Speaker 1: Yeah, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jaily.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg We
Speaker 1: pretty get right to this interview. We have two incredibly
Speaker 1: exceptional guests with us today and it is an honor
Speaker 1: to have them here together, and we're gonna speak on
Speaker 1: one theme. Lord Tyson needs no introduction to anyone within
Speaker 1: our economic academics and particularly within public service. She is
Speaker 1: a former UH Chairman of the President's Council of Economic
Speaker 1: Advisors UH and is also teaching at the University of
Speaker 1: California at Berkeley School. With this each and every year,
Speaker 1: it seems at Davos. Maybe I think that's correct. Is
Speaker 1: Kenneth Rogoff His book of last year, The Curse of Cash,
Speaker 1: was my book of the year. I make a joke
Speaker 1: that the next effort will be the Curse of Bitcoin.
Speaker 1: But to have the two of you here with your academics,
Speaker 1: I want to clear the air on the debate at
Speaker 1: the end of two thousand seventeen, which is do tax
Speaker 1: cuts drive economic growth? The center points of this was
Speaker 1: Kevin Hasset, Professor Tyson, who has your job now at
Speaker 1: the White House, UH chairman of the President's Council of
Speaker 1: Economic Advisors, and the Lori Paul Krugman of Princeton. I'd say,
Speaker 1: driving the dialogue with many others. Kens, as we saw
Speaker 1: Ken out of Opsfield, Rogoff out of your other work
Speaker 1: over the years, is there as certitude that tax cuts
Speaker 1: can drive permanent economic growth? Well, okay, I mean lower
Speaker 1: attacks rights. If you could somehow magically produce the government
Speaker 1: spending in revenues you need from oil or something else, sure,
Speaker 1: but you know, in the long run, UH, you have
Speaker 1: to pay for government services. And by the way, in
Speaker 1: this stage of inequality, it's just really hard to imagine
Speaker 1: how government services and transfers aren't gonna rise over time.
Speaker 1: It's I do think, you know, I I certainly see
Speaker 1: the case that tax cuts do benefit, you know, have
Speaker 1: a benefit compared to UH government, you know, some something
Speaker 1: that raises taxes a little long run. But I have
Speaker 1: enormous respect for Kevin Hassett, I think, but the figures
Speaker 1: were very optimistic on what the growth would be Professor Tyson,
Speaker 1: you're nodding your head. I think of Rick Michigan and Colombia,
Speaker 1: and you is linking in core economics into Okay, we're
Speaker 1: in the room in Washington, and now we have to
Speaker 1: affect policy. How do you respond to the certitude that
Speaker 1: Kevin Hassett has to deal with from Trump supporters and
Speaker 1: from frankly direct White House officials representing the president. So
Speaker 1: I would say, first of all, it's important to recognize
Speaker 1: the role of the Council of Economic Advisors, which is
Speaker 1: to give objective, unbiased advice. And I think one of
Speaker 1: the criticisms of the of the work that was done
Speaker 1: by the c e A UH is that really it
Speaker 1: was a selective choice of evidence. It was the most
Speaker 1: optimistic evidence. There's plenty of evidence that tax cuts will
Speaker 1: generate growth. I think what was actually off scale there
Speaker 1: was the magnitude, and particularly the magnitude for wages, because essentially,
Speaker 1: I would say, look in the past, we already know
Speaker 1: that productivity enhancements have not been turning into wages already. UH,
Speaker 1: We've now given a major tax cut to businesses. I
Speaker 1: supported that, I actually supported that, but I think we
Speaker 1: there were ways to pay for it. We chose not
Speaker 1: to do that. Other countries that have cut tax rates
Speaker 1: for business to increase investment, have increased taxes on the
Speaker 1: owners of capital, have increased value added taxes, have found
Speaker 1: another revenue source, a carbon tax. Why why not say, okay,
Speaker 1: growth from cutting some business taxes, we gotta pay for it,
Speaker 1: otherwise it's going to defeat itself. One of the great
Speaker 1: things about Davos is I can see Peter or zegg
Speaker 1: in ten minutes later see Douglas Elmendorf, And they're the
Speaker 1: ones that have worked at CBO over the years. Does
Speaker 1: Laura Tyson having her head the percentage deficit to GDP
Speaker 1: that is a trip point for the president or three
Speaker 1: points something? And there's a great certitude at trillion dollars
Speaker 1: here on going dirks and and you can a trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: There is there a point where you worry? Is it five?
Speaker 1: Is it six? Is seven? Look? I I don't, I think,
Speaker 1: and I think I should get ken here as well.
Speaker 1: I think the general of you that I've thought about is,
Speaker 1: you know, a projected deficits in the three to four
Speaker 1: percent range right now. The global capital markets and the
Speaker 1: way they're behaving and US investors and behaving that is
Speaker 1: sustainable for the US. We're talking about a long term
Speaker 1: we we have fundamentally now reduced the taxation share of
Speaker 1: GDP to a level which just does not match the
Speaker 1: long runs sustainable. That's classic, That's classic Tyson linkoln and
Speaker 1: policy Ken. How do you respond to it? With all
Speaker 1: of your research with Carmen Reiner? Do you worry that
Speaker 1: we're going to trip the deficit to GDP? Are we
Speaker 1: gonna be talking about twin deficits in a few years
Speaker 1: here at Davos? Well? No, but I mean I think
Speaker 1: the reality of the debt rhetoric in Washington is that whoever,
Speaker 1: whichever party is uh out of power thinks that debt
Speaker 1: and deficits are bad because the party in power spending
Speaker 1: it on their priority, their friends, their base, and so
Speaker 1: you go back and forth. I mean, maybe the Republicans
Speaker 1: talk about it a little more, but if you look
Speaker 1: around the world, a lot of the conversation about debt
Speaker 1: is really, hey, wait a second, I might be in
Speaker 1: power in four years and you're spending my money. If
Speaker 1: you're doing the spending, I won't be able to do
Speaker 1: as much. But no, I mean, I said the US
Speaker 1: has enormous borrowing capacity. The dollar has become more powerful
Speaker 1: than it was under Bretton Woods. But you are spending
Speaker 1: future money. It is so hard. Obviously it's going to
Speaker 1: be harder to raise spending at taxes. Remember that was
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan's rationalization for why he was doing the tax cuts.
Speaker 1: I think that's the rationalization. You know, I was listening
Speaker 1: to this issue of closing down government. One way you
Speaker 1: can gradually close down government is just a denuded of revenues.
Speaker 1: And so there was a significant part of this momentum
Speaker 1: for tax cuts coming from the group of people who
Speaker 1: want to significantly reduce the size of government. And if
Speaker 1: the money is not there, you're gonna have to reduce
Speaker 1: the size. So we've heard from people saying the next
Speaker 1: step is entitlement reform. That is the next step is
Speaker 1: going to be work requirements on everything to kind of
Speaker 1: reduce the amount of spending, not to mention things like
Speaker 1: spending on basic science or infrastructure. I'm waiting with bated
Speaker 1: breath to see the infrastructure plan here. Absolutely you wonder
Speaker 1: where it is, And yeah, I guess you could also
Speaker 1: wonder why it hasn't shown yet. Ken one final question
Speaker 1: if we could, and that is on what kind of
Speaker 1: economy we should be studying. Paul Krugman has talked about
Speaker 1: a wistfulness back to John Hicks in nine and people say,
Speaker 1: wait a minute, that was a different world, a different
Speaker 1: economy back than You can't use those models. Now, what's
Speaker 1: the model that works for America within the unique America
Speaker 1: that the president is going to talk about? Are we
Speaker 1: a big, giant open economy? Are we more closed than
Speaker 1: we think? We're not more close than we think. We
Speaker 1: need to look to the future, and I, yes, we
Speaker 1: have problems that were better in the past, but I
Speaker 1: don't want to look to tired old solutions for dealing
Speaker 1: with them. For example, I think we need better education,
Speaker 1: But does that mean quadrupling the number of state collegists
Speaker 1: like Bernie Sanders has or does it in you know,
Speaker 1: digital education and finding new ways to reach broader audience
Speaker 1: as adult education. Many examples like this. We can do
Speaker 1: things differently and better, but that doesn't mean like this
Speaker 1: is what Bloomberg surveillance is all about. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: This was done spur of the moment, folks, with Professor
Speaker 1: Rogoff and with Professor Tyson and just wonderful to both
Speaker 1: of you with your public service and academics with us today.
Speaker 1: She is from the High School, University of California, Berkeley.
Speaker 1: He is from Harvard University. Mr Frankel's a former governor
Speaker 1: at the Bank of Israel. He works for a gentleman
Speaker 1: named Jamie Diamond. Jacob was out on the roof saying,
Speaker 1: get that helicopter away, Get that helicopter away. He is
Speaker 1: the chairman of JP Morgan International and truly provides economic
Speaker 1: person active to the clients of James Steamond and all
Speaker 1: of JP Morgan. Of course Mr Frankel doing a little
Speaker 1: bit of economic research a few years ago at Chicago.
Speaker 1: So Dr Frankel, though, you don't put your power point away,
Speaker 1: faying yesterday of China had his power point out and
Speaker 1: it made worldwide headlines. But John Jacob Frankel is the
Speaker 1: one guy who he's the one guy who doesn't need
Speaker 1: a power point when he talks to Bloomberg Surveillance. What
Speaker 1: I would suggest, UH, Professor Frankel is, here's the money
Speaker 1: question of the day, and it comes from one of
Speaker 1: our sophisticated UH listeners who is a currency manipulator. Now
Speaker 1: that's a loaded question, isn't it. It is a very
Speaker 1: loaded question, And the truth of the matter is, it's
Speaker 1: extremely difficult to answer that question, even in theory. You know,
Speaker 1: when you have a picture that he's hanged on the
Speaker 1: wall and then it falls, who is the Who is
Speaker 1: the fault, the world's fault, the pictures fault, the nails fault,
Speaker 1: the combinations thereof. Now all not, of course, not all
Speaker 1: analogies are good enough to explain the complexity of this question.
Speaker 1: Because the truth of the matter is, when monetary policy
Speaker 1: is becoming very, very loose, naturally, the value of the
Speaker 1: currency that is being printed and supplied is diminishing. That's
Speaker 1: the reason why prices go up, and that's the reason
Speaker 1: why the currency depreciates in the foreign exchange market. Now,
Speaker 1: was this a currency manipulated? The normal answer is we
Speaker 1: need to know what was the intent. If the intent
Speaker 1: was to boost the economy, then people will say it
Speaker 1: is not a currency manipulator. If the intent was to
Speaker 1: depreciate the currency, then it is. It is only an
Speaker 1: example why it is complex the question. The point of
Speaker 1: the matter is, I really think we should achieve the
Speaker 1: discussion from nominal exchange rate as as is being now
Speaker 1: discussed into real exchange rate. Namely, what are the factors
Speaker 1: the determined the international competitiveness of a country, not of
Speaker 1: a currency of a country, a country that is highly productive.
Speaker 1: President Trump taking away our international competitiveness. President Trump has
Speaker 1: not yet started doing what the what the president is
Speaker 1: put terms and you know little things like that, I
Speaker 1: know you don't. I don't. I can tell you I
Speaker 1: am in general against anything that may look like a trade.
Speaker 1: Mr Diamond said there as well. Yes, but I want
Speaker 1: to say that I rather have a discussion rather than
Speaker 1: shooting the guns. I want to tell you that I think,
Speaker 1: for example, that the US threats of living after makes
Speaker 1: no sense to me. I think that that the fact
Speaker 1: that the US did not sign at T T P A,
Speaker 1: etcetera is not good. The fact that both candidates for presidency,
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and Trump were so protectionist in their rectoring
Speaker 1: is not good because it basically gives a message also
Speaker 1: to the American people that somebody is there to deprive us.
Speaker 1: We are not. We need to compete and we need
Speaker 1: to improve. If you're just joining us for FoST Jacob Franco,
Speaker 1: whether US from JP, Morgan Chase, we welcome all of
Speaker 1: you worldwide to our studios in New York with John
Speaker 1: Farrell and Tim Keene of the World Economic Form meetings
Speaker 1: and Daphos. Dr Frankel has been incredibly generous with this time. Today,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at the Bloomberg terminal and whether it's a
Speaker 1: fancy guy like me or our most basic listener currencies
Speaker 1: around the move, How does a pro like you define
Speaker 1: sean country chees brutal moves? What does that really mean?
Speaker 1: And are we in the middle of a brutal move
Speaker 1: right now? If the brutal move means a large move,
Speaker 1: then you it's in the eyes of the bill the
Speaker 1: what is very large, very large, very very very brutal, etcetera. Again,
Speaker 1: I think that what we should do is create a situation. Well,
Speaker 1: sharp moves of the currency do not have sharp effect. Namely,
Speaker 1: developed the mechanisms to protect investors from shout moves, developed
Speaker 1: the futures markets, developed the forwards market, developed the hedging approaches.
Speaker 1: And not everyone needs to be speculated in the phone
Speaker 1: exchange market. It's too complex. Within that is the corporate response.
Speaker 1: You know, we all learn the J curve out of
Speaker 1: David Beggs classic textbook or during Bush Fisher Stars and
Speaker 1: the other basic textbook. Does the old style currency trade
Speaker 1: dynamics still work or we do another regime where Maurice
Speaker 1: Hobs fell and Ken Rogo got to go write a
Speaker 1: whole new book. Is it a new world? Well, the
Speaker 1: world has evolving, and do you know what, in many
Speaker 1: many areas, new chapters are being written. My only advice
Speaker 1: as an old time is to say, don't throw the
Speaker 1: old textbooks away. They have a lot of wisdom to
Speaker 1: teach us. Yes, do learn from the most recent experience
Speaker 1: by adding chapters, but not displays the old textbooks. So
Speaker 1: I believe that we have a cumulative experience that comes
Speaker 1: from many, many years, very few countries who were able
Speaker 1: to gain competitiveness through currency manipulation. And I want to
Speaker 1: make very clear her folks that that I call him
Speaker 1: Professor Frankel still from his iconic research of years ago.
Speaker 1: He's in a delicate position. He's with JP Morgan Chase International.
Speaker 1: Obviously he's vising Mr Diamond. He can't talk about that.
Speaker 1: That's what you do at banks. And at the same time,
Speaker 1: as a former governor of a major central bank, he
Speaker 1: really doesn't want to talk central bankers. So let's do
Speaker 1: that right now, Mr Drug, Mr Corota, the current governor
Speaker 1: of the Bank of Israel. They have to respond to
Speaker 1: that minution headline. I mean, I remember responding seeing people
Speaker 1: respond to Brazil's currency univentions of years ago. How do
Speaker 1: the players like you respond to a Secretary of Treasury
Speaker 1: suggesting a weak dollar policy? As I say, I did
Speaker 1: not here, I did not hear what the secretary actually said.
Speaker 1: What I can say is something in principle, you do
Speaker 1: not gain sustainable long term competitiveness by just weakening your currency.
Speaker 1: It will be eroding, eroded very quickly. On the contrary,
Speaker 1: it can be counterproductive because it will deflect the attention
Speaker 1: from the deeper issues of how to improve long term
Speaker 1: competitive work. This is what Davos is all about, folks.
Speaker 1: And Frankly Bloomberg surveillance. The honor of being here with
Speaker 1: Jacob Frankel and earlier Ken Rogoff really speaks to my
Speaker 1: team and what they do to drag these people away.
Speaker 1: As uh Mr Frankel was with his colleague Mr Diamond,
Speaker 1: this is a wonderful visit. And and folks, this is
Speaker 1: about healthcare. It's about the profitability of healthcare, and it's
Speaker 1: such a large part of all of our lives. I
Speaker 1: just really can't say enough about it. Joining us now
Speaker 1: is a gentleman of great extinction. He uh says, we
Speaker 1: may live to a hundred and twenty and he is
Speaker 1: cutt and chiseled at the august age of sixty nine
Speaker 1: years old and holding is well, how do you do it?
Speaker 1: You walk in here, Michael Neidorf, And you know, is
Speaker 1: that the air in St. Louis is? Is there something
Speaker 1: about the Midwest and you're working healthcare that makes you
Speaker 1: look the the the youth that you talk about when
Speaker 1: you're on panels here. I think it's the travel and
Speaker 1: talking to people like you, Okay, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: people that are young and aggressive. Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean we'll talk about St. Louis here in a bit,
Speaker 1: but I have to talk about a stock that is
Speaker 1: and there's the highest accolade, Dana her like. You just
Speaker 1: continue to make money in the last ten years. Your
Speaker 1: stock is going up per year, and yet you're in
Speaker 1: a business that I'm told doesn't make any money. Healthcare
Speaker 1: is terrible. Nobody makes money. How do you make revenues
Speaker 1: and profits that generates that stock performance in an industry
Speaker 1: that never makes money. How do you do that? We've
Speaker 1: maintained that the highest quality of care is at least expensive.
Speaker 1: We work hard. We have great medical management systems that
Speaker 1: help to ensure that the doctors have the information, and
Speaker 1: most importantly, we have systems that are becoming predictive and
Speaker 1: allow you to be interdictive, so that if you if
Speaker 1: you know somebody's potas team is going up, you know
Speaker 1: he's a whisk for a heart attack, you can get
Speaker 1: ahead of the curve. So it's really all about determining
Speaker 1: that somebody has a condition before it becomes a major problem.
Speaker 1: We just had in the president of the leader of
Speaker 1: New York University's wonderful hospital in New York. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: ask the same question I asked that physician. How do
Speaker 1: you do the revolution we're all having in healthcare and
Speaker 1: keep the doctors and nurses happy. I believe they're the
Speaker 1: providers of it, aren't they? Yes, well, I am view.
Speaker 1: We have always viewed doctors as our product, not a partner,
Speaker 1: but our product. And you, if you're smart about it,
Speaker 1: you take very good care of your How do you
Speaker 1: do that to incentivise them with salary? Is it tickets
Speaker 1: to the St. Louis Blues. I mean, what do you do?
Speaker 1: You know what we do is we give them information
Speaker 1: that allows them to be more effective and more productive.
Speaker 1: We pay them fairly, not excessively, not under paying, but
Speaker 1: we can try to pay them fairly, and we try
Speaker 1: to provide information that just generally helps him understand what
Speaker 1: we're all trying to achieve together. Where do we stand
Speaker 1: in this nation with healthcare? Your knee deep in it?
Speaker 1: You have decades of experience away from the media hot
Speaker 1: air of the Affordable Care Act and the eight tangents
Speaker 1: off of it. Are you happy with where we're going? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm hopeful. I think the the Affordable Care Active
Speaker 1: Voice we've done very well with with the largest provider,
Speaker 1: and we goose significly in January with the And it's
Speaker 1: just about putting units through the door. I mean, the
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act gives more people more coverage, which
Speaker 1: puts more units through the door. And we need that.
Speaker 1: We I mean, it's a it is an entitled when
Speaker 1: this country healthcare, So we work on that and that's
Speaker 1: that's very important. But I am I am optimistic that
Speaker 1: systems and the approach over time, ring the cost under control.
Speaker 1: I want to uh completely switched gears on you to
Speaker 1: your exceptional leadership to the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. How
Speaker 1: do we maintain classical music in this nation? I asked
Speaker 1: Gary Park, with all of his relationship with the New
Speaker 1: York Philharmonic, the same thing. How do we maintain orchestras
Speaker 1: for kids on YouTube? How do we let them know
Speaker 1: who Mendelssohn is, Tchaikovsky is? How do we let them
Speaker 1: know the more modern classical music? What's the path to
Speaker 1: the future. I think you have to do several things. One,
Speaker 1: you have to do things to encourage him to come
Speaker 1: into the hall and hear music. You started with youth orchestras,
Speaker 1: but you also have members of the orchestra go out
Speaker 1: into the community in small groups. And what the appetite
Speaker 1: of youth we uh My wife started a program, she's
Speaker 1: on the executive game now and she started a program
Speaker 1: Experienced the Music and other programs that get children engaged
Speaker 1: at a very young age with what music is all
Speaker 1: about and leaves it to life. Do we need a
Speaker 1: Leonard Burnstind that gave us that magic that all I
Speaker 1: do and we we had Leonards acculate in St. Louis.
Speaker 1: That did a lot of that, and it takes that
Speaker 1: kind of conduct, takes that kind of says Zaha in
Speaker 1: Boston or whatever. Then David Robertson, who's just stepping down
Speaker 1: the next year, that they have that magic. Very good.
Speaker 1: This has been wonderful, my cold, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: She's a senting, of course, a science uh in healthcare
Speaker 1: and of course out of St. Louis. I'm Tim Keenan Dabos.
Speaker 1: And now what does an annual visit? Was? Somebody who
Speaker 1: I think has had three or four occupations or jobs
Speaker 1: in each of his annual visits. Anthony Scaramucci used to
Speaker 1: play for the New York Mets, and he joins now
Speaker 1: on a most interesting and historic day for the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Of course, Mr Scaramucci was a former communications director for
Speaker 1: the President. I believe he was in the media last
Speaker 1: year a little bit. But here comes the President, of course,
Speaker 1: Secretary Monution today driving dollar weeker with a week dollar policy.
Speaker 1: We'll get to all that. Let's clear up things first.
Speaker 1: I have heard a little bit of percolation that you
Speaker 1: may rejoin the administration. Is there any truth to that?
Speaker 1: There's no truth to that that that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1: I mean, i've I've I've heard that as well. You
Speaker 1: mentioned the number of jobs that I had. You should
Speaker 1: also mention the fact that I don't have any w
Speaker 1: two so many of those jobs thom because I did
Speaker 1: all those jobs without making any money. That's pretty cool. Okay, amen, right,
Speaker 1: I guess that's good news from my my account. Within
Speaker 1: this is the idea of advising the president. Have you
Speaker 1: spoken to him or his small entourage coming to Davos
Speaker 1: to give them best Davos practices because you and Mr
Speaker 1: Kohona I was suggested the two with the most experience. Yeah, listen,
Speaker 1: I I obviously have a very close personal relationship with
Speaker 1: Secretary Manuchin. We worked closely together on the campaign, know
Speaker 1: each other a long time. Gary and I know each
Speaker 1: other from Goldman. But they didn't need any advice or
Speaker 1: from me. I mean, obviously they're gonna do great things here.
Speaker 1: I saw Governor Perry or now Secretary Perry this morning.
Speaker 1: I I think the President's message here is going to
Speaker 1: be a very interesting message in this following sense that people,
Speaker 1: uh won't predict what he's gonna say. He is by nature,
Speaker 1: he actually has a duality to his personality. He wants
Speaker 1: to engage in the global system and he wants to
Speaker 1: be part of global growth and prosperity. Uh, that's not
Speaker 1: really the media narrative. At the same time he's doing that,
Speaker 1: he wants to put American workers in middle class and
Speaker 1: lower middle class families first. And so, how do you
Speaker 1: handle how do you handle the President United States? Or
Speaker 1: you or I'd say you're adversary, General Kelly or all
Speaker 1: the good people of the administration get a script written
Speaker 1: and he goes off script. Is that the biggest Trump
Speaker 1: risk of the speech? I actually think that is the
Speaker 1: benefit of him being president? And I I would say that, Uh.
Speaker 1: We we found in the campaign, I found in my
Speaker 1: life experience with him. Letting him be himself, UH is
Speaker 1: where you really see the true creative, disruptive nature of
Speaker 1: his personality. Reigning in mand trying to box him in
Speaker 1: UH hasn't worked. Won't war Uh, And we'll probably lead
Speaker 1: to uh people Uh either they'll adapt because he's not
Speaker 1: going to adapt to them. Either they'll adapt or he'll
Speaker 1: have to help. He'll have to get help from elsewhere.
Speaker 1: I can see you in the room with Mr Khan
Speaker 1: and a few other selected worthy saying, Okay, there's two audiences,
Speaker 1: Mr President, what do we want to say to the
Speaker 1: global audience, the doubles elite? How does he speak to
Speaker 1: the people in a happy valley? Well, listen, I I
Speaker 1: think it's a I think it's the same message. The
Speaker 1: messages is that helping out? So he has the same
Speaker 1: message to the global elite. Did he does to his
Speaker 1: court constituency. I think so, because explain that. Okay, So
Speaker 1: I'm gonna explain it, because if you're here with the globally,
Speaker 1: you say, listen, my goal is to help middle class
Speaker 1: and lower middle class families in the United States with
Speaker 1: my policies that will lead to more disposable income and
Speaker 1: more opportunity. If Saudia, if IF China, as an example,
Speaker 1: is the Saudi Arabia manufacturing in many ways over the
Speaker 1: last seventy years since the Second World War. The United
Speaker 1: States is a Saudi Arabia. Consumerism, more aggregate demand for
Speaker 1: people in the United States will lead to more global growth,
Speaker 1: more global opportunity, and more global prosperity. And so I
Speaker 1: actually do think it's an identical message, and I don't
Speaker 1: think that's a threatening message. To quote unquote globalists if anything. Um,
Speaker 1: he's leading the charge here with the largest delegation uh
Speaker 1: that the US government has put together. Well, he's got
Speaker 1: he's got ten members of the Cabinet and members of
Speaker 1: the White House here in addition to himself, I mean
Speaker 1: meaning ten senior members in addition to all their understaff.
Speaker 1: And so I do know it's the largest general delegation
Speaker 1: that we've had in history as it relates to an
Speaker 1: American delegation here in Davos. So so to me, again,
Speaker 1: that's refreshing, that's unpredictable. Uh. You and I did a
Speaker 1: show here a year ago, A lot of people here
Speaker 1: would have said, okay, uh, you know, no chance that
Speaker 1: the president will President Trump will be here in Davos
Speaker 1: anytime soon. His last two preda sessors did not come
Speaker 1: to Davos. Uh. And so I think the first opportunity
Speaker 1: that he had to be here to make a statement,
Speaker 1: give a speech, uh, shows you who he really is
Speaker 1: and the character and the quality that he has as
Speaker 1: a person. And Neil Ferguson has the best say FC
Speaker 1: and so far in the Washington Post writing about this,
Speaker 1: and he gives a president great credit, and he gets
Speaker 1: it right up top is well where he says the
Speaker 1: president exemplifies the ugly American. Davos will accept him anyways,
Speaker 1: Why will they agree with the president's issues. Is it
Speaker 1: just about less regulation and more growth or is there
Speaker 1: something more subtle than that. Well, listen, I mean I
Speaker 1: probably is a close front of mine. I probably don't
Speaker 1: agree with the whole ugly American comment. I would just say, wait,
Speaker 1: I'm the ugly American. Be careful what you said. You're
Speaker 1: you're an ugly American. I mean, you're a tall, ugly American. Okay,
Speaker 1: your listeners can't see how all you are. My dad,
Speaker 1: I need four phone books to stay here. Uh here here,
Speaker 1: Here's what I would say. Uh. If there is subtlety,
Speaker 1: the subtlety is that we're going to cooperate in the
Speaker 1: global community. The subtlety is we're going to engage in
Speaker 1: the global system and the world's uh organizations, the broader
Speaker 1: world's organizations like the u N World Economic Form, et cetera,
Speaker 1: to help maintain, stabilize and increased global peace and prosperity.
Speaker 1: But we're not going to leave working class families and
Speaker 1: other people behind, which, unfortunately, when you analyze globalism that
Speaker 1: has happened. I want to ask one last question, and
Speaker 1: you're not gonna like it, but you've done so much
Speaker 1: for charity on Wall Street, I'm gonna bring it up.
Speaker 1: There is a Davos stunned field today about the cover
Speaker 1: article in the Financial Times Madison marriage over a charity
Speaker 1: dinner at the Dorchester in London that wasn't very nice.
Speaker 1: It was about charity guys and all that with hired
Speaker 1: hostesses and that, you know, the uproar in the United
Speaker 1: States over vice and Emily Changing of Bloomberg has this
Speaker 1: important new book coming out on social You've always been
Speaker 1: known for running class stuff. Is this stuff over? Is
Speaker 1: the is the sleaziness of some of these charity events?
Speaker 1: Is it just over? With this FT article today? Well, listen,
Speaker 1: unfortunately appreciate you saying that because I really try to,
Speaker 1: I really try to do this stuff straight up and
Speaker 1: and and honest and with high integrity. I think so
Speaker 1: because I think I think it's over. I think I
Speaker 1: think it's over because I think what's happened now is
Speaker 1: the world of social media has put a magnifying glass
Speaker 1: on everybody, and I think that some of the seediness,
Speaker 1: Uh it's going to be exposing that magnifying glass and
Speaker 1: and raid out like the way we used to do
Speaker 1: with ants when we were kids. Anthony Skerm, which you,
Speaker 1: thank you so much to your update here. He'll be
Speaker 1: a little occupied over the next forty eight hours. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews on Apple, pot Cast, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast
Speaker 1: platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before
Speaker 1: the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio.