's
Speaker 1: what's really getting under the market skin. And I think
Speaker 1: if we look to emerging markets, well, they are obviously
Speaker 1: in the front line of a full away in market confidence.
Speaker 1: And we've seen a capital outflow from the emerging markets
Speaker 1: really from the beginning of the at least since the spring.
Speaker 1: But it wasn't until maybe the summer that this became
Speaker 1: a much broader effect, that this began to really rattle
Speaker 1: a confidence in a much bigger way. But I do
Speaker 1: think that that the trade ward thing is is very
Speaker 1: much in the front line. We just don't know how
Speaker 1: much it's going to slow Chinese guys. We don't know
Speaker 1: how much it's going to knock onto other economies. I
Speaker 1: just looked at the eurindollar volatility surface and it's fairly symmetrical.
Speaker 1: There doesn't seem to be or one way bet. Where
Speaker 1: is the one way bet that you can play against
Speaker 1: right now? Is it weak yen and you push against that? Well? No,
Speaker 1: I think I think the end is as a really
Speaker 1: confusing one at easter. You know, if you're looking in
Speaker 1: on the phone exchange market this year, because you've seen
Speaker 1: this sell off in emerging markets this year, and many
Speaker 1: people might be forgiven for thinking, well that means of
Speaker 1: cause the year and it's the safe haven currency, Well
Speaker 1: in that case it should be really quite strong. But
Speaker 1: I think what's happened is that the markets looked at
Speaker 1: the higher interest rates coming up we're coming through from
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve. It's looking at the strong growth story
Speaker 1: in the US, and actually, you know, many Japanese investors,
Speaker 1: particularly perhaps I thought, well, actually I think I'd rather
Speaker 1: put my money in the dollar, pick up a little
Speaker 1: bit of yield. And therefore you've seen the years it's
Speaker 1: not as as as strong as as many people might
Speaker 1: have expected, given the sell off an emerging market, So
Speaker 1: interest rate differentials really coming through. I think the days
Speaker 1: when the end really benefits is when we have some
Speaker 1: sort of shock, some sort of unforeseen bad news, and
Speaker 1: we have this knee jerk back into the end. But
Speaker 1: as long as the interest rate of differentials are seen
Speaker 1: to be boosting the dollar, I think it's going to
Speaker 1: be difficult for um to see the end pick up
Speaker 1: too much ground against the US dollar. Well, Jane of right,
Speaker 1: differential as a plan into the dollar en cross, Why
Speaker 1: is it not playing into the euro dollar cross? Because
Speaker 1: your dollars at to one seventeen. What's it doing up
Speaker 1: there with rate differentials heavily skewed in the dollars favor? Well,
Speaker 1: you're right. I mean again, if we look back into
Speaker 1: maybe the middle of August, we had you know, lows
Speaker 1: round about one thirteen, and suddenly we're back in in
Speaker 1: in in the Euro's favor again. I think there is
Speaker 1: some position adjustment here. I think the sell off in
Speaker 1: the Euro was probably a little bit too fast through
Speaker 1: the first couple of weeks of August. But I do
Speaker 1: think that when you have a scenario whether you used
Speaker 1: to be has signaled really quite clearly that it's got
Speaker 1: no intention of hiking interest rates, at least to someone
Speaker 1: of next year. When you've got budget issues for for
Speaker 1: Italy two, I think that you might look vulnerable at
Speaker 1: these levels. What is the number one question your clients
Speaker 1: are asking you right now? The number one question from
Speaker 1: UK customers, Irish customers are still very much about Brexit,
Speaker 1: and this of course has been the same situation for
Speaker 1: two years. It's still a huge issue for Sterling. It is, well,
Speaker 1: you know, should we be buying sterling now is there
Speaker 1: going to be a deal? Or should we be saying
Speaker 1: spelling is there going to be no deal? It's obviously
Speaker 1: very very difficult to change that question. But yeah, John
Speaker 1: Jane has two goldfish and her desk ones called even
Speaker 1: you know, there's cold remains, it's just sitting on the fence.
Speaker 1: It just goes just and there's a cold boris Again
Speaker 1: you said those in the UK ask about Brexit. Does
Speaker 1: anyone outside the UK ever ask about Brexit? There? Yes
Speaker 1: is the answer. Yes, Perhaps were not the same sort
Speaker 1: of intensity, but you know that there's a lot of
Speaker 1: There's perhaps three different options that many investors have had.
Speaker 1: They could buy Sterling, they corself early, or they could
Speaker 1: just remain on the sidelines, and I do suspect that
Speaker 1: many investors, if they had the option, have stayed out
Speaker 1: of it. For those that don't have the option, what's
Speaker 1: your advice to them, I think they need to try
Speaker 1: to extremely carefully and clearly. We've seen studying recover some
Speaker 1: ground over the last week and say there's a little
Speaker 1: bit more optimism that November could come through. But I
Speaker 1: think the focus needs to be on the UK government.
Speaker 1: If there is no consensus within the UK government, there's
Speaker 1: got to be a question mark as to whether or
Speaker 1: not a trade deal is going to get through. There
Speaker 1: is of course the potential for stiling to valy hard
Speaker 1: if a deal is signed in November or whenever, but
Speaker 1: if that doesn't get through, rati factor in Parliament and
Speaker 1: Starling still looks pretty fun. Very quickly here, Jane, what
Speaker 1: are you watching within this trade war that we're in.
