Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane Jay Ley.
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 I'm
Speaker 1: about a single bust chart right now. We'll do this
Speaker 1: with David Kelly, Chief Global Strategy is to JPMorgan and
Speaker 1: he mentioned earlier in the hour the sea word courage,
Speaker 1: the courage to act. Let's look at a single bust
Speaker 1: chart which defines how lonely Europe is right now. This
Speaker 1: is Swiss twenty year with a normal yield. Here in
Speaker 1: August of two thousand and seven, the great deflation, we
Speaker 1: flatten and we've just ron over again. And I would
Speaker 1: suggest David that this is a linkage of courage into
Speaker 1: eerie and not only for the ECB, but for all
Speaker 1: of us. The theory of how we've extricated ourselves from
Speaker 1: this crisis is really under test. Oh yes, it is
Speaker 1: because one of the things that's happened, you know, there
Speaker 1: there are things that are pushed down in faction of
Speaker 1: the long run, including information technology. One of the big
Speaker 1: things is QUI basically causes as surprises go up more
Speaker 1: than real output um. It also tends to help push
Speaker 1: income towards upper income individuals. The snag is upper income
Speaker 1: individuals don't spend the money exactly. And so what happens
Speaker 1: is you produce a hundred dollars worth of output, you
Speaker 1: produce a hundred dollars income with it, but the income
Speaker 1: doesn't actually come around by the output. So this, this
Speaker 1: process of actually this growing wealth gap and growing income
Speaker 1: gap is actually sucking demand out of the global economy.
Speaker 1: So you've got to do something, oddly enough, very egalitarian
Speaker 1: to try and actually generate more aggregat And what's so
Speaker 1: important here, and I continue to go back this. I
Speaker 1: know I can do this with you, with your work
Speaker 1: with Bob Goodman a million years ago. Look at the
Speaker 1: X axis. We've been doing this for a decade exactly.
Speaker 1: It's not one your inner three year in Mama Marvin
Speaker 1: good Friends, which they do a two year experiment. It
Speaker 1: is the definition of year experiment. How do we extricate
Speaker 1: ourselves off the XX Well, I think, I think actually
Speaker 1: we need to look at this distribution issue and the
Speaker 1: issue of aggurate amount of the economy itself. Oddly enough,
Speaker 1: if we think about taxation and spending in a way
Speaker 1: to give more money to lower middle income people, they
Speaker 1: will spend it. Then you get hundred dollars worth of
Speaker 1: spending for hundred dollars worth of output, and suddenly the
Speaker 1: economy picks up. It's what I mean. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that because I believe in great income redistribution as a
Speaker 1: is a good thing in general, but actually it's an
Speaker 1: economic palette of it probably would work, but you can't
Speaker 1: fix it through monetary policy. Low interest rates will not
Speaker 1: fix this, friends, Right, Okay, David, let's you know, take
Speaker 1: it the other way around. If there is a recession,
Speaker 1: does do central banks have enough tools to do with it? Um? No?
Speaker 1: But but but I would argue that the what central
Speaker 1: banks could do it was what they could always do,
Speaker 1: which is that can they can be a buyer of
Speaker 1: last resort and they can protect the financial system and
Speaker 1: then allow the economics recovered by itself. I think the
Speaker 1: economy will tend to recover by itself anyway. But um,
Speaker 1: I don't think that you know, another twenty five basis
Speaker 1: points or fifty basis points would actually stimulate economic growth.
Speaker 1: It hasn't done it in Japan, it hasn't done it
Speaker 1: in Europe. I don't really think it did is in
Speaker 1: the United States either. I think that was more cyclical
Speaker 1: forces which pulled the economy back up, natural cyclical forces
Speaker 1: rather than rather than monetary stimulus. So I'm not too
Speaker 1: worried about them not having tools in their tool kit,
Speaker 1: because frankly, I think they're ineffective anyway. But I do
Speaker 1: think we need to think very honestly and carefully about
Speaker 1: how how is it that that monetary policy is not
Speaker 1: pushing up in flasher pushing up aggregate demand, and think
Speaker 1: about how do you get aggregate demand going. Let's just
Speaker 1: think about how do you get demand going in an economy.
