WEBVTT - Brian Deese on the Legislative Legacy of President Biden's First Two Years 0:00:10.440 --> 0:00:15.000 Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. 0:00:15.080 --> 0:00:18.319 I'm Joe Wisenhal and I'm Tracy Hallaway. Tracy, you know, 0:00:18.440 --> 0:00:22.040 one of the things that I think is most surprising 0:00:22.280 --> 0:00:25.840 or striking about the Biden administration, of the first two 0:00:25.920 --> 0:00:30.360 years of the Biden administration is how slim the sort 0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:34.040 of congressional majority was, like just fifty seats in the Senate, 0:00:34.120 --> 0:00:40.920 extremely narrow and yet legislatively an incredibly consequential two years. 0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:43.240 I would say, Yeah, I'm trying to think of all 0:00:43.440 --> 0:00:46.159 the big spending bills that happened past. But you had 0:00:46.200 --> 0:00:50.400 like the Inflation Reduction Act, you had a climate bill, uh, 0:00:50.520 --> 0:00:54.840 you had the the emergency sort of fiscal um stuff 0:00:54.840 --> 0:00:57.800 that was announced right at the beginning of COVID. There's 0:00:57.840 --> 0:01:00.320 a lot that happened. Yeah, and of course do as 0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:05.440 the Chips Act as well, So it's really consequential. Also 0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:09.800 usage of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in kind of a 0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:13.800 novel way. Just like a very big two years. And 0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:16.960 when we think about these bills, and you know, Obama 0:01:17.040 --> 0:01:19.920 had a pretty big to his first two years, and 0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:23.680 pretty big because Obamacare got passed during that time, you know, 0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:26.399 it seems too many, and I guess I would say 0:01:26.440 --> 0:01:29.039 I would include myself in that category that like, not 0:01:29.240 --> 0:01:31.679 just are these sort of big pieces of legislation that 0:01:31.720 --> 0:01:35.279 got passed, but kind of a break from how past 0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:40.600 presidents have treated economic management, specifically with things that seemed 0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:45.000 to resemble like industrial policy. Yes, it's funny that you 0:01:45.040 --> 0:01:48.840 said industrial policy because I see people use the term 0:01:48.920 --> 0:01:53.520 industrial strategy a lot. It's almost like industrial policy has 0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:57.440 like negative connotations. But you're right, You're right. It feels 0:01:57.560 --> 0:02:00.880 much more I also don't know if interval ninist is 0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:03.760 the right word, but it feels much more active in 0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:09.480 identifying choke points in the economy, things that are important 0:02:09.560 --> 0:02:14.000 either from a strategic perspective or maybe they're important for 0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:18.400 overall quality of life for Americans, um and prices and 0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:22.520 things like that, and then doing something about it right 0:02:22.680 --> 0:02:28.840 identifying say, domestic battery consumption, identifying battery materials, identifying the 0:02:28.960 --> 0:02:33.040 need to have good chip fabrication domestically. This was not 0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:36.800 an approach that Trump took. It wasn't approach that Obama took. 0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:39.160 I don't think I was an approach that Bush talk. 0:02:39.440 --> 0:02:42.080 So it feels very new, and so it is a 0:02:42.120 --> 0:02:45.000 good time to like take stock of what was done 0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:47.000 in the last two years and sort of like how 0:02:47.200 --> 0:02:53.040 will we evaluate ultimately the success of these pieces of legislation. Absolutely, 0:02:53.160 --> 0:02:55.639 and we really do have the perfect guests to do that. 0:02:55.840 --> 0:02:59.919 Sometimes sometimes that line is like, okays it the perfect guest. 0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:02.560 In this case, I believe that actually is the case 0:03:02.720 --> 0:03:05.400 because we are going to be speaking with Brian des 0:03:05.480 --> 0:03:09.120 He is the head of the President's National Economic Council, 0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:13.639 involved in all of these sort of major actions, and 0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:17.080 he's leaving. This is we're recording this February fifteen. This 0:03:17.200 --> 0:03:19.880 is his last week on the job. He's getting a 0:03:20.040 --> 0:03:24.080 very I assume, much needed break. So, Brian, thank you 0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:27.560 so much for coming back on odd lots. Thank you 0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:29.680 both for having me. I'm excited to be here. Thank you. 0:03:29.720 --> 0:03:32.440 So let's start with that. I mean, like, so I 0:03:32.520 --> 0:03:35.480 alluded to this in the beginning, but you know, I 0:03:35.480 --> 0:03:39.000 would like your take on it, which is a you know, 0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:44.440 it has biodynamics so to speak, been characterized as industrial 0:03:44.520 --> 0:03:49.360 policy and setting aside terminology, how much do you perceive 0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:52.960 this approach to economic management is having been a sort 0:03:52.960 --> 0:03:56.120 of major break from the likes of which we saw 0:03:56.240 --> 0:04:00.720 under Trump, Obama and other previous presidents. Well, I think 0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:03.800 that we have a long history in the United States, 0:04:04.320 --> 0:04:08.560 going back to even the early days of this country 0:04:08.760 --> 0:04:15.600 in experimenting or utilizing industrial strategies, and you guys were 0:04:15.640 --> 0:04:19.599 talking about the industrial strategy industrial policy to different terms. 0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:22.080 I think it is the case that over the course 0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:25.919 of the last forty years, there were forces that really 0:04:25.960 --> 0:04:31.920 pushed the concept of industrial policy into being viewed as 0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:34.960 a sort of dirty word, or being viewed as somehow 0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:40.560 um inconsistent with a capitalist, market based economic system and 0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:43.200 the things that you need. I also think over that 0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:46.080 time the world has changed in pretty important and fundamental 0:04:46.120 --> 0:04:50.200 ways and has brought back into clear relief the economic 0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:55.560 need for something approximating an industrial strategy. And I think 0:04:55.600 --> 0:04:58.719 it's totally fair and right to look at the Biden 0:04:58.760 --> 0:05:03.040 economic strategy and this through line between, in particular the 0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:06.600 three big bills that were passed, the Infrastructure Bill, the 0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:10.039 Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act. You 0:05:10.120 --> 0:05:14.400 see a common thread, which is use public investment to 0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:18.080 try to crowd in private investment in key areas of 0:05:18.080 --> 0:05:21.920 the economy where we believe, for strategic or economic purposes, 0:05:22.279 --> 0:05:27.640 we want to increase productive potential. So clean energy, innovation, semiconductors, 0:05:28.520 --> 0:05:31.160 high value infrastructure. These are places where we are on 0:05:31.240 --> 0:05:34.919 apologic getically saying the private market on its own is 0:05:34.960 --> 0:05:38.880 not going to generate sufficient industrial capacity or a sufficient 0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:41.320 output in the United States to meet our economic and 0:05:41.360 --> 0:05:44.719 security needs, and so therefore we do need an explicit 0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:47.920 and active strategy. I think the way I would frame 0:05:47.920 --> 0:05:50.480 it as an active and energetic government approach to try 0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:55.080 to lay the foundation and crowd in private capitalist scipe. 0:05:56.560 --> 0:06:03.120 So you mentioned America having a long history of industrial strategy. 0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:05.719 Can you expand on that a little bit more, because 0:06:05.720 --> 0:06:09.039 I think you do tend to get or one does 0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:13.200 tend to see a knee jerk reaction amongst Americans over 0:06:13.480 --> 0:06:19.440 government interference rather than perhaps government guiding, um, you know, 0:06:19.720 --> 0:06:26.400 more capital and more money into strategically important things and industries. Well, 0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:27.839 I think if you look back at history, we have 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:32.000 seen some of our greatest moments and opportunities for innovation 0:06:32.080 --> 0:06:36.080 have been connected to this idea of having an industrial strategy. 0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:41.880 Hamilton's was, in fact, I think the first principle thinker 0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:46.200 and doer to lay out the idea that having a 0:06:46.279 --> 0:06:49.360 government role in supporting the build out of a domestic 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:54.640 system of manufacturing was important for economic and national security reasons, 0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:58.680 and that the private market alone wasn't going to wasn't 0:06:58.720 --> 0:07:02.560 going to solve that. Um. You saw it in Lincoln's time, 0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:05.560 investing in the internet, intercontinental railroad. You saw it in 0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:07.359 the fifties and the sixties in the wake of the 0:07:07.360 --> 0:07:12.200 Second World War, investing not only in physical infrastructure but 0:07:12.240 --> 0:07:14.960 in our research and innovation base. Obviously a lot of 0:07:14.960 --> 0:07:17.920 that connected to the space race, but I think the 0:07:17.920 --> 0:07:21.000 best historical analog to what we're trying to do now 0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:23.720 is the nineteen sixties, where you saw both a significant 0:07:23.720 --> 0:07:28.600 investment in physical infrastructure and also in our innovation infrastructure 0:07:28.640 --> 0:07:32.720 as well. You know, with the Chips Act, obviously there's 0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:36.160 a lot of constern nation about the idea that you know, 0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:41.480 the world needs semiconductors, and we produced fewer and fewer 0:07:41.520 --> 0:07:44.480 of them here domestically, and this is a reason to 0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:47.400 be concerned what happens if the supply were to be 0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:51.960 disrupted with great with the with the Inflation Reduction Act, 0:07:52.360 --> 0:07:55.280 you know, a big part of the goal there is 0:07:55.360 --> 0:08:00.560 accelerating the fight against climate change, but also there is 0:08:00.600 --> 0:08:04.280 this sort of geopolitical element, particularly about China's dominance with 0:08:04.440 --> 0:08:08.160 certain materials for batteries and so forth. When it comes 0:08:08.200 --> 0:08:12.720 to passing legislation, how much does it help if the 0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:17.200 issue at hand is somehow couched in real or perceived 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:20.520 geopolitical competition. Well, I think a couple of things help. 0:08:21.440 --> 0:08:25.280 One is a clear connection to why is it important 0:08:25.320 --> 0:08:30.920 to build domestic industrial capacity here at home? And with 0:08:31.000 --> 0:08:34.800 respect to clean energy, you know, the United States has 0:08:34.840 --> 0:08:38.760 a competitive advantage with respect to energy, lower cost energy, 0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:42.520 and we have an imperative to address the climate crisis. 0:08:43.160 --> 0:08:46.240 And the basic theory of the investments in the Inflation 0:08:46.280 --> 0:08:51.120 Reduction Act is around providing long term technology neutral incentives 0:08:51.480 --> 0:08:56.080 to dramatically drive down the cost of low carbon and 0:08:56.160 --> 0:09:00.600 zero carbon technologies in the United States at scale, which 0:09:00.600 --> 0:09:05.480 will have a global benefit but will create significant economic 0:09:05.559 --> 0:09:09.520 strength here at home. So having that story um and 0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:13.360 having that credible story very important. Second thing that's important 0:09:13.440 --> 0:09:15.800 and is true of all of these investments both but 0:09:15.920 --> 0:09:19.720 both on cleanergy and semiconductors, is that they are explicitly 0:09:19.800 --> 0:09:22.720 place based, in the sense that if you're a member 0:09:22.720 --> 0:09:24.960 of Congress or you're thinking about this in terms of 0:09:24.960 --> 0:09:27.720 what is it actually going to mean? The goal is 0:09:27.760 --> 0:09:32.760 to encourage actual investments in places, particularly in places that 0:09:33.200 --> 0:09:36.640 have where their productive potential has not been fully realized. 0:09:36.640 --> 0:09:38.840 And that means parts of the country that you know 0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:43.000 that have been that have not fully benefited from higher 0:09:43.600 --> 0:09:48.760 economic expansions. That helps too, because it allows people to see, um, 0:09:48.800 --> 0:09:51.080 the way in which this might concretely help their district. 0:09:51.160 --> 0:09:53.760 And it's what you see. We see the changing politics 0:09:53.840 --> 0:09:56.120 of this. On the ground. You see a number of 0:09:56.520 --> 0:10:00.240 either read or purple districts around the country where now 0:10:00.280 --> 0:10:03.000 there's a historic amount of investment in building it, whether 0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:07.480 it's a battery factory or new production of hydrogen or 0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:12.120 small modular nuclear reactors, and these become sources of jobs 0:10:12.120 --> 0:10:17.199 and economic opportunity and revitalization in their own right. Um. 0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:20.000 And then you know, I think that they I guess 0:10:20.000 --> 0:10:22.720 what I would say about that. Your the geopolitical point 0:10:22.720 --> 0:10:25.440 in your part of your question is that I don't 0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:28.000 think any of this can be done and thought of 0:10:28.040 --> 0:10:30.880 in a vacuum. We've made mistakes in policy in the 0:10:30.920 --> 0:10:33.440 past of trying to think of the sort of free market, 0:10:33.480 --> 0:10:36.640 the global free market as a as a as a monolith. 0:10:36.760 --> 0:10:39.960 And one of the things, particularly in the post pandemic 0:10:40.160 --> 0:10:42.319 environment is that we have to be very clear eyed 0:10:42.360 --> 0:10:47.920 and realistic about the state of geopolitical and global economic competition. 0:10:48.480 --> 0:10:52.280 And so therefore, whether you're you have to identify those 0:10:52.280 --> 0:10:56.000 places in those areas where China, through non market practices 0:10:56.120 --> 0:11:00.920 and a stated commitment to dominate certain industries, has ended 0:11:01.000 --> 0:11:06.480 up expropriating technology and distorting the market in ways that 0:11:06.600 --> 0:11:08.960 we have to grapple with realistically, and we can't ignore. 0:11:09.360 --> 0:11:13.480 And so that is certainly always part of the conversation. 0:11:13.920 --> 0:11:16.320 In some cases it's a you know, in some cases 0:11:16.360 --> 0:11:19.840 it adds an additional argument to the case, but in 0:11:19.880 --> 0:11:23.840 all cases it has to be very present. We can't 0:11:23.840 --> 0:11:27.880 ignore those things anymore. So just on this note, I mean, 0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:32.800 there is a fine line between strategic industrial policy and 0:11:33.600 --> 0:11:37.520 protectionism and beggar thy neighbor type policies. And we have 0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:41.480 seen some U S allies make noise about, you know, 0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:45.600 some of the issues embedded in bills that happened past um, 0:11:45.720 --> 0:11:48.240 you know, specifically the Inflation Reduction Act and maybe the 0:11:48.320 --> 0:11:52.199 Chips Act UM. And then when it comes to China specifically, 0:11:52.240 --> 0:11:54.800 we have seen the Biden administration in some respects go 0:11:55.000 --> 0:11:59.440 harder on China's technology sector than um, you know, even 0:11:59.559 --> 0:12:05.600 the previous Trump administration. How do you encourage strategically important 0:12:06.240 --> 0:12:11.360 industrial initiatives and capabilities in the US without causing issues 0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:16.680 or tensions with other countries. Yeah, it's a great question. Look, 0:12:16.679 --> 0:12:19.920 I think the first important thing is when we're identifying 0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:23.920 elements of an industrial strategy, it's important to recognize that 0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:28.920 with clean energy and semiconductors, you both have sectors or 0:12:28.960 --> 0:12:33.600 areas where the world, the global economy is significantly short supply. 0:12:34.360 --> 0:12:36.280 So over the next decade, we're going to need to 0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:40.959 significantly advance the rate of semiconductor production, both legacy and 0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:46.760 cutting edge semiconductor production all around the globe. Clean energy, uh, 0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:50.120 we are in every jurisdiction on the planet going need 0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:54.800 going to need to significantly scale clean energy production in 0:12:54.880 --> 0:13:00.520 terms of electrons, storage, distribution, transmission. That needs to happen everywhere. 0:13:00.559 --> 0:13:06.160 So when there is a globally a need for greater supply, 0:13:06.760 --> 0:13:10.320 you have less concern about the sort of traditional critique, 0:13:10.559 --> 0:13:13.280 which is that you have a fixed supply and then 0:13:13.320 --> 0:13:17.880 you're going to create an inefficient um uh, an inefficient 0:13:18.160 --> 0:13:20.920 subsidy race to try to uh, you know, buy off 0:13:21.000 --> 0:13:23.680 a fixed supply in both of these areas, you don't 0:13:23.720 --> 0:13:27.160 have that operating. That's number one. Number two is if 0:13:27.160 --> 0:13:30.079 you look at the Inflation Reduction Act in particular, our 0:13:30.160 --> 0:13:33.120 allies don't really have anything to fear and have a 0:13:33.160 --> 0:13:37.840 lot to gain by the United States providing this long 0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:42.680 term technology technology neutral set of incentives. The principal effective 0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:46.199 which will be to drive down the cost of deployable 0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:52.120 clean energy technologies. So our investments, for example, in accelerating 0:13:52.440 --> 0:13:56.920 deployable low cost hydrogen or deployable low cost small modular 0:13:57.000 --> 0:14:00.640 nuclear reactors will have a very significant global benefit because 0:14:00.640 --> 0:14:04.160 it means those technologies are deployable at lower cost and 0:14:04.280 --> 0:14:07.559 greater scale uh worldwide. We've seen this in the past 0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:11.160 in Germany's investment in solar technology two decades ago, the 0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:14.880 United States investment in solar and wind technology a decade ago, 0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:19.360 and that generates benefits. At the same time, it's also 0:14:19.360 --> 0:14:22.880 important that we take seriously and work with our partners 0:14:22.880 --> 0:14:27.160 and allies and identify common challenges. We all benefit from 0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:31.640 having more secure supply chains and clearer access to the 0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:35.320 inputs and the components necessary to build out semiconductors, to 0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:38.280 build out clean energy inputs, we've all seen and we've 0:14:38.280 --> 0:14:41.920 all experienced what happens when those supply chains are brittle 0:14:42.080 --> 0:14:44.800 and they break. So there's a lot of opportunity to 0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:48.960 partner together. But in the main, when the world needs 0:14:49.040 --> 0:14:51.960 much greater supply and you have the the US government 0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:54.800 stepping up and saying we are going to drive greater 0:14:54.880 --> 0:14:59.240 supply in a way that drives down costs of deployable technology, 0:14:59.400 --> 0:15:02.480 that's a much more opportunity than constraint from the world 0:15:02.600 --> 0:15:22.400 count Since you mentioned driving down prices of important clean 0:15:22.520 --> 0:15:26.280 energy components, I mean, it is true that China has 0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:30.920 made a lot of investment into renewable tech, including solar panels. 0:15:30.960 --> 0:15:35.960 So how does the administration balance I guess the need 0:15:36.120 --> 0:15:40.440 to build up some of that capability at home with 0:15:40.680 --> 0:15:44.920 the efficiencies and perhaps the lower, you know, the lower 0:15:44.960 --> 0:15:50.600 cost of production of Chinese made renewable technology like solar panels. 0:15:51.080 --> 0:15:54.120 I think the experience of the last several years underscores 0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:57.200 how important it is for the United States and for 0:15:58.880 --> 0:16:04.040 our allies as well, to have reliable access to secure 0:16:04.080 --> 0:16:09.320 supply chains that are not reliant on China dominating certain 0:16:09.360 --> 0:16:13.800 technologies and certain industries. We need to diversify those supply 0:16:13.920 --> 0:16:17.120 chains um. That in the main means that we need 0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:21.040 to build capacity here in the United States, including as 0:16:21.080 --> 0:16:26.920 you mentioned, in upstream solar technologies, including an upstream battery technologies. 0:16:27.400 --> 0:16:31.040 A lot of the actual I P the original technology 0:16:31.080 --> 0:16:36.160 that has gone into these uh these outputs was created 0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:38.800 in the United States, and over the course of a 0:16:38.880 --> 0:16:44.160 decade or two, the Chinese model was to take or 0:16:44.440 --> 0:16:50.320 expropriate that technology, use massive subsidies and non market interventions 0:16:50.360 --> 0:16:53.080 with the goal of trying to then dominate those industries. 0:16:54.000 --> 0:16:56.880 That model is not something that we can rely on 0:16:57.800 --> 0:17:02.040 over the um. Over the long term. We need diversification, 0:17:02.920 --> 0:17:05.359 and so that has to be that has to be 0:17:05.359 --> 0:17:07.399 a priority, and it has to be a geopolitical and 0:17:07.440 --> 0:17:10.399 an economic priority to do so. And so the question is, 0:17:10.440 --> 0:17:12.159 how can you do that in a way that is 0:17:12.200 --> 0:17:15.440 the most efficient and effective. And that's what I think 0:17:15.480 --> 0:17:18.080 we're trying to do now, which is provide these long 0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:20.480 term incentives. You know, I I talked to a lot 0:17:20.520 --> 0:17:23.679 of companies and CEOs who are trying to assess the 0:17:23.680 --> 0:17:26.679 impact of the inflation reduction now, for example, and what 0:17:26.760 --> 0:17:30.199 I hear consistently is we now have the certainty that 0:17:30.240 --> 0:17:33.360 we need. These incentives are highly efficient because they are 0:17:33.920 --> 0:17:36.240 technology neutral and they're locked in for the long term. 0:17:36.320 --> 0:17:38.159 So we now have the certainty that we need to 0:17:38.200 --> 0:17:42.359 plan against that, and that's going to allow the kind 0:17:42.359 --> 0:17:44.080 of build out in the United States that I don't 0:17:44.119 --> 0:17:46.280 think we've seen in the past decade. I said in 0:17:46.320 --> 0:17:49.400 the introduction that the first two years, these first two 0:17:49.440 --> 0:17:53.480 years of the bind administration have been almost shockingly consequential. 0:17:53.560 --> 0:17:55.520 But in a way like I kind of think that 0:17:55.600 --> 0:17:58.879 might be premature, because well, the Chips Act and the 0:17:58.920 --> 0:18:03.000 Inflation Reduction Act are both big bills that take on 0:18:03.119 --> 0:18:06.280 big challenges. We don't know that they're going to be 0:18:06.440 --> 0:18:08.840 a success. And I think the jury is obviously, you know, 0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:11.320 we're going to have to wait several years, you know, 0:18:11.400 --> 0:18:15.440 going to the Chip sac specifically, you know, at what point, 0:18:15.520 --> 0:18:18.679 I don't know, five years, ten years, two years, What 0:18:18.800 --> 0:18:21.119 should we look at. What are the benchmarks that we 0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:26.560 should say this worked or didn't. Absolutely, and I think 0:18:26.640 --> 0:18:28.760 you are right that the proof of the pudding here 0:18:28.840 --> 0:18:31.840 is going to be in the execution and the implementation 0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:35.960 across time. With respect to the Chips Act, the most 0:18:36.000 --> 0:18:39.439 important outcome metric, even you know, across all of the 0:18:39.480 --> 0:18:43.160 outputs of semiconductor fabs that dot the landscape of the 0:18:43.359 --> 0:18:49.359 American economy is, have we changed that downward trajectory where 0:18:49.359 --> 0:18:54.159 we used to produce about the global chip capacity and 0:18:54.200 --> 0:18:57.920 we're now down to Have we changed the trajectory where 0:18:58.400 --> 0:19:02.479 today none of the leading edge chips sort of the 0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:05.520 most cutting edge technology are made in the United States? 0:19:05.880 --> 0:19:09.120 And are we moving back to a place not where 0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:11.080 the United States is producing all of the world's chips 0:19:11.119 --> 0:19:13.119 or even most of the world's chips. That's not. But 0:19:13.240 --> 0:19:17.000 the goal is to build capacity back to a place 0:19:17.040 --> 0:19:20.800 where we have the core elements of it, of the 0:19:20.840 --> 0:19:27.400 innovation base around the chip technology and the core capabilities 0:19:27.960 --> 0:19:31.879 of manufacturing at scale through fabs in the in the 0:19:31.960 --> 0:19:34.200 United States, we can we will be able to look 0:19:34.320 --> 0:19:37.240 forward and back a decade from now and say how 0:19:37.480 --> 0:19:40.920 far along that journey have we made. I think we're 0:19:40.920 --> 0:19:44.720 off to a very strong start. Even before we have 0:19:45.600 --> 0:19:48.159 given out the grants under the Chips Act. We're seeing 0:19:48.600 --> 0:19:52.080 companies across the sector, in the industry and across the 0:19:52.119 --> 0:19:57.199 country moving forward and breaking ground on facilities. So we 0:19:57.280 --> 0:19:59.520 are off, I think, to a strong start, but that 0:19:59.600 --> 0:20:02.480 the proof will will be in the putting there. And 0:20:02.520 --> 0:20:04.240 I would add in addition to chips in the i RA, 0:20:04.440 --> 0:20:09.240 I wouldn't site of the infrastructure investment because really the 0:20:09.280 --> 0:20:10.879 way that I think about this is you have to 0:20:10.920 --> 0:20:14.640 look at how those three piece of legislation interact, and 0:20:15.320 --> 0:20:18.800 some of the investments that were in the infrastructure law 0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:24.119 are actually going to be key to unlocking the potential 0:20:24.920 --> 0:20:28.760 of the clean energy and the semiconductor investments as well. 0:20:29.359 --> 0:20:30.919 Now all of that has you are right, all of 0:20:30.960 --> 0:20:33.760 that has to work together. There's lots of things that 0:20:33.840 --> 0:20:36.560 we need to keep an eye on and keep focused 0:20:36.560 --> 0:20:39.960 on the flip side of it, though, is you know, 0:20:40.520 --> 0:20:43.840 it's been decades since the United States has been able 0:20:43.880 --> 0:20:46.760 to say that we now have enacted law through Congress 0:20:46.760 --> 0:20:49.520 and on the other side, these kind of multi year 0:20:49.720 --> 0:20:54.840 public investments tools at the ready, and you know that 0:20:55.359 --> 0:20:58.320 really does represent a you know, we're in a different place. 0:20:58.320 --> 0:21:00.440 We're in a very different place were before. So I 0:21:00.480 --> 0:21:03.560 want to ask one more follow up on chips specifically, 0:21:03.600 --> 0:21:07.280 And you mentioned, you know, the the incentives to build 0:21:07.480 --> 0:21:10.920 fabs here, and as you said, there already have been announcements. 0:21:10.960 --> 0:21:13.720 It seems very likely that we are going to see 0:21:13.840 --> 0:21:16.680 more building that being said, you know, when I think 0:21:16.680 --> 0:21:19.600 about like the crowding in effect that you mentioned and 0:21:19.680 --> 0:21:22.639 past positive experiences that the US has had with it, 0:21:22.960 --> 0:21:26.040 you know, one of the stories is not just the 0:21:26.119 --> 0:21:29.760 incentives of the public money, but the public buyer. The 0:21:29.800 --> 0:21:32.399 fact that whether it's the Defense Department, whether it was 0:21:32.520 --> 0:21:35.760 NASA was a huge buyer of semiconductors in the past. 0:21:36.359 --> 0:21:37.840 And you know, one of the things I read in 0:21:37.920 --> 0:21:40.879 Chip Wars was they were talking about how like the 0:21:41.000 --> 0:21:44.240 NASA in particular was a great accelerant of consumer tech 0:21:44.320 --> 0:21:48.520 because it the miniaturization drive to fit technology onto the 0:21:48.640 --> 0:21:52.920 rocket accelerated gains that then helped create the consumer tech 0:21:53.000 --> 0:21:57.480 market because smaller things, you know, make for good consumer products. 0:21:57.880 --> 0:21:59.920 Is that going to be a challenge, Like that scene 0:22:00.040 --> 0:22:04.840 is different than past successful areas of industrial strategy, the 0:22:04.960 --> 0:22:08.200 lack of that sort of like buyer of last resort 0:22:08.560 --> 0:22:10.760 for domestic made tech, and is that going to be 0:22:10.760 --> 0:22:13.760 a challenge? Well, you mentioned tip Wards is a great book, 0:22:13.760 --> 0:22:18.280 and and we have we have benefited from Chris Miller's 0:22:18.320 --> 0:22:22.119 the author's insight along even the last year quite a 0:22:22.119 --> 0:22:25.840 bit all the way. Yeah, I think so it is 0:22:25.880 --> 0:22:28.560 absolutely the case. One of the one of the under 0:22:29.320 --> 0:22:34.840 represented issues in the semiconductor market is recognizing how important 0:22:34.960 --> 0:22:39.360 the customer is and the end customer is. And one 0:22:39.359 --> 0:22:41.480 of the most interesting conversations that we've had over the 0:22:41.480 --> 0:22:43.399 course last year was when the President went out to 0:22:43.480 --> 0:22:47.320 Phoenix to u t SMC. They're Brown, They're a a 0:22:47.440 --> 0:22:51.880 groundbreaking for their second fab and we met there at 0:22:51.880 --> 0:22:55.680 t s MC, not only with the leadership of that company, 0:22:55.880 --> 0:22:58.840 but with Tim Cook from Apple, Lisa Suit from a 0:22:59.000 --> 0:23:03.399 m D of the are big consumers, and around the table, 0:23:03.560 --> 0:23:06.560 the conversation was very instructive to your point, which is 0:23:06.600 --> 0:23:10.359 that the the outcomes here are as much about the 0:23:10.440 --> 0:23:14.919 end consumer as they are about the the producer, and 0:23:15.000 --> 0:23:19.240 that interplay between the two is critical. Now now to 0:23:19.280 --> 0:23:22.400 your question, where does the US government play in being 0:23:22.440 --> 0:23:25.480 a buyer of last resort or being an innovator by 0:23:25.520 --> 0:23:28.320 dint of our purchasing power. Well, there's two parts of 0:23:28.320 --> 0:23:30.880 the semiconductor pieces that are important. One is there are 0:23:31.359 --> 0:23:37.240 critical chip technologies for core national security priorities, for actual 0:23:38.080 --> 0:23:42.520 um munitions and other elements of our national security complex, 0:23:42.760 --> 0:23:45.119 where we are, in fact the last the buyer of 0:23:45.200 --> 0:23:48.199 last resort, and we have a huge incentive for innovation 0:23:48.760 --> 0:23:53.600 around downscaling, around durability in all all manner of different 0:23:53.640 --> 0:23:56.840 weather conditions and otherwise. So that is one element and 0:23:56.880 --> 0:23:59.439 I think that that will that will become relevant. But 0:23:59.520 --> 0:24:01.320 the other part, the part of the Chips Act that 0:24:01.359 --> 0:24:03.880 people have paid less attention to, is there's these big 0:24:03.880 --> 0:24:06.800 grants to encourage the building of fabs, but there's also 0:24:06.840 --> 0:24:09.639 eleven billion dollars, a historically large amount of money to 0:24:09.720 --> 0:24:16.199 invest in building research and innovation close to the building 0:24:16.240 --> 0:24:20.320 of chip fabs to try to rejuvenate the innovation base 0:24:20.400 --> 0:24:23.920 and the research base for key leading edge to chip 0:24:23.960 --> 0:24:27.879 technology technological applications. And that research will be done in 0:24:27.920 --> 0:24:32.240 conjunction with the Department of Defense. UH. The other services 0:24:32.320 --> 0:24:35.560 will be done with the National Labs. And that's also 0:24:35.600 --> 0:24:37.199 a key part of this because at the end of 0:24:37.200 --> 0:24:41.359 the day, if you don't actually created an ecosystem for innovation, 0:24:42.119 --> 0:24:44.800 then the fab you build will, by the time you 0:24:44.840 --> 0:24:46.600 build it will be sort of out of sync with 0:24:46.640 --> 0:24:48.920 where your customers are going to want to be down 0:24:48.960 --> 0:24:51.400 the road. Just on this note, you know, Joe kind 0:24:51.400 --> 0:24:53.720 of asked you the forward looking question of how do 0:24:53.760 --> 0:24:56.159 you evaluate the success of all these programs I'm going 0:24:56.200 --> 0:24:59.080 to ask you a backwards looking question, but I always 0:24:59.080 --> 0:25:01.240 wanted to you know, I always wanted to hear your 0:25:01.240 --> 0:25:05.200 perspective on this. But how do you actually go about 0:25:05.240 --> 0:25:10.280 identifying these sorts of choke points in the US economy 0:25:10.440 --> 0:25:14.600 in real time or these areas that require additional investment? 0:25:14.680 --> 0:25:19.240 Because some things, okay, sure, post COVID, maybe they became obvious, 0:25:19.400 --> 0:25:21.479 like the fact that we had a bunch of ships 0:25:21.520 --> 0:25:24.119 waiting to unload at the ports. That was something that 0:25:24.160 --> 0:25:26.679 we could see and everyone could talk about it. But 0:25:26.800 --> 0:25:31.119 what is the process for actually identifying these areas of 0:25:31.160 --> 0:25:34.560 strategic interest? Do people come to you and talk to 0:25:34.600 --> 0:25:39.200 you about, you know, potential investments or how does it work? Exactly? Well, 0:25:39.240 --> 0:25:40.919 it works in a couple of ways. The first is 0:25:41.000 --> 0:25:44.040 that a lot of what we have been focused on 0:25:44.080 --> 0:25:46.720 over the course of the last two years and really 0:25:46.720 --> 0:25:48.960 the eight that eighteen month period of really trying to 0:25:49.359 --> 0:25:52.679 design and craft and work with Congress on legislation, I 0:25:52.720 --> 0:25:56.560 was trying to execute and implement on identified priorities that 0:25:57.240 --> 0:25:59.840 people have been working on for several years. And even 0:26:00.000 --> 0:26:02.439 where we came into office that the president as a 0:26:02.480 --> 0:26:06.639 candidate was identifying as priorities, and so particularly if you 0:26:06.760 --> 0:26:11.280 think about what is needed to drive the deployment of 0:26:11.320 --> 0:26:14.840 clean energy at scale and low cost. That's been work 0:26:14.920 --> 0:26:19.920 that has been underway scientifically, technologically, in policy terms for 0:26:20.000 --> 0:26:22.919 some significant set of years, but but in terms of 0:26:22.960 --> 0:26:25.560 how we operate from the government side. One of the 0:26:25.560 --> 0:26:27.800 first things we did here in the first month in 0:26:27.880 --> 0:26:31.439 office was the President exist issued an executive order and 0:26:31.480 --> 0:26:35.560 we launched this effort to try to study in a 0:26:35.640 --> 0:26:39.600 deep way supply chain resilience and supply chain vulnerabilities across 0:26:39.640 --> 0:26:43.160 the economy. Because to try to actually identify choke points 0:26:43.160 --> 0:26:47.800 where you had that intersection between economic and national security 0:26:48.200 --> 0:26:52.679 risks and also places of opportunity where you might be 0:26:52.720 --> 0:26:56.000 able to use public investment to actually solve a problem 0:26:56.000 --> 0:26:58.160 with the private market on its own wasn't going to solve. 0:26:58.240 --> 0:27:01.720 And so we ran a process over six months and 0:27:01.800 --> 0:27:05.440 twelve months of trying to ask our experts at the agencies, 0:27:05.480 --> 0:27:10.520 whether it was in biopharmaceutica sceutical products, or semiconductors or 0:27:10.760 --> 0:27:13.919 clean energy upstream components, to say, tell us what you 0:27:14.000 --> 0:27:17.320 know about based on the existing research and data and otherwise, 0:27:17.520 --> 0:27:20.280 and try to pull that together into a more comprehensive 0:27:20.320 --> 0:27:22.960 diagnostic of where do we see the gaps, where do 0:27:23.000 --> 0:27:26.119 we see the challenges. That work is hard work to 0:27:26.160 --> 0:27:29.040 do at the same time that we're in the frenzied 0:27:29.080 --> 0:27:31.960 pace of the ports are shutting down, the ports of 0:27:32.080 --> 0:27:34.720 ports are overclogged, or we have a you know, a 0:27:34.760 --> 0:27:39.520 particular problem around fertilizer, or you know, or uh, Vladimir 0:27:39.560 --> 0:27:42.080 Putin decides to invade Ukraine, and we have all of 0:27:42.080 --> 0:27:45.600 these fast moving issues in the world. But it's also 0:27:45.680 --> 0:27:50.240 important work to do to take advantage of the expertise 0:27:50.320 --> 0:27:53.359 and the embedded knowledge base across the executive branch. So 0:27:53.400 --> 0:27:56.320 we've tried to do those in tandem. I think some 0:27:56.359 --> 0:27:59.280 of the most important work that we have done exists 0:27:59.359 --> 0:28:02.520 in those ports. For example, we have these now we 0:28:02.640 --> 0:28:05.199 issued reports on the one year anniversary of that that 0:28:05.320 --> 0:28:08.879 kind of went through these different six difference key supply chains. 0:28:08.920 --> 0:28:13.639 We studied and analyzed. Some of those conclusions were immediately 0:28:13.680 --> 0:28:16.400 adopted and built into for example, of the Chips act 0:28:16.800 --> 0:28:20.320 as it um as it ultimately passed, because you know, 0:28:20.359 --> 0:28:22.399 it took us in the legislative process a bit longer 0:28:22.400 --> 0:28:24.880 than we had originally anticipated to get that bill done, 0:28:25.440 --> 0:28:28.240 So it's a work in progress and iterative building on 0:28:28.359 --> 0:28:30.960 work that's done before, but really trying to do that 0:28:31.160 --> 0:28:33.920 study at the same time that you're managing fire girls. Okay, 0:28:33.960 --> 0:28:37.840 so you mentioned um this sort of like the fire 0:28:37.920 --> 0:28:41.360 drill hair unfired challenge of dealing with all of these 0:28:41.400 --> 0:28:44.640 supply chain issues in real time, which is a good 0:28:44.720 --> 0:28:47.520 opportunity for me to pivot a little bit to the 0:28:47.680 --> 0:28:51.800 current macro conditions because we have seen a lot of 0:28:52.000 --> 0:28:55.880 supply chain healing by almost any objective measure. I don't 0:28:55.880 --> 0:28:58.480 think there are the big lines at the ports the 0:28:58.520 --> 0:29:01.600 way there were. Many of the eruptions seemed to be fading, 0:29:01.760 --> 0:29:06.600 and yet inflation still uncomfortably high. We got a CPI 0:29:06.800 --> 0:29:09.600 report that kind of came in line this week, but 0:29:09.720 --> 0:29:11.840 I think when people looked at it, they're like, this 0:29:11.920 --> 0:29:14.280 is not an economy where we're on some sort of 0:29:14.280 --> 0:29:19.200 like glide path down to two per cent? Why is 0:29:19.320 --> 0:29:24.200 inflation still so persistently high? In your view, after all 0:29:24.240 --> 0:29:27.000 of the supply chain healing, a lot of the transitory 0:29:27.040 --> 0:29:32.240 factors having passed. Well, everything about the economy today is unique, 0:29:32.280 --> 0:29:34.080 and one of the things I take away from two 0:29:34.200 --> 0:29:38.160 years is an extraordinary amount of humility that almost all 0:29:38.200 --> 0:29:42.760 of the confident projections about the ways in which past 0:29:42.840 --> 0:29:46.360 models applied to the current situation would operate have proved 0:29:46.400 --> 0:29:50.440 to be at best challenged and often wrong. I think 0:29:50.440 --> 0:29:52.040 that if you look at the course of the last 0:29:52.920 --> 0:29:55.160 six months, if you look at the last two quarters, 0:29:55.640 --> 0:29:58.440 I think you we continue to see that story, which is, 0:29:58.920 --> 0:30:07.520 we have seen meaningful progress in inflation moderating into an 0:30:07.600 --> 0:30:12.040 environment where we have continued to see ongoing labor market 0:30:12.120 --> 0:30:16.200 resilience and ongoing resilience at the consumer level. The recent 0:30:16.280 --> 0:30:19.840 consumer data that we have gotten, I think was surprising 0:30:20.200 --> 0:30:24.880 to some as well in that respect, and so I 0:30:24.920 --> 0:30:28.760 think that that moderation in the context of a resilient 0:30:28.840 --> 0:30:31.120 labor market and a resilient consumer was something that a 0:30:31.160 --> 0:30:33.600 lot of people thought was not going to come to 0:30:33.640 --> 0:30:36.200 pass over the course of the last six months. And 0:30:36.240 --> 0:30:39.680 so the question now going forward is and we continue 0:30:39.760 --> 0:30:44.920 to see that progress in moderation on the inflation side 0:30:45.640 --> 0:30:48.640 without having to give up all of the economic gains 0:30:48.680 --> 0:30:53.120 associated with the resilient labor market and consumer and business 0:30:53.120 --> 0:30:56.880 balance sheets. As I look forward, I certainly think there's 0:30:57.680 --> 0:31:01.400 a good and clear path for that to happen. It 0:31:01.560 --> 0:31:03.800 does involve some of the you know, some of the 0:31:03.840 --> 0:31:08.400 elements on the inflation side. The dynamics on goods and 0:31:09.200 --> 0:31:13.720 services and housing are all distinct right now, and so well, 0:31:14.400 --> 0:31:17.120 I we always try to check ourselves from doing the 0:31:17.200 --> 0:31:20.440 kind of great decomposition of pulling every element in or 0:31:20.480 --> 0:31:23.720 out of the inflation numbers, which we've all done over 0:31:23.760 --> 0:31:26.560 the course of time. We know that, you know, the 0:31:26.600 --> 0:31:30.040 housing data that's in the inflation prints we're seeing now 0:31:30.480 --> 0:31:33.960 probably reflects actual economic circumstances from about six months ago. 0:31:34.280 --> 0:31:36.440 You guys have spent a lot of time on the 0:31:36.840 --> 0:31:40.040 housing related topics, so I know you know that well, 0:31:40.080 --> 0:31:43.040 and so you know, I think that if we look 0:31:43.080 --> 0:31:45.000 forward to the both to the next six months, but 0:31:45.040 --> 0:31:48.200 a little bit beyond, I do think that the fact 0:31:48.200 --> 0:31:50.920 that we've got a degree of resilience in our labor 0:31:50.960 --> 0:31:54.960 market and we have companies in no small part because 0:31:55.000 --> 0:31:58.440 of our policy looking forward and investing through this transition 0:31:59.680 --> 0:32:03.560 give us a unique set of economic strengths that very 0:32:03.600 --> 0:32:07.240 few other countries have right now to sort of navigate 0:32:07.280 --> 0:32:25.520 through this next leg of this long term You know, 0:32:25.720 --> 0:32:30.080 you were the sort of unacknowledged inspiration for a recent 0:32:30.200 --> 0:32:35.240 Add Thoughts episode about the price of plastic and the idea, 0:32:36.040 --> 0:32:39.200 the idea that maybe you know, packaging costs had gone 0:32:39.280 --> 0:32:43.080 up a lot, and packaging is on virtually everything that 0:32:43.120 --> 0:32:45.959 we buy. Can you talk a little bit more in 0:32:45.960 --> 0:32:50.720 a sort of more granular way about unexpected pockets of 0:32:50.800 --> 0:32:54.440 inflation over the past few years. What surprised you most 0:32:54.720 --> 0:32:57.200 in that respect or what do you think was most 0:32:57.280 --> 0:33:01.680 impactful for the overall American experience when it comes to 0:33:01.800 --> 0:33:05.520 higher prices. Well, I'll tell you one of my persistant 0:33:05.600 --> 0:33:08.200 sources of frustration, and it goes to the issue that 0:33:08.240 --> 0:33:13.000 you are describing, which is why have we seen the 0:33:13.080 --> 0:33:19.760 kind of stickiness in inflation for packaged foods. So we've 0:33:19.800 --> 0:33:23.240 obviously looked a lot at food at home inflation, which 0:33:23.240 --> 0:33:25.880 is a wonky kind of one of one of those 0:33:25.920 --> 0:33:29.200 bad wonky Ethan euphemisms, which actually means food that you 0:33:29.240 --> 0:33:32.120 buy at the grocery store, and that if you decompose 0:33:32.200 --> 0:33:36.320 food at the grocery store. We've seen meaningful we've seen 0:33:36.400 --> 0:33:41.360 cooling overall in that category, but most in fresh foods 0:33:41.480 --> 0:33:44.600 and in meat and other proteins, where that the really 0:33:44.680 --> 0:33:46.840 high run up in some of those categories has come 0:33:46.880 --> 0:33:49.920 down quite significantly over the course of the last six months. 0:33:50.000 --> 0:33:52.760 We'll put eggs aside. Exist is a is a separable 0:33:52.840 --> 0:33:55.960 issue because of the Avian flu. The place where there's 0:33:56.000 --> 0:33:59.120 really been persistence is in these packaged too goods and 0:33:59.200 --> 0:34:01.800 packaged products. And I and we have spent a lot 0:34:01.840 --> 0:34:04.840 of time on the phone with the ceo s and 0:34:04.920 --> 0:34:09.600 teams at the major grocery stores and tried to understand 0:34:09.640 --> 0:34:12.799 what's going on there when they interact with their suppliers. 0:34:12.840 --> 0:34:15.319 Why is it that they're not able to, you know, 0:34:15.360 --> 0:34:19.240 put more pressure constructor pressure on them to bring prices 0:34:19.239 --> 0:34:22.560 down through the supply chain. And I think that there 0:34:22.719 --> 0:34:25.560 is a an issue there that we need to spend 0:34:25.560 --> 0:34:28.799 more time on looking in the future around why and 0:34:28.920 --> 0:34:33.000 how the packaging itself of the food because most of 0:34:33.000 --> 0:34:35.640 the you know, in this category, most of the cost 0:34:35.920 --> 0:34:39.360 is not actually the food input itself, it's the packaging 0:34:39.480 --> 0:34:41.920 and it's the other elements that go in. You know, 0:34:41.960 --> 0:34:44.600 It's like you look at a box of cereal, that 0:34:44.960 --> 0:34:48.799 principal cost is associated with the packaging and the like. 0:34:49.520 --> 0:34:52.640 And so that has been a persistently sticky one and 0:34:52.680 --> 0:34:54.840 I think it's been frustrating to the to some of 0:34:54.880 --> 0:34:58.440 the some of the end retailers. I think we are 0:34:58.520 --> 0:35:02.560 starting to see that, but the low through has been 0:35:02.560 --> 0:35:05.239 frustrating and surprising that it takes a longer period of 0:35:05.280 --> 0:35:10.360 time for those that changes in the upstream supply of 0:35:10.400 --> 0:35:14.040 the input components to actually flow through to the outputs. 0:35:14.520 --> 0:35:17.240 I think there are some competitive issues that probably would 0:35:17.680 --> 0:35:19.879 merit greater scrutiny when we get to the other side 0:35:19.920 --> 0:35:23.160 of this. I want to ask. I guess it's like 0:35:23.320 --> 0:35:27.480 a how DC works question, and maybe I'm the only 0:35:27.480 --> 0:35:29.880 one interested in this, but you know, like one area 0:35:30.000 --> 0:35:33.760 in which the Biden administration's approach seems to have clearly 0:35:33.880 --> 0:35:38.200 reduced inflation is through the SPR and the selling of oil, 0:35:38.400 --> 0:35:41.560 reducing gasoline prices, and it's something that we've talked a 0:35:41.560 --> 0:35:44.600 lot about on this show over the last year and 0:35:44.600 --> 0:35:48.319 a half or so. But my question is, actually, you know, 0:35:48.680 --> 0:35:51.640 when they say, okay, you're gonna we're gonna sell oil 0:35:51.680 --> 0:35:54.319 from the SPR with this commitment to buy it, and 0:35:54.360 --> 0:35:57.600 then there's this long process where it's like, Okay, the 0:35:57.680 --> 0:35:59.960 Department of Energy has to spend all this time coming 0:36:00.040 --> 0:36:02.320 up with the rules for the auction and the tender 0:36:02.520 --> 0:36:04.359 to buy back the oil at some point in the 0:36:04.360 --> 0:36:08.400 future unnecessary component. Why does that take so long? I 0:36:08.440 --> 0:36:12.920 mean everyone reports to the same boss, the president. Why 0:36:13.080 --> 0:36:15.040 does it Why can't it be one of these things 0:36:15.080 --> 0:36:17.960 where the President says, I want to do this, and 0:36:18.000 --> 0:36:20.319 then it's like and get the rules, and like the 0:36:20.360 --> 0:36:22.080 next week they're like, all right, this is how we're 0:36:22.080 --> 0:36:24.520 gonna do it. What is the sort of like process 0:36:24.520 --> 0:36:27.320 by which is like, are still waiting on the Department 0:36:27.320 --> 0:36:29.879 of Energy to come up with the explanation? Like, why 0:36:29.880 --> 0:36:33.760 do things seem to take so long? You're like channeling 0:36:33.800 --> 0:36:36.640 my inner monologue of frustration as any c director on 0:36:36.640 --> 0:36:40.200 a daily basis learn in this seat about how the 0:36:40.800 --> 0:36:44.640 executive branch actually operates. Well, well, look, I mean you're 0:36:44.840 --> 0:36:46.879 the specific example you're raising is I think a good 0:36:46.880 --> 0:36:49.439 example of both the ways in which you can move 0:36:49.480 --> 0:36:52.919 both really quickly and then also where you can't. So, 0:36:53.600 --> 0:36:55.160 you know, in the wake of in the wake of 0:36:55.480 --> 0:36:57.840 about a year ago, right in the wake of Putin's invasion, 0:36:58.400 --> 0:37:02.680 when we took a policy decision and the President took 0:37:02.719 --> 0:37:05.440 a policy decision that it was right and appropriate to 0:37:05.640 --> 0:37:10.320 execute a historically large sale out of the strategic petroleum reserve. 0:37:10.560 --> 0:37:14.479 That action happened on a very expedited basis. We went 0:37:14.560 --> 0:37:17.359 to our international allies. We had to convene the at 0:37:17.400 --> 0:37:21.160 the within the i e A, the International Energy Agency, 0:37:21.200 --> 0:37:24.319 with our partners and allies to get agreement around a 0:37:24.320 --> 0:37:29.040 coordinated response. We then needed to actually execute operationally to 0:37:29.120 --> 0:37:32.400 release oil from the reserve, which is actually not a 0:37:32.400 --> 0:37:36.680 single reserve. It's a set of caverns, salt caverns underground 0:37:36.760 --> 0:37:40.440 where oil is stored. That happened historically fast, and it 0:37:40.560 --> 0:37:46.320 historically large scale and stretched the physical capacity of the 0:37:46.840 --> 0:37:51.440 reserve itself in significant ways. And so one of the 0:37:51.480 --> 0:37:54.799 things that we're now facing is that there is a 0:37:54.840 --> 0:37:58.520 lot of operational and maintenance work that needs to take 0:37:58.560 --> 0:38:02.719 place in order to maintain the capacity for these reserves. 0:38:02.719 --> 0:38:06.640 They're they're fascinating reserves. They actually are caverns that they 0:38:06.719 --> 0:38:09.520 aren't static, They actually breathe, and they you know, they 0:38:09.560 --> 0:38:11.759 sort of moved back and forth because they are these 0:38:11.760 --> 0:38:15.919 physical facilities, and if you differ maintenance associated with them, 0:38:16.280 --> 0:38:20.680 then you're actually going to reduce the ability to to 0:38:20.840 --> 0:38:23.920 release from the reserves in a moment of crisis. So 0:38:23.960 --> 0:38:25.799 we're actually in a period right now where we need 0:38:25.840 --> 0:38:29.200 to prioritize some important maintenance on that front. It also 0:38:29.280 --> 0:38:32.239 underscores to my mind the need to do a larger 0:38:32.480 --> 0:38:36.680 infrastructure upgrade of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve itself to address 0:38:36.680 --> 0:38:39.440 some of these issues there are. There also is, to 0:38:39.480 --> 0:38:42.200 your point, though, this question of how do we move 0:38:42.239 --> 0:38:46.200 more nimbly, two new ideas that we have not done before. 0:38:46.360 --> 0:38:50.120 So the idea of how you how the Department Energy 0:38:50.160 --> 0:38:53.040 goes into the market and does a commitment to purchase 0:38:53.920 --> 0:38:56.799 down the forward price curve is an idea that in 0:38:56.920 --> 0:38:59.640 concept makes a lot of sense. In execution is novel 0:39:00.040 --> 0:39:02.520 and so from illegal and a practical and an operational 0:39:02.560 --> 0:39:04.680 perspective you have to take. You have to take the 0:39:04.719 --> 0:39:07.920 time to figure out how to do something that is novel. Certainly, 0:39:07.960 --> 0:39:10.200 I think I could name lots of examples where I 0:39:10.239 --> 0:39:13.279 personally would have liked to see that novel process work 0:39:13.360 --> 0:39:17.480 more quickly. There's also a lot of reasonable imprudent reasons 0:39:17.480 --> 0:39:20.160 why you don't want it to move too quickly, because 0:39:20.719 --> 0:39:23.759 you know you don't want to do something that might 0:39:23.800 --> 0:39:27.960 have unintended consequences, for example, pushing the limits of the 0:39:28.000 --> 0:39:31.160 physical capacity of the reserve beyond the point at which 0:39:31.200 --> 0:39:34.680 you would then take away an emergency release opportunity since 0:39:34.719 --> 0:39:38.799 you mentioned novel new ideas and just going back to 0:39:38.880 --> 0:39:41.200 the grocery aisle for a second, and the idea of 0:39:41.239 --> 0:39:45.000 maybe lower input costs not necessarily being passed on to 0:39:45.080 --> 0:39:49.480 the consumer in a timely fashion. Biden has talked about 0:39:49.480 --> 0:39:53.200 this idea of corporate greed at various points and potential 0:39:53.239 --> 0:39:56.040 price gouging at a time when a lot of Americans 0:39:56.040 --> 0:39:59.800 are under pressure by higher from higher prices. And I 0:40:00.040 --> 0:40:05.040 know there's corporate minimum tax included in the Inflation Reduction Act, 0:40:05.760 --> 0:40:08.839 but is there anything else that could be done on 0:40:08.880 --> 0:40:12.320 that front? I mean, Germany has been experimenting with price 0:40:12.400 --> 0:40:16.280 controls on gas. In the UK, there's the windfall tax 0:40:16.320 --> 0:40:19.040 on oil and gas companies, which is something that Biden 0:40:19.080 --> 0:40:23.120 has mentioned. Um, is there more you can do on that? Well? 0:40:23.120 --> 0:40:25.200 The President has been talking in recent days about the 0:40:25.280 --> 0:40:31.080 rationale behind increasing the tax on corporate stock by backs. 0:40:31.520 --> 0:40:35.960 We implement We implemented a one tax excise tax on 0:40:36.080 --> 0:40:39.520 buybacks in the Inflation Reduction Act and in the presence 0:40:39.520 --> 0:40:42.240 budget that will come out in a couple of weeks, 0:40:42.960 --> 0:40:45.799 he will pro propose to quadruple that to a four 0:40:45.880 --> 0:40:49.560 percent excise tax. But I think the other thing to 0:40:49.680 --> 0:40:53.520 do in this context is, you know, it's less about greed, 0:40:54.080 --> 0:40:59.279 because you know, there is a part of the constructive 0:40:59.280 --> 0:41:04.279 impulse of capitalism is for people to be motivated by 0:41:04.480 --> 0:41:08.359 um by profit, but instead identifying those parts of our 0:41:08.400 --> 0:41:13.720 economy where we have insufficient competition and so that profit 0:41:13.760 --> 0:41:18.120 mode it turns into generating really negative outcomes for consumers 0:41:18.239 --> 0:41:20.359 or for workers. And so the other thing I think 0:41:20.360 --> 0:41:23.319 this president has done and can do more of, is 0:41:23.360 --> 0:41:29.440 trying to be more aggressive about identifying places where, either 0:41:29.640 --> 0:41:34.400 through regulatory or in some cases deregulatory steps, we can 0:41:34.480 --> 0:41:40.360 increase competition in markets and actually reduce the ability for 0:41:41.920 --> 0:41:47.120 incumbents to actually generate profits in a way that actually, 0:41:47.640 --> 0:41:50.880 you know, has negative economic outcomes. My favorite example of 0:41:50.920 --> 0:41:55.279 this is on hearing aids, where we eliminated a rule 0:41:55.400 --> 0:41:59.040 that required hearing aids to be sold required a prescription 0:41:59.560 --> 0:42:01.719 before you could get hearing it, and so now hearing 0:42:01.760 --> 0:42:04.000 it's can be sold over the counter at drug stores 0:42:04.080 --> 0:42:08.000 and the like. Um that was a deregulatory step, but 0:42:08.080 --> 0:42:11.120 what it's done is that it's opened up this new 0:42:11.120 --> 0:42:15.560 playing field for competition where there's now new new technological 0:42:15.560 --> 0:42:19.839 innovation to try to sell lower cost hearing rates. Those 0:42:19.840 --> 0:42:22.719 folks who are innovating are motivated by the ability to 0:42:22.719 --> 0:42:25.359 make a ton of money, But they're making a ton 0:42:25.400 --> 0:42:28.000 of money with more innovative products that will end up 0:42:28.760 --> 0:42:32.919 costing the end consumer less. And so you know, that's 0:42:32.920 --> 0:42:36.759 the kind of step where you're using more fairer and 0:42:36.800 --> 0:42:40.520 more open competition to generate better economic outcomes. There's a 0:42:40.520 --> 0:42:43.719 lot of other places where there's opportunity to do that 0:42:44.520 --> 0:42:48.080 on the labor market with noncompete agreements, etcetera. I think 0:42:48.120 --> 0:42:51.480 that that's another place where this president, this administration can 0:42:51.520 --> 0:42:54.919 continue to break in the ground. So I think it's 0:42:55.000 --> 0:42:58.120 fair to say that with Republicans having one control of 0:42:58.200 --> 0:43:02.280 Congress that the legis late of window for anything significant 0:43:02.400 --> 0:43:06.759 is certain is closed for the next two years. UM, 0:43:06.760 --> 0:43:10.160 maybe some marginal stuff, you know. The one sort of 0:43:10.320 --> 0:43:13.840 area in which I don't perceive the Biden administration to 0:43:13.880 --> 0:43:18.040 have made major gains or built upon was anything sort 0:43:18.080 --> 0:43:22.440 of related to permanent um sort of welfare state expansion. 0:43:22.480 --> 0:43:26.560 The child tax credit was left to expire. Nothing was 0:43:26.760 --> 0:43:33.160 ultimately done on things like universal childcare or expanding childcare benefits, etcetera. 0:43:33.560 --> 0:43:37.040 In your view sort of looking back, like why is that? 0:43:37.239 --> 0:43:40.240 Was it? Just? Look, there's only so much that any 0:43:40.360 --> 0:43:44.120 Congress can really focus on. Was it the fault of 0:43:44.200 --> 0:43:46.440 high inflation and the fact that there is not an 0:43:46.520 --> 0:43:50.600 appetite to increase sort of sort of you know, social 0:43:50.640 --> 0:43:53.600 benefits spending at a time of high inflation that SAPs 0:43:53.640 --> 0:43:57.080 political will? Why was that a hard area to sort 0:43:57.080 --> 0:44:02.080 of consolidate or make gains up. Well, first, one caveat 0:44:02.120 --> 0:44:06.360 to your point, which is that because of the expansions 0:44:06.920 --> 0:44:10.200 that was that were first enacted in the Rescue Plan 0:44:10.520 --> 0:44:13.800 and then extended in the Inflation Production Act, this president 0:44:13.880 --> 0:44:18.480 has actually signed into law the largest structural expansion in 0:44:18.560 --> 0:44:23.360 healthcare coverage, the second largest since the nineteen sixties, the 0:44:23.400 --> 0:44:27.840 largest being the Affordable Care Act increase in the number 0:44:27.920 --> 0:44:31.960 of people getting healthcare through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, 0:44:32.040 --> 0:44:35.480 and that has led to us having the lowest uninsured 0:44:35.560 --> 0:44:39.240 rate in history. So that I think is an important caveat, 0:44:39.320 --> 0:44:43.359 non trivial caveat to um But I take your your 0:44:43.440 --> 0:44:46.120 your overall point. I think that part of what we 0:44:46.200 --> 0:44:50.440 need to do is to break out of a narrative 0:44:50.719 --> 0:44:55.400 that looks at things like UH, the child tax credit 0:44:55.800 --> 0:45:00.839 and more affordable and accessible childcare as social programs, and 0:45:00.880 --> 0:45:05.520 make more clearly and aggressively the economic case with respect 0:45:05.520 --> 0:45:09.440 to labor supply and with respect to UH, you know, 0:45:09.719 --> 0:45:15.680 family balance sheets, about why investing in UH in kids 0:45:15.760 --> 0:45:19.560 and families in this country is a is a core 0:45:19.640 --> 0:45:23.040 at core an economic priority and an economic issue that 0:45:23.040 --> 0:45:26.759 would actually have the impact of increasing labor supply and 0:45:26.800 --> 0:45:31.719 reducing price pressures in our economy across time, while also 0:45:31.760 --> 0:45:36.360 obviously generating better health and better educational outcomes for our kids. 0:45:36.719 --> 0:45:40.120 So I think the economic case is really quite compelling, 0:45:40.600 --> 0:45:42.719 but I think we need to make it and make 0:45:42.719 --> 0:45:48.120 it more clearly and avoid the sense in which that 0:45:48.200 --> 0:45:51.800 type of policy falls into a different category, a different 0:45:51.800 --> 0:45:56.160 category of social policy or family policy, and therefore is 0:45:56.440 --> 0:45:59.200 thought of differently. These need to be thought of as 0:45:59.200 --> 0:46:01.959 sort of core acton coomic priorities and things that could 0:46:02.000 --> 0:46:06.480 help in accelerating this transition that we are in the 0:46:06.480 --> 0:46:09.840 irony right now, is that things that we could do 0:46:09.960 --> 0:46:15.640 right now that would increased labor supply without adding to 0:46:16.520 --> 0:46:21.359 the federal deficit would be extraordinarily helpful in accelerating this 0:46:21.440 --> 0:46:24.160 transition that we are in, even as the FED is 0:46:24.200 --> 0:46:26.360 engaged in a sort of in there in a in 0:46:26.440 --> 0:46:31.719 a monetary tightening cycle. Since we're doing your exit interview, 0:46:32.800 --> 0:46:35.440 can I ask do you have any regrets or is 0:46:35.440 --> 0:46:38.359 there anything that you would have done differently? I mean, 0:46:38.400 --> 0:46:42.120 for instance, the big criticism of the American Rescue Plan 0:46:42.200 --> 0:46:45.080 was that perhaps it could have been more targeted so 0:46:45.120 --> 0:46:48.680 as to avoid a big bump in inflation. Or with 0:46:48.719 --> 0:46:51.160 the p P P there's a lot of discussion about, 0:46:51.280 --> 0:46:53.640 you know, maybe that could have been more targeted to 0:46:53.800 --> 0:46:56.280 so that you would avoid some of the fraud issues 0:46:56.320 --> 0:46:58.640 that have since emerged. Is there anything you would have 0:46:58.680 --> 0:47:02.400 done differently? You know, if I look back, there's on 0:47:02.480 --> 0:47:05.160 a daily and weekly basis, I think there's like there's 0:47:05.960 --> 0:47:08.440 there's dozens of micro things that as I will have 0:47:08.520 --> 0:47:11.680 time to reflect, I probably will see opportunity for us 0:47:11.719 --> 0:47:14.759 to have done differently at the margin on all of 0:47:14.800 --> 0:47:19.640 the big decisions. I think history will ultimately judge, but 0:47:19.719 --> 0:47:23.759 I I, as we sit here today, I feel quite 0:47:23.760 --> 0:47:26.680 confident that the President and we made the right call. 0:47:27.239 --> 0:47:30.920 Understanding that the legislative process is imperfect, you end up 0:47:30.960 --> 0:47:35.040 with imperfect pieces of legislation. At the end of the day, 0:47:35.200 --> 0:47:38.160 I do think one thing that is a a reality. 0:47:38.680 --> 0:47:41.080 But but if you could have changed it would have 0:47:41.440 --> 0:47:46.000 would have been better. Is that you mentioned earlier. But 0:47:46.040 --> 0:47:49.720 if you think about it, the President made the call 0:47:49.880 --> 0:47:55.439 for the American Rescue Plan on January. He signed into 0:47:55.520 --> 0:47:59.799 law of the Inflation Reduction Act on August two. That's 0:48:00.000 --> 0:48:02.720 five d and seventy nine days. It was a long time. 0:48:03.000 --> 0:48:07.759 It was a long process of legislative interaction, which I 0:48:07.880 --> 0:48:10.320 was appropriate and necessary to try to get done what 0:48:10.400 --> 0:48:13.760 we were trying to get done in a very narrowly 0:48:14.120 --> 0:48:17.120 divided Congress. But I think it was also a wearing 0:48:17.160 --> 0:48:19.919 process and it was more difficult for the American people 0:48:19.960 --> 0:48:25.240 to fully understand the thread of legislative sausage making over 0:48:25.320 --> 0:48:29.000 that long period. So you know, in a perfect world, 0:48:29.400 --> 0:48:33.040 you could could collapse that time and have gotten more 0:48:33.120 --> 0:48:36.960 quickly to the task of implementation that this administration is 0:48:37.040 --> 0:48:40.160 now in. Um we don't live in a perfect world. 0:48:40.200 --> 0:48:43.200 And at the end of the day, more important is 0:48:43.239 --> 0:48:46.439 to get the right type of legislation done. But that's 0:48:46.440 --> 0:48:48.520 certainly something that you know, that's a that has been 0:48:48.520 --> 0:48:52.279 a reality of the past two years. Briandes, thank you 0:48:52.440 --> 0:48:56.239 so much for coming back on odd lots, and even 0:48:56.239 --> 0:48:58.680 though this is your last week at the administration, doesn't 0:48:58.719 --> 0:49:00.440 mean this has to be the last time you come on. 0:49:00.680 --> 0:49:03.959 Looking forward to talking again at some point. UH really 0:49:04.000 --> 0:49:07.359 appreciate giving us an hour of your time is great. 0:49:08.719 --> 0:49:11.239 Thank you guys, Uh and UH and I look forward 0:49:11.239 --> 0:49:28.200 to talking to Thank thanks so much well, Tracy. I 0:49:28.560 --> 0:49:31.440 definitely thought that it was a treat getting to speak 0:49:31.480 --> 0:49:34.080 to Brian on his last week. And again, you know, 0:49:34.160 --> 0:49:37.440 it has been an extraordinary two years. But the proof 0:49:37.520 --> 0:49:40.279 that any of it will matter, you know, will come 0:49:40.320 --> 0:49:43.640 in the years ahead of whether the dials turn on, 0:49:43.719 --> 0:49:46.600 like our domestic capacity and all these things. Absolutely, I 0:49:47.000 --> 0:49:49.520 do think it is kind of crazy that we still 0:49:50.040 --> 0:49:53.640 don't necessarily seem to have a firm idea of exactly 0:49:53.640 --> 0:49:58.040 how inflation works. One of our oldest fingers here. Yeah, 0:49:58.080 --> 0:50:01.640 for some years, right, well for years, Sorry to bring 0:50:01.680 --> 0:50:03.480 it up again, but you know, for years it was 0:50:03.640 --> 0:50:07.880 wise and inflation higher, and now it's wise and inflation lower. 0:50:07.960 --> 0:50:11.480 And we're doing all these things, and we haven't necessarily 0:50:11.520 --> 0:50:15.080 seen companies pass on the savings, and it's going to 0:50:15.160 --> 0:50:17.480 take time for a lot of these efforts to come 0:50:17.520 --> 0:50:21.440 to fruition. Anyway, I thought that was a fascinating discussion. Um. 0:50:21.480 --> 0:50:25.320 I loved his point about packaging um and this idea 0:50:25.480 --> 0:50:29.160 that you know, maybe there are sort of unappreciated factors 0:50:29.200 --> 0:50:33.000 going into certain elements of inflation. Absolutely, you know, just 0:50:33.239 --> 0:50:37.839 also the sort of like the big historical ebbs and 0:50:37.920 --> 0:50:41.440 floods of as he put it, a government that is 0:50:41.520 --> 0:50:45.840 active in the domestic economy making prioritization, trying to crowd 0:50:46.040 --> 0:50:48.400 in investment, and it feels like, you know, it's like 0:50:48.440 --> 0:50:50.480 one of those things where like that really did go 0:50:50.600 --> 0:50:55.040 out of favor for style for decades, for decades. Probably, 0:50:55.080 --> 0:50:58.080 I think the inflation of the nineteen seventies following on 0:50:58.360 --> 0:51:00.239 some of the more active years in the night teen 0:51:00.320 --> 0:51:04.000 sixties helped kill that. So you know, it'll be interesting 0:51:04.000 --> 0:51:07.200 to see like how long this persists. And you know, 0:51:07.239 --> 0:51:10.560 one of the striking things to me is like deficit politics, 0:51:10.600 --> 0:51:12.640 how much they've gone away, how much you don't really 0:51:12.680 --> 0:51:15.439 hear about them? Are people worrying about you know so much? 0:51:15.480 --> 0:51:18.200 Like there's clearly, I would say, on both sides of 0:51:18.760 --> 0:51:22.480 the aisle, for maybe different reasons, there's a greater appetite 0:51:22.800 --> 0:51:24.640 for the government to have like this, like you know, 0:51:25.080 --> 0:51:30.200 an active economic player. Yeah, I do wonder I have 0:51:30.280 --> 0:51:32.600 to say in the future, what happens if so now 0:51:32.640 --> 0:51:36.359 we're basically pulling forward a lot of investment, and what 0:51:36.520 --> 0:51:39.880 happens if in a few years, you know, the economy 0:51:39.960 --> 0:51:44.439 starts to slow, maybe the government is more constrained um 0:51:44.440 --> 0:51:46.640 and it's spending ability. I know, you don't like to 0:51:46.680 --> 0:51:51.160 hear that show, or at least politically like feels more 0:51:51.239 --> 0:51:55.359 constrained um. And then what happens because it does feel like, yes, 0:51:55.400 --> 0:51:57.640 all of this is needed, but it also feels like 0:51:57.640 --> 0:52:00.200 you're sort of front loading a lot of this well, 0:52:00.239 --> 0:52:03.160 and then you know specifically, you know, and that's kind 0:52:03.160 --> 0:52:05.560 of why I asked that question about, well, what is 0:52:05.600 --> 0:52:09.440 the government's role as a buyer last resort, which is that, Okay, 0:52:09.440 --> 0:52:12.800 what happens if we build the semitic conductor manufact plans 0:52:13.080 --> 0:52:14.640 and then we have a downturn? So it's gonna be 0:52:14.680 --> 0:52:17.440 downturns ahead in the future, and you know, there is 0:52:17.560 --> 0:52:21.120 not a space race going on, et cetera, Like are 0:52:21.120 --> 0:52:23.040 they going to be idol factories? Are they gonna be 0:52:23.120 --> 0:52:26.200 oversupplied factories? So like cheap goods or you know, a 0:52:26.600 --> 0:52:29.760 price war like these are still like big questions about 0:52:29.880 --> 0:52:33.000 how how all of this stuff will play out. Yeah, alright, 0:52:33.040 --> 0:52:35.000 shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This 0:52:35.080 --> 0:52:38.000 has been another episode of the All Thoughts podcast. I'm 0:52:38.040 --> 0:52:40.760 Tracy Alloway. You can follow me on Twitter at Tracy 0:52:40.760 --> 0:52:43.480 Alloway and I'm Joey Isn't All. You can follow me 0:52:43.719 --> 0:52:46.600 on Twitter at the Stale Work. You can follow Brian 0:52:46.680 --> 0:52:49.799 I think his personal I suspect he'll be tweeting from 0:52:49.840 --> 0:52:53.440 at Brian c d s, his personal account that he 0:52:53.520 --> 0:52:56.439 used before taking the job. I think he's probably gonna 0:52:56.480 --> 0:52:59.800 go back to that account book we'll see Follow or 0:53:00.040 --> 0:53:03.840 do sers Kerman Rodriguez at Kerman Ermann and Dash Bennett 0:53:03.880 --> 0:53:08.000 at Dashbot. Follow all the Bloomberg podcasts at podcasts and 0:53:08.040 --> 0:53:11.160 for more odd Lots content, go to Bloomberg dot com 0:53:11.200 --> 0:53:14.480 slash odd Lots, where we blog, post transcripts, and we 0:53:14.480 --> 0:53:17.279 have a newsletter that comes out every Friday. Go there 0:53:17.320 --> 0:53:19.120 and sign them. Thanks for listening.