Speaker 1: The Chinese are responded, They say they will respond as
Speaker 1: a September twenty day. What actually is the one perspective
Speaker 1: or item that you're looking towards. Well, I think we
Speaker 1: I think you're right. I think we need to watch
Speaker 1: what China's do. I think it's quite interesting. Also another
Speaker 1: factor to watch US corporates. We've seen some pushback from
Speaker 1: US corporates over the last few weeks, but specifically US farmers.
Speaker 1: You've go to watch the November mix terms as well
Speaker 1: that this could all be interesting. So don't think there's
Speaker 1: one particular thing. I think this is a confluence of
Speaker 1: a lot of different factors coming together. Jane, fully, thank
Speaker 1: you so much, greatly appreciate it. With robo bank today,
Speaker 1: the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, this, of course,
Speaker 1: is the Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa. Next Monday,
Speaker 1: he has set aside time to hear from Judge Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: of course, nominated to the Supreme Court, and to also
Speaker 1: here from Christine Blaze Ford, a research psychologist in Northern
Speaker 1: California who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault, and
Speaker 1: here to tell us a little bit more about this
Speaker 1: is our own Bloomberg expert when it comes to the
Speaker 1: Bereame Court. Kimberly, Robinson, Kimberly, thank you very much for
Speaker 1: being with us. Can you explain what this is setting
Speaker 1: up on Monday? What exactly are we going to kind
Speaker 1: of be presented with. Well, this is a really rapidly
Speaker 1: developing story, so what we say now might change completely
Speaker 1: on Monday. But right now, Republican senators have said that
Speaker 1: they want to give Kavanaugh's accuser a form where she
Speaker 1: can really air out the complete allegations that she has
Speaker 1: against Brett Kavanaugh. But then we're also going to hear
Speaker 1: from Brett Kavanaugh so that, in his words, he can
Speaker 1: defend his integrity. Now, the President has defended Judge Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: correct calling him an outstanding judge and dismissing as quote ridiculous.
Speaker 1: The prospect that Brett Kavanaugh might withdraw his nomination is
Speaker 1: that correct? Well, that's true, but the White House's response
Speaker 1: has been somewhat surprising. They do say that they still
Speaker 1: support Brett Kavanaugh and that they don't intend to pull
Speaker 1: his nomination. At the same time, we saw White House
Speaker 1: advisor Kelly and Conway come out and say that this
Speaker 1: woman's allegations must be given a full hearing um. And
Speaker 1: so it's kind of a bit of a surprise given
Speaker 1: some of the allegations that we've heard against the President
Speaker 1: himself and the tactics we've seen from the White House
Speaker 1: on those. But they are standing by Kavanaugh as of now.
Speaker 1: I believe that that the debate of this, and you know,
Speaker 1: I give credit to Michael and Kimberly, who I thought
Speaker 1: framed Ms. Conway's intent here is the Republican calculus on
Speaker 1: women and on suburban women, the people that you know,
Speaker 1: frankly put Mr Trump over the edge to victory, uh
Speaker 1: in two thousand sixteen. From where you sit with the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court tilt, do you think that politics is just
Speaker 1: all supreme here it has nothing to do with Mr
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh or or you know, the debate at hand, and
Speaker 1: everything to do with the election in November. Well, that's
Speaker 1: really what Brett Kavanaugh's nomination has been all about, you know,
Speaker 1: is for Democrats firing up their base, for Republicans making
Speaker 1: sure that Kavanaugh is confirmed before the mid term elections.
Speaker 1: Um So, politics has been, you know, weighing pretty heavily
Speaker 1: on this nomination from the start, but now being in
Speaker 1: the me too moment um and having these allegations come out,
Speaker 1: of course this is going to be bigger than just
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, Kimberly, do we know anything about how
Speaker 1: senators on the Judiciary Committee feel about this revelation and
Speaker 1: we have any update on how they might vote? Well,
Speaker 1: I think how they will vote will have to be
Speaker 1: seen on after we have the hearing on Monday. But
Speaker 1: pretty early on, once the accuser came forward publicly, Uh,
Speaker 1: Senator Jeff Flake, who's on the Judiciary Committee, and of
Speaker 1: course they must have vote for Republicans, Um said that
Speaker 1: he was not comfortable moving forward with the hearing until
Speaker 1: they at least heard from her accuser. And I think
Speaker 1: that's really what put the thumbs on the scale Um
Speaker 1: for kind of delaying the nomination and pushing it back
Speaker 1: a little bit. All Right, this is going to be
Speaker 1: a tricky one and that's why I give it to you, uh,
Speaker 1: not to make light of any of these accusations, but
Speaker 1: when are these accusations supposedly to have taken place? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, this is something that Republicans had pointed out
Speaker 1: very early on, is that these accusations took place while
Speaker 1: both of these individuals were in high school, both under
Speaker 1: the age of eighteen, UM, and there there was really
Speaker 1: a robust and important debate about whether or not that
Speaker 1: is disqualifying for Supreme Court nominee. But at this point
Speaker 1: it might be a bit beside the point. And that's
Speaker 1: because Brett Kavanaugh has come out unequivocally against these allegations,
Speaker 1: saying that they don't matter. And so I think the
Speaker 1: issue now will be if you believe this woman, um,
Speaker 1: does lying about it disqualify you for a seat on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court? And I think that is a much
Speaker 1: easier question, um than the one about the timing. Nicely
Speaker 1: answered Kimberly Robinson, thank you for a journalistic approach there.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene before
Speaker 1: the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Radio