Speaker 1: And you can do it by giving more money to
Speaker 1: lower middle income consumers, or you can create more certainty
Speaker 1: for businesses, and that means get rid of tarr trade wars,
Speaker 1: get trades certainty, get immigration certainly, try to have more
Speaker 1: policy certainty, and that will promote more investment spending, and
Speaker 1: that can also give your aggurate amount. But you've really
Speaker 1: got to think directly about how do you get demand
Speaker 1: going in an economy, And that's really outside of the
Speaker 1: purview of central banks, right, And that's one of the
Speaker 1: concerns actually that Japan has had to grapple with for
Speaker 1: for many decades. Is Europe becoming like Japan? Uh? Well,
Speaker 1: I think there there's there are some similarities. Of course,
Speaker 1: I think you've got demographics not as badly about as
Speaker 1: in Japan, but you've got some problems. But I think
Speaker 1: you do have some positives. And the unemployment rate is
Speaker 1: still coming down in Europe. They've still got about eight
Speaker 1: percent unemployment in Japan, It's like two and a half
Speaker 1: percent um. So Europe has got more unutilized resources, and
Speaker 1: they also didn't have the huge asset bubble that really
Speaker 1: propelled Japan to the problems it had. And and the
Speaker 1: third advantage of that Europe has is despite the problems
Speaker 1: we have in easily or certainly the problems we have
Speaker 1: in Greece, the aggregate debt of Eurozone countries is far
Speaker 1: smaller relative to your zone GDP than is the case
Speaker 1: in Japan. So I think Japan has gone is a
Speaker 1: lot further down that sort of miserable path than Europe is.
Speaker 1: Let's clear markets, David All, he knows his chart. He
Speaker 1: and I lived in I'm just making this up quick.
Speaker 1: Folks were throwing this out, Jimmy. I'll get this to
Speaker 1: you in a bit. This is allied Irish Bank from
Speaker 1: another time in place and what the Irish did, and
Speaker 1: they had the courage to clear the market going from
Speaker 1: five thousand essentially zero five euros or whatever it is
Speaker 1: per share. Is all we're talking about is Europe has
Speaker 1: a fear they can't clear their troubled financial system. Well,
Speaker 1: I think I think that's that's obviously it's it's a
Speaker 1: pro Irish. Well, well, they Irish. You know, that was
Speaker 1: very controversial, controversial because what they iris is they and
Speaker 1: they had the courage to get out front of everybody
Speaker 1: else and clear the banking. Also, they also suffered a
Speaker 1: huge recession because of it, and they and they did
Speaker 1: take on a lot of responsibility upon the Irish people
Speaker 1: for stuff that really was the responsibility of international investors.
Speaker 1: I think history is on, you know, unclear and whether
Speaker 1: they did the right thing or not, but Ireland has
Speaker 1: What they did do is they took the tough fiscal
Speaker 1: medicine they made, They made the tough fiscal choices they
Speaker 1: they and the population put up with it. And so
Speaker 1: the Ireland has bounced back. Um, but I think that.
Speaker 1: But to be honestly, ours political system actually works rather well.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, relative to what you see in
Speaker 1: the US or in Britain, there are relatively logical choices
Speaker 1: being made by the major parties on both sides to
Speaker 1: keep Oreland on a relatively even keel. And and then
Speaker 1: I think is also helping. Politics doesn't matter. I could
Speaker 1: just see you, me, Vanni, Quinn, Francie, all of us
Speaker 1: in Dublin going over the success of the Irish clearing
Speaker 1: of markets. It was truly courageous. As David mentioned, a
Speaker 1: real debate about how Ireland did it. But boy, that
Speaker 1: was something back in oh seven, oh eight oh nine,
Speaker 1: David Kelly, thank you so much. With JP Morgan, asset manager.
Speaker 1: One of the joys of my year is the Quinnipiac
Speaker 1: conference without just a thousand college kids. It's a great,
Speaker 1: great moment in New York. And even better, Francis Donald
Speaker 1: joins me on stage this afternoon over at one of
Speaker 1: our larger hotels. She is with Manu life uh and
Speaker 1: in strategy and economics there as well. Francis, it's great
Speaker 1: to get up on stage with twelve kids or whatever
Speaker 1: it is, and explain the idiocy of the media and
Speaker 1: the frenzy in hysteria right now. Let's let's pretend we're
Speaker 1: Quentin Pia this afternoon. What is the hysteria right now
Speaker 1: that most upset you that we need to ignore? Well,
Speaker 1: I certainly take a different approach than you do. Tom.
Speaker 1: What I'm going to talk about today for the first
Speaker 1: time in the several years that we've been doing this
Speaker 1: is we're at end cycle. This is the first possible
Speaker 1: recession that these kids have seen in their adult lifetime,
Speaker 1: and that many of us in this industry will experience firsthand.
Speaker 1: So you're calling recession you have before. So we certainly
Speaker 1: have been looking at the very hot or the much
Speaker 1: higher probability of a recession, and it looks like the
Speaker 1: markets have come into this framework as well. The big
Speaker 1: question that I have now and I have been a
Speaker 1: recession believer, is that the FED has moved devish ly
Speaker 1: in my view, much earlier than I had initially expected.
Speaker 1: Have they actually managed to engineer a soft landing by
Speaker 1: using forward guidance, by using their dot plot to inject
Speaker 1: some easing into this market that actually reduces my probability
Speaker 1: of a recession. It remains to be seen. So let's
Speaker 1: talk about the doom crew. Because you walked into the room, Francis,
Speaker 1: and the first thing you said was I think of
Speaker 1: recessions in and you guys always come at me. So
Speaker 1: let's talk about it. Why twenty what's so special about
Speaker 1: isn't actually a year where something blows up. It's not
Speaker 1: a two thousand eight scenario. It's a year where the
Speaker 1: model signal to us that the combination of fiscal tightening,
Speaker 1: monetary policy tightening, and some tariffs way on GDP and
Speaker 1: we get close to about zero percent. And this is
Speaker 1: where the decimal start to matter. And this is why
Speaker 1: I actually care about geopolitical risk more than I did
Speaker 1: two years ago, because this is a year where decimal
Speaker 1: points will matter, where the math will matter if we
Speaker 1: actually flip into sub zero. Present grows. So there was
Speaker 1: another group of paper at the back end of twenty
Speaker 1: seen that said, look at what's going to happen here
Speaker 1: is we're gonna return towards trend growth. And as the
Speaker 1: economy decelerates back towards trend growth, there's going to be
Speaker 1: some people that confuse that for a trip towards a recession.
Speaker 1: Now I'm trying to work out whether this is a
Speaker 1: trip back towards trend growth or a trip towards recession.
Speaker 1: How do you get the clarity between the two things
Speaker 1: as to where we're heading. Well, in this case, we're
Speaker 1: both right. So is a trip back down a deceleration?
Speaker 1: My concern is those who call for recession. There's still
Speaker 1: a lot of fiscal stimulus in this pipeline. The bigger
Speaker 1: confusion isn't twenty recession session, it's what happened in Q
Speaker 1: four and Q one. We have seen substantial distortions to
Speaker 1: the economic data in Q one. I don't think they
Speaker 1: lift until we start getting March data, which is only
Speaker 1: going to come through in the middle of April. But
Speaker 1: to me, starting in that segment, you are going to
Speaker 1: see a recceleration of Q two Q three, and the
Speaker 1: recessionistas might back off that pedal a bit. But let's
Speaker 1: keep our timelines very clear here. We still have have
Speaker 1: some breathing room before the negative growth prints. Financial conditions
Speaker 1: materially looser over the last several months. Off the back
Speaker 1: of all of this, we now have a rights market
Speaker 1: that is pricing rate cuts. Do you think that's a
Speaker 1: little bit too premature, or do you think that's the
Speaker 1: right move? Hit, I have a different perspective on how
Speaker 1: the market is looking at rate cuts. So let's say
Speaker 1: I think we have like thirty basis points priced in
Speaker 1: for to me, that's not the market saying we have
Speaker 1: one and change cuts. It's the market saying we have
Speaker 1: about a thirty percent probability of a hundred basis point move.
Speaker 1: Because if the Fed moves in, it's not going to
Speaker 1: be by basis points. That's not going to be enough.
Speaker 1: When you're this close to the zero lower bound, you've
Speaker 1: got a shock and awe. It's going to be three
Speaker 1: to four cuts if they choose to go that route.
Speaker 1: Let's go back six months. Do we have wage inflation?
Speaker 1: We certainly have wage inflation. It's deflating, Is that what
Speaker 1: I'm getting here? No, it means that it's not filtering
Speaker 1: through into our CPI or pp I data to the
Speaker 1: same extent. A variety of structural factors, globalization, the inability
Speaker 1: to pass on these cost pressures that come through. We'll
Speaker 1: probably see it in margins with about a nine month lag.
Speaker 1: But the question is, even if we were to see
Speaker 1: two or two and a half percent pc with the
Speaker 1: FED respond I don't think so. We just said David
Speaker 1: Kelley and with Michael Faroli's great work at JP Morgan
Speaker 1: and the new terminal rate, is this two percent bogey
Speaker 1: on inflation, on nostalgic thing of the past. Absolutely, does
Speaker 1: it need to be set at one point eight or
Speaker 1: something like that in my view probably? I mean, look
Speaker 1: at the City Surprise Index on inflation, not the economic one,
Speaker 1: but the inflation one. We have seen eight years where
Speaker 1: inflation data has come in below economist expectations eight years.
Speaker 1: The only reason Francis Donald brings up the City Surprising
Speaker 1: nextus because she and to Bias Lefkovic are the biggest
Speaker 1: Montreal Canadian fans and that it's waiting for us to
Speaker 1: get to ice helcake. You know, It's just it's had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with with City group, but everything to
Speaker 1: do so. I actually saw to Bias earlier this week
Speaker 1: and the two things we talked about where the Montreal
Speaker 1: Canadians and the FED. What was the most interesting, The
Speaker 1: most important one was drug Canadians. Well, and in both cases,
Speaker 1: I think we have some concerns leading forward into next year.
Speaker 1: But but let's let's take this forward mantro was terrible
Speaker 1: last year at full disclosure, folks, I bleed lesabitan, but
Speaker 1: they've really done a lot better this year. Is that
Speaker 1: where the FED is six months from now? Now? I
Speaker 1: think the FED needs to put itself on the sidelines.
Speaker 1: If the FED can be successful, I think Mr Powell
Speaker 1: agrees with you. And so when I hear that there's
Speaker 1: days like today's with a significant amount of FED speak,
Speaker 1: I get a little curvous. I don't want to see
Speaker 1: a lot of FED speak. I want the Fed out
Speaker 1: of the picture so that risk asses can rally. I'm
Speaker 1: looking it yields John mentions is sophisticated yield curve in version,
Speaker 1: which he does on the real yield one PM on Fridays.
Speaker 1: That's all great, but what it means is more financial
Speaker 1: repression for our listeners, right and it just continues forward? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean yield caravan version. What is it telling us
Speaker 1: that we didn't already know? Growth expectations are low, the
Speaker 1: Feds on the sidelines, and there isn't a lot of inflation. Sure,
Speaker 1: there are probably some distortions here. I'm sure you've had
Speaker 1: dozens of guests that explain that the level might not
Speaker 1: be as indicative as it has in the past. But
Speaker 1: a flat ter inverted yield curve is telling us what
Speaker 1: we should already see in the data, which is that
Speaker 1: we're end cycle. The FED may have gone too far
Speaker 1: and it's probably done. So, Francis, you've come on the
Speaker 1: program before with us and said, there's three puts to
Speaker 1: this market, the Federal reserve, trite talks, and Chinese stimulus.
Speaker 1: Any of those three right now that you have some
Speaker 1: confidence that you think could push back your base case
Speaker 1: of recession. So the FED move came earlier than I
Speaker 1: was expecting. We didn't see, you know, rate hike in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, starning about early March based on the paradigm
Speaker 1: shift within the FED towards average inflation. My concern right
Speaker 1: now is that there might be a little bit too
Speaker 1: much optimism in that China put story, that it's probably
Speaker 1: mostly in the price I hear a lot of analysts
Speaker 1: tell me that we're going to see a U shaped
Speaker 1: or V shaped recovery in China. To me, it looks
Speaker 1: a little bit more like a stabilization by the end
Speaker 1: of this year. If we don't get that V shaped recovery,
Speaker 1: there could be some disappointment. Are they pushing their disinflation
Speaker 1: and goods deflation out to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: They have, They have done it for years. They will
Speaker 1: probably continue to do it. I think this is an
Speaker 1: interesting sideline story that should gain more attention into China
Speaker 1: is about to enter deflation by PPI measures. We feel
Speaker 1: that in the United States, we feel that globally this
Speaker 1: is a massive deflationary shock. I'm sure it's part of
Speaker 1: the reason why the Fed said, you know what, we're
Speaker 1: not going to get to two percent average inflation in
Speaker 1: or and through the weekend we get the p m
Speaker 1: I s for China and into next week to so
Speaker 1: some really interesting data points coming from the Chinese side
Speaker 1: of things. A fan of p m I s, but
Speaker 1: I must admit they're important right now. I'm not a
Speaker 1: fan of them either, except for the fact that out
Speaker 1: of China we have so little real time activity trackers
Speaker 1: that it's probably one of our best bet I would
Speaker 1: actually watch that employment sub index within it as a
Speaker 1: good sense of what's happening to the jobs growth there.
Speaker 1: Francis Donald, thanks update as well. Let's go right over
Speaker 1: the foreign exchange Jane following with us right now Jane Folly,
Speaker 1: let me set it up. D X Y blended Dollar index, stronger,
Speaker 1: yen not doing much, Euro maybe going through one twelve,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden emerging markets perking up weaker
Speaker 1: as well. That's set What are you focused on? Well,
Speaker 1: to be honest, most of what you just said pointed
Speaker 1: to me that the dollar can remain really quite firm
Speaker 1: because in an environment where you see emerging markets looking
Speaker 1: more belie, that's is suggestive of a lack of confidence
Speaker 1: in the market. We've see that of course in stocks too.
Speaker 1: Then in verse just's have to make a decision about
Speaker 1: where else are they're going to go. They're worried about
Speaker 1: risk capetite, they're pulling back on their risk. They generally
Speaker 1: come back into safe assets, to come back into detail currencies,
Speaker 1: and generally because they say favors are the yen and
Speaker 1: a thesis fact. But when you've got negative yields and
Speaker 1: those the dollar too, many people may look like a
Speaker 1: better safe haven. That's certainly what happened I think last
Speaker 1: year when we saw itself off in an emerging market,
Speaker 1: and I think that's again what we're seeing right now. So, Jane,
Speaker 1: is the breaks that continues to wind its way through
Speaker 1: a parliament. It seems like we're maybe getting a little
Speaker 1: bit closer. I hastened to say that, what is your
Speaker 1: call on sterling, given you know, we have a little
Speaker 1: seems like there might be a real path here, or
Speaker 1: split in the path where there's hard breaks that are
Speaker 1: still on the table, but they seem to be making
Speaker 1: some progress. How do you think the pound reacts here
Speaker 1: either way? Well, you know, we we saw yesterday that
Speaker 1: the pound, at least in the cable dip into the
Speaker 1: lower levels of the week yesterday, and this is on
Speaker 1: disappointment that the MPs had their their votes last night
Speaker 1: on eight amendments and there wasn't a majority for single one,
Speaker 1: and that seems to disappoint the market invested. I think
Speaker 1: we're hoping for some solid direction for an alternative to
Speaker 1: treason maze plan, which of course me no MPs don't like,
Speaker 1: so the markets disappointed. But actually I'm not as disappointed
Speaker 1: as perhaps the value of sterling would would suggest, because
Speaker 1: I think some progress was made. I think what we
Speaker 1: see perhaps as uh, the the the plan about a
Speaker 1: potential customs union, and this of course is a trade
Speaker 1: arrangement with with Europe. Seemed to get more support than
Speaker 1: than the others, and this might again see some progress
Speaker 1: over the weekend as MP's get together and they talk
Speaker 1: about common ground and I think by by Monday we
Speaker 1: might have a clearer view about the potential alternatives for
Speaker 1: a Brexit deal. But of course people must remember that legally,
Speaker 1: as it's positioned, the UK is going to leave um
Speaker 1: um in a couple of weeks time the EU and
Speaker 1: we need a change in law in order to avoid that.
Speaker 1: So that as you've just slightly pointed out, that threat
Speaker 1: of the no deal Brexit is still hanging over the
Speaker 1: heads of earning investors and we're limited any recovery. Where's
Speaker 1: the EM opportunity right now? And Jane Folly well, I
Speaker 1: think that's a that's a difficult question given the environment
Speaker 1: that we're in. I mean, certainly I would be very
Speaker 1: cautious about e M. The market has been nervous about
Speaker 1: global growth. We see Hourkeey playing at in the back
Speaker 1: that we've got elections there in a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: and market extremely nervous. And when you've got a big
Speaker 1: EM player like that Turkey really looking at and you've
Speaker 1: got that on top of global growth, I think it's
Speaker 1: a very nervous viral, you know, away from the idiosyncratic.
Speaker 1: So I got I got a four print and Brazilian
Speaker 1: real and I got argentinean Paso out pushing forty four.
Speaker 1: Come on, there's there's sort of a group tendency here,
Speaker 1: isn't there Well, there is, there is, and and to
Speaker 1: be honest, I think you know, the wise investors always
Speaker 1: going to look through the bigger picture and pick out
Speaker 1: the countries that are doing better. Where you see the economy,
Speaker 1: We'll pick out for us where is it well, you know, again,
Speaker 1: a lot large part of this comes down to what
Speaker 1: happens with China and US and the trade negotiations. Some
Speaker 1: countries could benefit from agriculture down there, um, and again
Speaker 1: it depends which way it's going to swing. It if
Speaker 1: China again is picking up buying sybean from the US,
Speaker 1: and maybe there isn't going to be the benefits for
Speaker 1: other Latin American countries with which there could be. So
Speaker 1: there's there's there's a lot of risky, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of um potential outcomes and a lot of these are
Speaker 1: a really good picture events. Amazing Jane Folly, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Wonderful update with robble Bank just always advantage
Speaker 1: when she's um, do you want to bring in our
Speaker 1: esteem guests? Absolutely? Um. You know. Obviously we are are
Speaker 1: here at the Bloomberg Equality Summer broadcasting live from the
Speaker 1: link at our world headquarters here in Lectionton Avenue fifty
Speaker 1: ninth Street, and we think about Hollywood. It's been said
Speaker 1: that Hollywood is one of the least welcoming industries for women.
Speaker 1: And I love this point that I think our guests made.
Speaker 1: Even the coal industry does a better job deally being
Speaker 1: accepting and support above women than this Hollywood. So it
Speaker 1: help us kind of dig through this issue. We welcome
Speaker 1: our our guess, Maria Geis. She is a writer and director.
Speaker 1: Maria's thanks so much for joining us here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: How did it ever get so bad for women in Hollywood?
Speaker 1: What's the history there? Well, let's see. Let's start with
Speaker 1: what Hollywood does today. I mean, Hollywood pays out seven
Speaker 1: billion dollars in wages every year. It creates eight percent
Speaker 1: of the media content that's distributed globally, and it helps
Speaker 1: form our cultural narrative through the stories that are told there.
Speaker 1: This is an incredibly powerful industry. And it's run by
Speaker 1: a very small group of mostly white liberal men. UM
Speaker 1: the history of of Hollywood, as told so beautifully in
Speaker 1: the film by Tom Donahue called This Changes Everything Screen
Speaker 1: Here Last Night. UM shows that in the pioneer days
Speaker 1: of of Hollywood, which began in with the invention of
Speaker 1: the movie camera, the cinematograph um invited women in and
Speaker 1: there were lots and lots of women directors, writers, and
Speaker 1: producers up until the big money came in. And as
Speaker 1: soon as the big Wall Street money came in, women
Speaker 1: got pushed out. So we really saw almost no women
Speaker 1: in the industry as storytellers from about nineteen thirty until
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy nine, after the civil rights movement of the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties and the Women's lib movement of the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: and then we began to see some shift. So really
Speaker 1: one can look at this as an economic issue, a
Speaker 1: battle for resources. It's a patriarchy. Have has the so
Speaker 1: to what extent has the meat too? This is just
Speaker 1: recent history. To what extent has the meat too? Movement?
Speaker 1: Do you think going going to impact Hollywood going forward?
Speaker 1: Because it seems to be of the me too movement?
Speaker 1: UM came in based on the work of the A
Speaker 1: C l U and the e O C. SO. On
Speaker 1: October sixteen, the e e O C the Equal Rights
Speaker 1: um Commission of the United States Department of Justice started
Speaker 1: an investigation for women directors in Hollywood, and UH two
Speaker 1: years later, almost the day, on October five seen The
Speaker 1: New York Times finally had the Kahan s to publish
Speaker 1: the exposs on Harvey Weinstein. Incidentally that they had been
Speaker 1: holding onto since two thousand and four for thirteen years.
Speaker 1: So when Hillary Clinton was in the Clintons were no
Speaker 1: longer in power, and Trump was now in power. UH,
Speaker 1: the major media was emboldened to publish these stories. It
Speaker 1: was a watershed moment, there's no question about it. But
Speaker 1: I believe, you know, also a diversion because Hollywood has
Speaker 1: been able to use me Too and the stories of
Speaker 1: sexual harassment and abuse in the workplace and actresses to
Speaker 1: um control the narrative. And that's what they're doing because
Speaker 1: when you talk about equal employment Opportunity law and the
Speaker 1: enforcement of Title Federal Enforcement Title seven in Hollywood, you're
Speaker 1: talking about fundamentally a redistribution of jobs from men to women.
Speaker 1: And that is something that Hollywood doesn't want you very
Speaker 1: quickly here just because of time. You came out of U.
Speaker 1: C l A. There's other combines of screenwriting and directing
Speaker 1: around the world. Out of Tish came out and Bowden
Speaker 1: and Ryan Fleck and they're doing Captain Marvel in that.
Speaker 1: Do women have to advance and succeed going from small
Speaker 1: movies and working up the food time over like you did, Frankly,
Speaker 1: or can they jump in now at a higher level? Uh?
Speaker 1: Basically the way it stands right now, women directed in
Speaker 1: Women were directing cent of episodic TV shows, four percent
Speaker 1: of studio features and through Amazon and Netflix. Know that fundamentally,
Speaker 1: what is happening here is that women can work if
Speaker 1: they work for free. Women are doing the lower end
Speaker 1: of It's it's the exception Lawrence said four years ago.
Speaker 1: She's sick of being adorable. I mean that's simple. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that women need to demand their rights under our laws.
Speaker 1: You see that changing over the grill at the Beverly
Speaker 1: Hills Hilton or at the Sunset Toro Hotel. Is that
Speaker 1: dynamic changing? Um? I think that there is a great
Speaker 1: deal of pressure right now on the industry. I think
Speaker 1: the federal investigation and the work of the a C
Speaker 1: L you rock to the industry to its core, and
Speaker 1: they're worried about lawsuits and so um they're going to
Speaker 1: move those numbers up through inside efforts, but those will
Speaker 1: have not historically proven to be enduring. Is Disney Fox
Speaker 1: good for women? Is James Wurduck and the rest of
Speaker 1: them out there with Mr Igorant Disney Fox in the
Speaker 1: new combination? Nobody is good for women. Nobody is good
Speaker 1: for women. All all of these, the organizations that make
Speaker 1: up Hollywood, including the unions, the talented agencies at studios,
Speaker 1: and the network streaming giants, they all need to be
Speaker 1: challenged by the BYE by a legal action. Is that coming?
Speaker 1: Is that forthcoming? Do you think legal action? I My
Speaker 1: belief is because the a E O C has been
Speaker 1: um conducting this investigation and perhaps has been in settlement
Speaker 1: talks for three years and four months six months almost
Speaker 1: and we UM don't know what is going on with
Speaker 1: that because uh, they function in total confidentiality. However, we
Speaker 1: have been a small group of us have been working
Speaker 1: very very hard to move this into the court system,
Speaker 1: and I do believe that that is the necessary thing.
Speaker 1: This needs to end up in the Supreme Court. Right,
Speaker 1: it sounds like it sounds like pressure is building. It
Speaker 1: sounds like the me too movement might might accelerate. That
Speaker 1: so very interesting, guys, thank you so much for joining us,
Speaker 1: like Maria as a writer and directors who joins us
Speaker 1: here talking about this equality issue in Hollywood, which again
Speaker 1: very very difficult place historically for women to do well,
Speaker 1: even harder than the coal industry. Believe it or not,
Speaker 1: but hopefully change is coming to Holly would thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene before the podcast. You
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio