Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keen with
Speaker 1: David Gura. Daily we bring you insight from the best
Speaker 1: of economics, finance, investment, and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and of course,
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Domini constant Here with us in our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg eleven three studios. He's the global head of rates
Speaker 1: research at Deutsche Bank Securities. Let's start by just previewing
Speaker 1: what you expect to see tomorrow. Gonna get some new
Speaker 1: data on inflation here in the US, so much of
Speaker 1: the conversation centering on inflation expectations where inflation stands. What
Speaker 1: are you looking for tomorrow when those new data come out? Um, well,
Speaker 1: I mean the views of the official view is pretty
Speaker 1: much consensus. Uh, sort of slightly better inflation days than
Speaker 1: we've seen. I guess in my heart of hearts, I'm
Speaker 1: sort of concerned that we're going to see perhaps some
Speaker 1: broadening of the weakness. There's means some focus on the
Speaker 1: service sector inflation being a weak relative to the good
Speaker 1: side inflation, and that's in some sense more important because
Speaker 1: services are much less volatile than good. So if you
Speaker 1: get some sort of weakness there, you're going to be
Speaker 1: wired about a more persistent downdraft inflation going forward. And
Speaker 1: behind the sort of month to month data, we have
Speaker 1: this sort of underlying concern that inflation is just generally
Speaker 1: going to be sort of drifting lower or closer to
Speaker 1: one percent than the Fed two percent targets. And that's
Speaker 1: our kind of new inflation equilibrium concept that we've been
Speaker 1: focused on. Tom, How do you process the divide within
Speaker 1: the federals on this issue? And in particularly have the
Speaker 1: Fed cheers saying this is transitory, these headwinds or transitory.
Speaker 1: We heard from Jim Bowler of the St. Louis Fed
Speaker 1: yesterday saying he's not optimistic we're going to see any
Speaker 1: market rise in inflation anytime soon. How problematic is that
Speaker 1: divide among policy makers? Well? I think that the central
Speaker 1: banks of a real problem because you know, in general,
Speaker 1: and it's not just the FED, they've all struggled to
Speaker 1: meet inflation targets. H And the importance of the inflation
Speaker 1: target for any central bank is that it obviously gives
Speaker 1: them the anchors, you know, kind of what they do. Uh,
Speaker 1: And it's because inflation is generally considered to be driven
Speaker 1: by the expectations of inflation. If you have a target
Speaker 1: that's supposed to be driving expectations and you don't meet
Speaker 1: that target, then you have to It begs the question
Speaker 1: what does create inflation? H And that's the kind of
Speaker 1: idea whereby if inflation is being created by some other process,
Speaker 1: and it could be structural, that could be do with technology,
Speaker 1: it could be to do with demographics and all these
Speaker 1: other sort of structural things that is really outside the
Speaker 1: remit of a central bank, and then it almost becomes
Speaker 1: redundancy what their inflation target is, and it may be
Speaker 1: challenges their whole kind of policy framework. And I think
Speaker 1: that's the that's why the the FED has to in
Speaker 1: any center brank has to still say things are transitory.
Speaker 1: Inflation will go up, won't it, Because otherwise otherwise what
Speaker 1: are they doing? Well? Here in I guess the two
Speaker 1: thousan seventeen what's the the utility of the use of
Speaker 1: the Phillips curve at this point? How do you regard
Speaker 1: that tool? Well, we know empirically it's been a disaster.
Speaker 1: So if you look at five year rolling regressions of
Speaker 1: the wage inflation versus unemployment gaps unemployment rates. Obviously, empirically
Speaker 1: it's broken down, it's flattened and as shifted lower, which
Speaker 1: means that the average wage inflation rates for some sort
Speaker 1: of unemployment technliberum is much lower, and the sensitivity of
Speaker 1: wages to change his unemployment is much lower. So empirically
Speaker 1: it's become a problem. I think that there is a camp, obviously,
Speaker 1: and it's a consensus camp. There's just a matter of time.
Speaker 1: We have to be patient. This is the natural consequence
Speaker 1: of a major financial crisis and economic downturn. It's all
Speaker 1: going to come good, and I think that's the sort
Speaker 1: of consensus within the FED. My concern is that there
Speaker 1: are reasons for why we've noticed this this collapse in
Speaker 1: the Philips curve, and they are not to do necessarily
Speaker 1: with cyclical forces. Are to do with these structural forces
Speaker 1: such as demographics. For example, the older people, the fifty
Speaker 1: five year old plus generation, they've seen the biggest shift
Speaker 1: in Phillips curve relatians is some of the younger generations.
Speaker 1: And because though that that that that group of that
Speaker 1: age cohort is becoming more and more dominant in the
Speaker 1: labor force. I don't think this thing is necessary going
Speaker 1: to change over the next five years or so. We're
Speaker 1: waxing single equation this morning with the Philips because so
Speaker 1: we said, good morning, David Gerin, Tom Key, Bloomberg Surveillance Dominique.
Speaker 1: One of the ideas here is a Phillips curve, a
Speaker 1: single equation solution. What a conceit? Come on? This thing
Speaker 1: comes out of Lse forty years ago. I get it.
Speaker 1: And there's been adjustments by guys a lot smarter than me.
Speaker 1: But please tell our audience wire supposed to hinge where
Speaker 1: we're going on. Frankly, a rather simplistic algebraic function. Well
Speaker 1: I can. I couldn't agree more. And and it's sort
Speaker 1: of incredibly sort of backward looking in some sense as well.
Speaker 1: Um so, no, I I think it's a there's a
Speaker 1: it's a it's good it's a good thing that sort
Speaker 1: of isn't working because it makes you think about you
Speaker 1: know what exactly, and I mean Bob Schuller's world folds
Speaker 1: over under this, and that there's not only a behavioral
Speaker 1: construct that you overlay on a simple algebraic function, but
Speaker 1: at the heart all of these equations are based on
Speaker 1: some forms of Gaussian Bell curve distributions. It's I think
Speaker 1: we learned in the last ten years. It's not a
Speaker 1: Bell curve world, right, Yes, And I think I guess
Speaker 1: if you're going to defend anything, I suppose what you
Speaker 1: do as you say that at least when things break down,
Speaker 1: you still understand why you've been so wrong for so
Speaker 1: long sort of thing. And I think that's going to
Speaker 1: be the case with some of the central banks. I'll realize,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll understand what they got wrong based Is
Speaker 1: it just because they don't have a new theory to
Speaker 1: go to. I mean, that's a that's a very valid
Speaker 1: thing to ponder here, and I mean, really good papers
Speaker 1: is summer Frankly, I mean they're driving in the dark
Speaker 1: to some extent, and uh yeah, I mean it's been
Speaker 1: partly because we're in this world of let's say, creative
Speaker 1: destruction and huge structural upheavals, whether it's globalization, technology or
Speaker 1: the aging populations. All of these things things and make
Speaker 1: it very hard I think for anyone to have a
Speaker 1: lot of confidence in the in the future. I mean,
Speaker 1: David gurd did, do people understand that four months of
Speaker 1: the year, it's like we live in Greenland. You drive
Speaker 1: to work in the dark, and you come, you go
Speaker 1: home from blue exactly treasure these few several months, there's
Speaker 1: no there's no sund surveillance. I'd love you ask you
Speaker 1: that you explained that there could be a linking between
Speaker 1: low inflation high growth via what we're seeing inequity. Just
Speaker 1: spell that out for you, so if you want, well,
Speaker 1: I recall very well the late nineties early two thousand's
Speaker 1: where we saw strong growth and low inflation, and obviously
Speaker 1: it was associated with a real investment boom. It was
Speaker 1: to do with the dot com bubble at the time, etcetera.
Speaker 1: UH and extray markets were doing very well. And there's
Speaker 1: this concept of Tobin's Q, which is basically the market
Speaker 1: value of ecuties versus replacement costs, which is investment, which
Speaker 1: is the investment side of it. So companies basically started
Speaker 1: issuing a lot of equity instead of buying back their stock.
Speaker 1: And and I know we know that the capital laborat
Speaker 1: show the amount of investment relative to employment in the
Speaker 1: US in particular is very very low. Now, so there
Speaker 1: is this sort of case for saying we want to
Speaker 1: see much higher real investment relative to employment and that
Speaker 1: would raise productivity. And so clearly one way to do
Speaker 1: that would be to have companies stop buying back their
Speaker 1: stock uh and invest and UH the actual market going
Speaker 1: up another sort of thirty percent would be equivalent to
Speaker 1: a kind of what happened in the late nineties. And
Speaker 1: so rather than being worried about equity bubbles and the
Speaker 1: idea that you know, interest rates are going to go
Speaker 1: up and and and that that the actually market may
Speaker 1: have to come down, so that as part of that,
Speaker 1: just maybe the outlook is to say interest rate is
Speaker 1: going to stay very low because inflation is going to
Speaker 1: stay very low, and interest rates will only rise when
Speaker 1: real growth is a lot stronger. But in a way
Speaker 1: that has to come after equities go up. What is
Speaker 1: what is that We're going to come back with you,
Speaker 1: but very quickly here what is the catalyst to jump
Speaker 1: start real growth besides the hope and a prayer from
Speaker 1: smart guys like you. Well, I mean, I think we've
Speaker 1: had a lot of buybacks in the extray markets. Sort
Speaker 1: of we know that there's been a lot of buybacks.
Speaker 1: There's a sense whereby that's maybe shifting towards more m
Speaker 1: and A activity and in the grand cycle of things.
Speaker 1: Is possible that we could shift to greater net equity
Speaker 1: issuance at some point once valuations in the epting markets
Speaker 1: encourage companies to sort of think about replicating themselves rather
Speaker 1: than buying someone else. So the cast lists would have
Speaker 1: to come from, you know, from the financial markets to
Speaker 1: some extent, and without doubt, a strong ectually market I
Speaker 1: I think would encourage real investments and that would raise productivity.
Speaker 1: You would be adding capital to labor right now. The
Speaker 1: capital laboration shows growing is pathetic. It's growing around for
Speaker 1: three or four percent if you're lucky. It used to be.
Speaker 1: It's been as high as eight percent, and on average
Speaker 1: it should be six percent. I find it interesting that
Speaker 1: the President of the United States is retweeting a Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Markets church. I saw that. I haven't brought it up.
Speaker 1: I did see that. Yeah, Mr Trump, if you're listening
Speaker 1: out on the golf course in the early morning sun,
Speaker 1: all I can say is our team led by when M.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg would love to visit you and move a terminal
Speaker 1: out to your many bed men stars today he does
Speaker 1: he understand he could have a Bloomberg log in and
Speaker 1: have a terminal in bedstory in Florida. He could have
Speaker 1: one at the White House when he's there. Can he
Speaker 1: have one on the golf course? I think he can
Speaker 1: use the professional app Very good, continue to continue to
Speaker 1: hawk this product. That was a word by our sponsors, folks,
Speaker 1: But we thank the President seriously for retreating show Chandra's
Speaker 1: great work at Bloomberg Markets dominy constant with us. He
Speaker 1: knows about the Bloomberg terminal dominic. One of the great
Speaker 1: minds of investment was Phil Currey, enjoying a life well
Speaker 1: into his hundredth year, a great student of solar eclipses.
Speaker 1: As we have the clips coming up in August, and
Speaker 1: Phil kay always talked about the bright lights of inflation
Speaker 1: under the constant theme there aren't any bright lights. How
Speaker 1: in the dark, How in the shade are we going
Speaker 1: to be with a lack of inflation? Well, um, I
Speaker 1: think it ultimately comes down to how low nominal growth
Speaker 1: is because of the lack of inflation. So this is
Speaker 1: why if we can, if we can make something out
Speaker 1: of low inflation in terms of higher real growth, it
Speaker 1: won't be so dark. So that's the kind of key
Speaker 1: issue I think initially though, if inflation is going to
Speaker 1: stay somewhat disappointing. UH, and we're not going to get
Speaker 1: a big rebound or see the data obviously on the
Speaker 1: PPI front today and UH and CPI tomorrow. But if
Speaker 1: initially we don't get any sort of meaningful bounce back inflation,
Speaker 1: then obviously it's going to look a little bit dark
Speaker 1: because people are going to question what the FED is
Speaker 1: actually doing. You know, obviously they're they're on on course
Speaker 1: to do their balance sheet reduction, and they're talking about
Speaker 1: hiking possibly in December, and all that's going to look
Speaker 1: a bit sort of you know, what's the point of it? Okay,
Speaker 1: So within your research, note, I don't think there's a
Speaker 1: fiscal response. Well, all the infrastructure is the other father role?
Speaker 1: Is that? I mean my yeah, I mean my view
Speaker 1: on fiscal is to distinguish the sort of the two
Speaker 1: kinds of fiscal One is obviously fiscal stimulus, and stimulus
Speaker 1: is fine if in some sense you can sort of
Speaker 1: unleash some sort of multiply effect. But there's always a
Speaker 1: danger that the FED kind of responds to that by saying, okay,
Speaker 1: because of our models on unemployments and we think that
Speaker 1: Phillips curve is gonna work. We're gonna just you know,
Speaker 1: snuff out the extra stimulus by a raising rates a
Speaker 1: bit faster. So it could be a sort of a
Speaker 1: zero some game if the FED kind of offsets the
Speaker 1: fiscal fiscal reform though, is that actually kind of raises
Speaker 1: potential growth is much more interesting because and obviously you
Speaker 1: can sort of shift out your supply curve effectively. Uh
Speaker 1: and um, what's the scope for that? Well, it doesn't
Speaker 1: look so good now because they've obviously dropped some of
Speaker 1: these are more outrageous type policies that what some people
Speaker 1: thought were outrages, such as the border attacks. Uh. And
Speaker 1: but those could have had a more meaningful impact I
Speaker 1: think on potential growth. And David part of the debate
Speaker 1: here as you've got to move the needle. I mean,
Speaker 1: in the seventeen nineteen frillion dollar economy, it takes a
Speaker 1: lot of fiscal part really to move the needle. You
Speaker 1: declare volatility dead, and I'm sure there are many investors
Speaker 1: grieving that. How do we move past that? What what
Speaker 1: do you what do you see as the wavefward when
Speaker 1: it comes to this this low volatility environment, Well, it
Speaker 1: doesn't he doesn't do the hedge fund again. Yeah right,
Speaker 1: I mean that that. I mean that invol's dead, I
Speaker 1: think for a couple of reasons, or has been dead
Speaker 1: for a couple of reasons. One is, obviously interest rates
Speaker 1: are very low, and when interest rates are very low
Speaker 1: in general volacities, he's going to be pretty low in
Speaker 1: the rate market, and that's sort of, um, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe infects some of these other assetment class as well,
Speaker 1: because's not just rate vol that's obviously very low. Um.
Speaker 1: The other reason, though, obviously, is the central banks are
Speaker 1: such big players and the financial markets through countit of easing.
Speaker 1: So even though the FED no longer is doing quey
Speaker 1: and it's going to start winding down the balance sheet
Speaker 1: very slowly, uh, the CB and BOJ are still massive
Speaker 1: buyers of securities and that see other sort of reason
Speaker 1: than affects it. So I think the way in which
Speaker 1: you eventually get out of it will be some combination
Speaker 1: of raising nominal growth and as we said, it's not
Speaker 1: likely to come from inflation very much. It'd have to
Speaker 1: be a real growth story eventually, but also getting the
Speaker 1: central banks sort of out of the financial markets, and
Speaker 1: the ECB is probably gonna taper again later, we'll announce
Speaker 1: the tapering later this year, perhaps as early September. And
Speaker 1: obviously fed's doing their thing on balance sheet and the
Speaker 1: b J is going to be a long way behind.
Speaker 1: But then eventually they may do something. So if all
Speaker 1: goes well, you know, slowly, slowly, slowly, maybe we can
Speaker 1: bring back higher, higher rates on the real side and somethng.
Speaker 1: You have been more than generous, as I say, folks,
Speaker 1: the problem with Domini because you have to read as
Speaker 1: length theory, search past word by word. Sure we protect
Speaker 1: the carpyright. I've already had a couple of emails. No,
Speaker 1: we're not going to mail out Deutscha Bank's work. Please
Speaker 1: contact Deutsche Bank for doctor customs. Brilliant, uh, David, I
Speaker 1: guess we should wax politically here. That seems to be
Speaker 1: the season with a qualified candidate, the former governor of Oklahoma.
Speaker 1: Oklahoma's outside of the three zip codes we work within, David,
Speaker 1: it's the rest of America. We second morning to our
Speaker 1: listeners there on serious ex im one nineteen. If Frank
Speaker 1: Keating joins us now, as you say, former governor of
Speaker 1: Oklahoma with a long history with the FBI as well.
Speaker 1: He governor Keating. Great to have you on the program
Speaker 1: once again got us up to speed on what you're
Speaker 1: watching here as all of these investigations unfold. Given your background,
Speaker 1: what's most interesting to you? Where do you see the
Speaker 1: most interest when it comes into the Russia investigations. Well, I,
Speaker 1: of course, as a citizen, UM was not surprised, but
Speaker 1: certainly as a result of my background that the Russians
Speaker 1: and others have been interested in American politics and American elections.
Speaker 1: Have they been, um doing everything in their power to
Speaker 1: disrupt them or to change the outcome? Well, I suppose
Speaker 1: they would try if they could, But de Nited States
Speaker 1: does the same thing. They are we are very interested
Speaker 1: in what's going on in countries that are our adversaries,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure and I know that in the past
Speaker 1: there have been efforts made to change outcomes of elections.
Speaker 1: But that said, UM, I'm not friendly to the concept
Speaker 1: of an independent council, a special prosecutor special council, because
Speaker 1: if you have one victim and you have an armory
Speaker 1: of investigators, have an army of prosecutors, you're going to
Speaker 1: get your victim, whether it's spending on the sidewalk or
Speaker 1: whether in for example, the Trump case, UM it's a
Speaker 1: deduction that wasn't warranted, or you in a limited um
Speaker 1: partnership value a property greater than its real value was,
Speaker 1: and all that's of course arguable, but that's what worries me.
Speaker 1: The Independent Council himself, Bob Mueller, I think is a
Speaker 1: very fine person, very sharp person. But again it's the
Speaker 1: concept itself and where it goes with anybody's guests. But
Speaker 1: I would imagine they'll find something, and I think that's
Speaker 1: terribly destructive to a free society. How does somebody like
Speaker 1: Mr Mueller, the agents who are working these investigations, how
Speaker 1: do they tune out the political noise surrounding all of this.
Speaker 1: We've seen some criticism direct and indirect of Mr Mueller,
Speaker 1: for instance, uh speculation that he might be be removed, etcetera.
Speaker 1: When you're working investigation like this amid all of these
Speaker 1: political pressures, how do you tune that out? Well? I
Speaker 1: was U S attorney in in my state, and I
Speaker 1: share the U S attorneys. I was number three at
Speaker 1: the Justice Department and supervised versually all of the federal
Speaker 1: enters and establishment at Treasury and in Justice. We had
Speaker 1: pretty strong rules that we didn't get engaged in politics
Speaker 1: unless there was a real issue, I mean, a very
Speaker 1: very dangerous um challenge to legal, challenge to the process itself.
Speaker 1: I remember one time, as a young agent in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: I interviewed Mayor Alito, who then was under an investigation.
Speaker 1: I don't recall at this juncture what poor And he said, well,
Speaker 1: you're just here because of Richard Nixon told you to
Speaker 1: come here. But they average fbigent. You know, he has
Speaker 1: cases open, he's assigned to lead, he interviews people. He
Speaker 1: is totally a political and he is you know, totally
Speaker 1: professional at least that has been my experience. So where
Speaker 1: this goes is anybody's yes. But as I said, I
Speaker 1: just hope that it's not another kem Star. We moved
Speaker 1: from white Water to the staining dress and the President
Speaker 1: rying about having it's We're going to turn things in
Speaker 1: your head. That's what we do. In August, here David gurin,
Speaker 1: Tom Keene with us, the governor of Oklahoma, the former governor,
Speaker 1: Frank Keating, of course, with his public service with the
Speaker 1: Federal Bureau of Investigation, talking here about Mr Mueller earlier
Speaker 1: in that Frank, let's talk Anna Langthorne. She's head of
Speaker 1: the Oklahoma Democrats. John Sparks a Senate leader, Scott Inman
Speaker 1: the House leader. The Democrats owned the state from nineteen
Speaker 1: o seven to nine, when the Commies known as the Republicans,
Speaker 1: took over the state. What do the Democrats need to
Speaker 1: do to get that traditional Democratic voice back? Many would
Speaker 1: suggest that the Secretary of State lost the election rather
Speaker 1: than Mr Trump won it. Do you have any worry
Speaker 1: that the Democrats actually get their message organized and they
Speaker 1: take back Michigan or they could even take back Oklahoma. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, Tom, it is uh anybody's guess right now,
Speaker 1: because I was the first Republican governor of my state
Speaker 1: since the sixties, the Democrats in control of the House
Speaker 1: and Senate forever. And my whole theme was why are
Speaker 1: we for capita income? There's no reason for this. When
Speaker 1: I left office, oil was never above eighteen dollars of barrow.
Speaker 1: We were concurty seven and per capita income. We put
Speaker 1: right to work in the constitution. Today, the highway system,
Speaker 1: the turnpikes, made the kids take carter course in school,
Speaker 1: you know, charter choice. All that stuff. Got rid of
Speaker 1: welfare through a Democrat House and Senate. It can be done.
Speaker 1: But what's important is to have Republicans realized. To be
Speaker 1: the party of Lincoln, they have to win Lincoln agendas,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats to be a party of Jefferson, they
Speaker 1: have to win Jefferson agendas. But both of them are
Speaker 1: American agendas. Come together, let's work it out and do
Speaker 1: what's necessary to make America great again. As the President says,
Speaker 1: So it's not that difficult. It doesn't really take a
Speaker 1: a PhD in economics to figure out what America? What
Speaker 1: ails America? And this tax thing, I think is going
Speaker 1: to be watched very carefully with all those trillions abroad,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna fix the system and bring that money home.
Speaker 1: We'll see. But it does take leadership, and it has
Speaker 1: it takes humility to get stuff done. You can't like it,
Speaker 1: you just can't take the view con that it's my
Speaker 1: way or the highway. Where's that humility? Where's that leadership
Speaker 1: going to come from? As you mentioned, we're all watching
Speaker 1: what's what's happening We're going to happen in Washington when
Speaker 1: it comes to tax reform. Where do you do you
Speaker 1: see a real leadership in humility? Deficit in Washington and
Speaker 1: what's going to fill that Well, obviously Donald Trump, there's
Speaker 1: not a whole lot of humility there. But he wants
Speaker 1: to win. He wants to be a successful president. I
Speaker 1: know the vice president feels the same way. Think of
Speaker 1: the good men and women who are willing to serve
Speaker 1: in the administration. They don't want to leave a wreckage
Speaker 1: of a legacy. I mean, they want to win. They
Speaker 1: want to succeed as well. And I really think the Democrats.
Speaker 1: My grandfather was a bank owner in Illinois, but he
Speaker 1: was a Democrat member of Congress. Your father, my granddad was,
Speaker 1: but he I mean he really thought deep these issues
Speaker 1: and he wanted um during he was a member during
Speaker 1: the depression. He wanted to make sure that small towns
Speaker 1: and community banks were listened to and looked at during
Speaker 1: the course of the recovery from the from the depression.
Speaker 1: And you know, but it does take, you know, the
Speaker 1: president's leadership, and he needs to send up ahead of
Speaker 1: the table, bring people from both sides in and say, look,
Speaker 1: here's how I see we ought to go. What do
Speaker 1: you think can we count on you to help us?
Speaker 1: And you look at the Democrats, how do you hike
Speaker 1: camp for North Dakota's um Joe mansion from West Virginia.
Speaker 1: Those are conservative people. There are Democrats that are up
Speaker 1: for reelection from states that the President won. Those individuals
Speaker 1: are talkable. I mean, they're not completely fanatical for the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. They are fanatical to be reelected, and I
Speaker 1: think there's an opportunity here to address their concerns and
Speaker 1: address thecerns of concerns of the country and solve these problems.
Speaker 1: I just I'm puzzled, as a former executive of the state,
Speaker 1: why this is so difficult. I just don't understand. How
Speaker 1: far does does that distance between Oklahoma City and Washington
Speaker 1: Field today? But does it does it feel farther than
Speaker 1: it has? Well, it's interesting when our members come home,
Speaker 1: and they're all good people. When they come home, they're
Speaker 1: convinced that things are going to get fixed and things
Speaker 1: are gonna move forward. But they, as I I'm sure David,
Speaker 1: you and Tom as well, aren't sure what kind of
Speaker 1: leadership the president is going to provide. Because he is analyst,
Speaker 1: this is not his area of expertise, but he wants
Speaker 1: to win. So what's important is for the vice president
Speaker 1: to take a much more private role with the President,
Speaker 1: and hopefully this lunch today will help in that direction
Speaker 1: where the VP says, you know, we're all going to
Speaker 1: look like fools so we don't get stuff done, and
Speaker 1: here's what I suggest we do, and hopefully they'll do that.
Speaker 1: A great point to David's wonderful question. I got the
Speaker 1: map out here, folks, and you know I've driven some
Speaker 1: of this. I've had the privilege I had parents, Frank,
Speaker 1: who just put you in the car and said let's go.
Speaker 1: And there's no air conditioning. You know you I'm out
Speaker 1: of Oklahoma, and I mean, I know you take the
Speaker 1: Keating family Gulf Stream, but the answers you to go.
Speaker 1: You go south and drive through Nashville, or you go
Speaker 1: north and drive through Mike Michael Pence Indianapolis. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's two arcs to drive from Oklahoma to Washington.
Speaker 1: What does that group of Republicans say about this president?
Speaker 1: Whether you take the southern arc through Nashville or the
Speaker 1: Interstates through Indianapolis. You've got a lot of people they're
Speaker 1: baffled by this president. Is that right? Or am I wrong?
Speaker 1: He's Does he have that much support out there? Well?
Speaker 1: I think everybody uh wants him to succeed. The people
Speaker 1: I talked to of all walks of life want the
Speaker 1: president to succeed, but they're not sure what that means
Speaker 1: to him. I mean, is that something he feels he
Speaker 1: has to do to wom in public policy, not just
Speaker 1: in pr and I think those are important distinctions. Most
Speaker 1: people know he's the only president we've got. We can't
Speaker 1: vote for him or against him for a few more years,
Speaker 1: So why doesn't he win? I mean, let's win some
Speaker 1: of these races, meaning political legislative races. Let's win these
Speaker 1: issues and then move on, and then everybody lives happly
Speaker 1: ever after. People wanting to do well, they're just not
Speaker 1: sure if he will. But frank I mean again, I
Speaker 1: know you take the Keating goulf stream, but if you
Speaker 1: were to take Ice seventy through Michael for the vice
Speaker 1: President's Indiana and if you passed Brazil Indiana, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make the assumption Brazil is west southwest of Indianapolis. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna make the assumption the good people of Brazil Indiana
Speaker 1: probably went Republican. Those people put you in office. Are
Speaker 1: they still going to vote for this president? Is Frankly,
Speaker 1: some of the polls say yes they will. I think
Speaker 1: most people are only loyal to their wives and half
Speaker 1: of their marriages in the divorce. So now I mean
Speaker 1: there are probably and this is our challenges the as
Speaker 1: the Party of Lincoln an African American community that is
Speaker 1: solidly Democrat, and that disappoints me. But obviously we've got
Speaker 1: to work to open up the opportunity for those folks
Speaker 1: in the convincing to vote Republican. But I think most
Speaker 1: people will vote against Trump just as fast as they
Speaker 1: voted foreign. If you think, did you have an attorney
Speaker 1: general that's going to get you back to the Party
Speaker 1: of Lincoln, well, you know, I the reality is I
Speaker 1: Jeff and I have been friends. Jeff Sessons and I've
Speaker 1: been friends back when we were U S attorneys together,
Speaker 1: And you know, I think that like any of us.
Speaker 1: For example, when I was nominated to beyond the Tenth
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the Democrat members of
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee in the Congress said, well, I'm very
Speaker 1: concerned about, you know, your issue as to how you
Speaker 1: handle as General Counsel of HUD issues that aginally had
Speaker 1: racial overtones. And I said, I said, sender are you
Speaker 1: where I was State Council of the mule a CP
Speaker 1: in Oklahoma, and then immediately changed the subject because if
Speaker 1: you're a quite male Republican, you're supposed to be a racist,
Speaker 1: which is a complete libel. And I think I think
Speaker 1: that Jeff is a good man, doing the best you camp.
Speaker 1: This has been great. Frank Keating, always inspiring. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. Always love the conversation with Governor Keating. I've
Speaker 1: got to do, Ah, I've got to do an apology
Speaker 1: to David Guru because I'm a monopolis for conversation. As
Speaker 1: Frank Keating got me going on, we'll have him back.
Speaker 1: Can we book the sixteenth President? Can you try to
Speaker 1: get a Lincoln in your Frank Keating joining us from
Speaker 1: Oklahoma City on our phone lines. What are we gonna retire?
Speaker 1: General Mark kimmittt. He's former Assistant Secretary of State, former
Speaker 1: deputy assistant Secretary of Defense, someone who can give us
Speaker 1: some invaluable perspective here on the war of words, the
Speaker 1: rhetoric that we've heard you're regarding North Korea over these
Speaker 1: last a few days. He joins us from our Note
Speaker 1: one studios in Washington, d C. This morning. Great to
Speaker 1: have you with us here. Let me let me start
Speaker 1: just by asking you to react to what we've heard
Speaker 1: thus far on Twitter, in comments at Bedminster, and through
Speaker 1: Statan's UH from the Korean Peninsula as well. What do
Speaker 1: you make of what we're hearing right now? General, Well,
Speaker 1: two things. First of all, I think the comments that
Speaker 1: came out of the President have been sort of amplified
Speaker 1: down here in Washington, d C. Which is more of
Speaker 1: a function of the political descent between the administration. More
Speaker 1: important is what Secretary Madison Secretary Tillerson had been saying.
Speaker 1: Secretary Tillerson continues to believe that diplomacy is the right
Speaker 1: way to handle this, but Secretary Maddis put out in
Speaker 1: an extraordinarily tough statement yesterday UH in effect threatening the
Speaker 1: North Korean regime that says, if you come after us,
Speaker 1: we will destroy your country and we will destroy your people.
Speaker 1: That's about the toughest writer work I've heard on this situation,
Speaker 1: UM since I can remember. Yeah, I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: you if if the rhetoric and risk are matched up here.
Speaker 1: We listened to Secretary State Rex to Luison asked he
Speaker 1: flew to Guam yesterday. He said Americans should be sleeping sadly, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Is the risk as great as the rhetoric would lead
Speaker 1: lead lead one to think. I don't think so. Um.
Speaker 1: The only risk that I'm concerned about is the risk
Speaker 1: of miscalculation that somehow, in this war of words, somebody
Speaker 1: makes mistake, somebody says something uh that is interpreted by
Speaker 1: the other side the wrong way. And what has gone
Speaker 1: then from a rhetorical battle to something a little more significant?
Speaker 1: How much has as as this conversation changed. Of course,
Speaker 1: we've seen now two tests of intercontinental bistic missiles. There's
Speaker 1: the reporting by the Washington Post and others that have
Speaker 1: they've managed to miniaturize a nuclear weapon. How much has
Speaker 1: as the circumstances changed here over these last few years. Well,
Speaker 1: that really is two questions number on how has the
Speaker 1: rhetoric changed. Certainly it's become a lot tougher because I
Speaker 1: think this administration recognizes that they speak softly and carry
Speaker 1: a big stick philosophy which is guided our diplomacy with
Speaker 1: North Korea over the past fifteen years, has done nothing
Speaker 1: to limit or slow down the nuclear development of North Korea.
Speaker 1: So I believe the rhetoric is a little bit tougher.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's considerably tougher. And I think at this
Speaker 1: point that the answer is not only carry a big stick,
Speaker 1: but also talk in the language that this guy understands. Jena, Kimmy,
Speaker 1: you have, as all generals and animals do, a most
Speaker 1: interesting path through your military. There are all sorts of
Speaker 1: wonderful ribbons. The Army Commendation Medal, the Global War on Terrorism,
Speaker 1: expeditionary metal, your service in Germany, your master parachutes wings.
Speaker 1: Do you get a ribbon for having a Chartered Financial
Speaker 1: Analyst designation? Did you get Do I get to wear
Speaker 1: a ribbon because I have that? I mean, what was
Speaker 1: it like in a c f A under the guise
Speaker 1: of military education. Well, it was very interesting. I'd gone
Speaker 1: in that long period of time between captain and major.
Speaker 1: After you've commanded, you have a significant amount of time.
Speaker 1: I went back and taught at West Point. Frankly, my
Speaker 1: alma mater, Harvard Business School, I felt did not have
Speaker 1: a strong finance program. So I actually wanted, oh I know,
Speaker 1: I actually wanted to learn more about the tough part
Speaker 1: of finance, which was going through a revolution in the eighties.
Speaker 1: As you remember, the rocket scientists were coming out. The
Speaker 1: derivatives were now being calculated. You didn't get there at Harvard,
Speaker 1: We didn't that that's tough to the school up the
Speaker 1: Charles River that maybe could along the way. No, that's
Speaker 1: exactly right. M I T and Sloan really got hard
Speaker 1: on that, as did Wharton at Carnegie Mellon and exactly
Speaker 1: and and being an engineer by background from West Point,
Speaker 1: I really wanted to learn the math, and God bless
Speaker 1: my holma mater, but that was general management, and I
Speaker 1: was teaching finance, and I just felt it was important
Speaker 1: to know much more than my students. Well, Mark, Tracy, Patrick, Kimmit,
Speaker 1: Kommas c f A. Let me. I'm gonna get to
Speaker 1: the gossip. I can't think of anyone more qualified to
Speaker 1: pick up the pieces of the White House press room
Speaker 1: than you. We have a president who has an affinity
Speaker 1: for people with eagles and stars on their shoulders. We've
Speaker 1: had a Donnie Brook. Whatever anybody's politics within the press room,
Speaker 1: have you been contacted by General Kelly to take over
Speaker 1: the things you are experienced at, which is communicating with
Speaker 1: the press in the public, Well, I haven't, And I've
Speaker 1: got the greatest respect for John Kelly. I've served side
Speaker 1: by side with him before, but I think you said
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of generals there. I spent
Speaker 1: a year as the spokesman in Iraq, and uh, that's
Speaker 1: enough for me see that cold silence days. Why don't
Speaker 1: you after I just destroyed the conversation, I want to
Speaker 1: get your sense of of how cohesive you think that
Speaker 1: the national security team is within the White House. Now,
Speaker 1: there was all of the palace intrigue at the beginning
Speaker 1: about some people want to go one direction, others wanting
Speaker 1: to go another. Tom mentioned some of the principles involved
Speaker 1: in all this. Do you feel like it's it's cohering,
Speaker 1: it's working as a team today, Well, I think we're
Speaker 1: going to go through another round of departures. John Kelly
Speaker 1: again is enormously talented. He knows how to be a
Speaker 1: chief of staff. He doesn't brook gossip, he doesn't brook leaks.
Speaker 1: Some people I think are going to try to testament
Speaker 1: and they'll probably find themselves on the other side of
Speaker 1: the street. Um on the issue of national security, I
Speaker 1: think is more important. We probably have the most talented,
Speaker 1: experienced group of national security professionals handling this crisis right now.
Speaker 1: And I don't mean Ivory Tower intellectuals. I don't mean
Speaker 1: cruise missile liberals. I mean people that understand not only war,
Speaker 1: but understand the cost of war. In that that significant
Speaker 1: group before Maddis Dunford at the Pentagon, Kelly McMaster at
Speaker 1: the White House. Those are the people I want helping
Speaker 1: to make the decisions because they're sober minded enough to
Speaker 1: know what the real costs are of going to war
Speaker 1: in Korea. For goodness sakes, and God bless him, John
Speaker 1: Kelly lost his son in Iraq. These are experienced professionals
Speaker 1: that don't look at war as a theoretical construct. They
Speaker 1: have fought it, they know the cost of it, they
Speaker 1: know how to fight it if necessary. So I think
Speaker 1: the President has the opportunity to get the best advice
Speaker 1: in the world on this issue. With regards to Korea.
Speaker 1: I know that you worked on plans and strategy at
Speaker 1: sent Com and and there's a lot of conversation here
Speaker 1: about how we resolve this crisis on the Korean peninsula diplomatically,
Speaker 1: get folks back to the negotiating the table, but help
Speaker 1: us understands militarily how this might be playing out behind
Speaker 1: the scenes. That We've seen the rhetoric on Twitter about
Speaker 1: how equipped, how capable that the the US forces are
Speaker 1: in terms of military traategy. Where do things stand? Do
Speaker 1: you think? Well, first of all, I think everybody needs
Speaker 1: to start breathing through their mouths and their noses and
Speaker 1: just relax a bit and understand the center of gravity
Speaker 1: of this fight is Kim Jong il's desire, Kim Jong
Speaker 1: UN's desire to maintain and perpetuate his regime. He may
Speaker 1: be a little bit crazy, but he's not suicidal. So
Speaker 1: in my mind, we have got to recognize that what
Speaker 1: all of this acting out on this part and all
Speaker 1: this nuclear development is for one reason alone, and that's
Speaker 1: to keep the Chinese out and keep the Koreans, the
Speaker 1: South Koreans, and the Americans out. So if you start
Speaker 1: from that premise, you realize that you've got to meet
Speaker 1: him not only capability for capability, but also word for word,
Speaker 1: and hopefully that will put him back into a position
Speaker 1: where he is no longer a threat uh to the region. Uh.
Speaker 1: Do you do you think that that's likely? I mean
Speaker 1: that the principles of all changing, We've got a new present,
Speaker 1: there's a new leader in South Korea of course a
Speaker 1: new leader in North Korea as well. Are you optimistic
Speaker 1: that we can get back to the negotiating table. Well, well,
Speaker 1: I am, but I think we've got to understand we're
Speaker 1: taking a different negotiating tone. I mean, the fact remains
Speaker 1: this speak softly and carry a big stick has done
Speaker 1: nothing for the last fifteen twenty years to halt his development.
Speaker 1: He's violated every agreement that he's ever UM signed up to,
Speaker 1: and frankly, I think we just have to take a
Speaker 1: different tack. I think it's important to recognize that this
Speaker 1: rhetoric of the president was not simply meant for North Korea,
Speaker 1: it was also meant for China as well. And the
Speaker 1: message is clear and simple. You want me to handle
Speaker 1: this or do you guys want to handle it? General,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Mark Kim and General kivin with
Speaker 1: us today. We greatly appreciate from our studios studios in Washington.
Speaker 1: This is always a joy. He is the most interesting
Speaker 1: pedigreed to wander his way to the White House and
Speaker 1: within that out to boost school in Chicago through Milton Academy,
Speaker 1: through UM. Thank he did, okay, and then on on
Speaker 1: the m I t as well. Austin Gelsi joins us
Speaker 1: now on our phone line, Austin, wonderful to talk to you.
Speaker 1: Our our theme here today has been our labor economy.
Speaker 1: You've lived this and particularly with your council to President Obama,
Speaker 1: there is an individual streak across all of America where
Speaker 1: the individuals we do it alone, lazy, freer, free market.
Speaker 1: We don't need institutions to help us. Where do we
Speaker 1: stand on that in two thousand seventeen, Well for having
Speaker 1: me back, I saw you ment. I've wandered through the
Speaker 1: labor because I got a job and uh, and then
Speaker 1: I had to come back and refine that job when
Speaker 1: I got out of Washington. Uh. You know, I think
Speaker 1: that we still have a major cultural push toward that
Speaker 1: individualism and the rise of the gig economy and working
Speaker 1: part time, filling in scratches at it's a little bit.
Speaker 1: I think that's why there's there's more taste for the
Speaker 1: for the rise of the gig economy among workers maybe
Speaker 1: than than among the press, let's call it. But as
Speaker 1: you know, the economy has moved a little more to
Speaker 1: teams and teams teams and joint work are are a
Speaker 1: bigger they're bigger factor in the economy now than uh,
Speaker 1: certainly than they have been in recent times. Maybe if ever,
Speaker 1: and we've had a little bit of devin to adjust
Speaker 1: to that. I had some time to adjust to that.
Speaker 1: I wonder if'gotten any better at measuring it. We talked
Speaker 1: to Alan Krueger from time to time on the show
Speaker 1: your former colleague about his work on the gig economy.
Speaker 1: How how much better are we at measuring the effects
Speaker 1: on the labor economy of part time work of these
Speaker 1: new gigs. Yes, and we're not great about measuring it,
Speaker 1: partly because the people themselves working those gigs don't think
Speaker 1: of them as regular jobs. The elective and so then
Speaker 1: the current population survey, which is the big survey where
Speaker 1: we get the unemployment rate every month. They've gone back
Speaker 1: and looked at the administrative records, and Alan Krueger and
Speaker 1: others owned them. Specifically, their own research shows I think
Speaker 1: a quarter or a third of the people who are
Speaker 1: working those gig jobs that when they're asked do you
Speaker 1: have do you have a job? They don't count those
Speaker 1: as their jobs. So so our measurement is not perfect.
Speaker 1: Scares a little bit here where we've got to both
Speaker 1: both Houses a Congress on recess. Right now, the President
Speaker 1: up in Bedminster, Uh, enjoying so much as you can
Speaker 1: a seventeen day working vacation. They're gonna come back and
Speaker 1: have to deal with the dead ceiling. And you've been
Speaker 1: in the White House as all of this unfolded, the
Speaker 1: now regular debate over how to raise it, when to
Speaker 1: raise it, if to do it cleanly or otherwise. What's
Speaker 1: your counsel to this new administration about how to go
Speaker 1: about this, how to speak with a unified voice on
Speaker 1: that issue in particular. Look, the thing is, we have
Speaker 1: never been in the circumstance that we're about to be in.
Speaker 1: And by that I mean there there have a few
Speaker 1: times been fights over the dead ceiling, but never when
Speaker 1: the party of the president and both houses of Congress
Speaker 1: are the same. Because normally they're on the same page
Speaker 1: and they can pass a budget. They what they look,
Speaker 1: They see that the dead ceil. Fighting over the dead
Speaker 1: ceiling doesn't really make any logical sense. Congress itself has
Speaker 1: already passed the laws that they're then trying to say, no,
Speaker 1: we won't pay the bills for these laws. So normally,
Speaker 1: if they're all the same party, they just quietly passed
Speaker 1: an increase in the dead ceiling, and they attached it
Speaker 1: to a build that's building a bridge of something. Then
Speaker 1: this let no one ever speak of it again and
Speaker 1: they move on. And so I thought that's what they
Speaker 1: would do. And I guess my advice to the president
Speaker 1: would be would have been just go talk to Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell behind the scenes and be quiet about it and
Speaker 1: just get it done. Uh. I guess I don't understand
Speaker 1: the logic that while you're on vacation you would come
Speaker 1: in and just do a little bit of Twitter and
Speaker 1: attack Mitch McConnell and say that he's a hypocrite and
Speaker 1: can't get his job done. And um, because now when
Speaker 1: they come back, you need him. You need him to
Speaker 1: quietly go change the change the rules and raise the
Speaker 1: dead sailing. Austin goes a minute here, and then we
Speaker 1: want to come back and dive into other themes. How
Speaker 1: critical is it for Kevin Hassett to dark at the
Speaker 1: door at the White House? I mean, this process is Look,
Speaker 1: you and I are friends with Kevin, and I disagree
Speaker 1: with Kevin on a politics, but he's a reasonable guy.
Speaker 1: He's sensible, you know. I think the bigger issue will
Speaker 1: be that they should pass him. They should put him
Speaker 1: in the White House. Boy, did the president should start
Speaker 1: listening to him? Um, I don't know that that he's
Speaker 1: going to but you know we we can all keep
Speaker 1: our fingers in Austin. Now we go in August where
Speaker 1: parents dare to tread. We consider your pedigree. Milton Academy
Speaker 1: dare to be true a member of the debate team,
Speaker 1: the Massachusetts Forensic League, the National Forensic League, the Catholic
Speaker 1: Forensic League, and the Debate Association of New England Independent Schools.
Speaker 1: This is the time of year Austin where parents lean
Speaker 1: across the table and say to their children, you know,
Speaker 1: you really ought to join the debate team. Help us
Speaker 1: with this, Austin. What was the first state like at
Speaker 1: Milton Academy when young Gulsby walked in and what's going
Speaker 1: to debate? How scared were you? Well? I did? Uh?
Speaker 1: I mostly in high school did speech events, uh, rather
Speaker 1: than debate events. It was still nerve racking because you
Speaker 1: gotta you gotta memorize the speech. They gave you a
Speaker 1: thirty minutes, they gave you a topic and you had
Speaker 1: to write and memorize the thing speaking. But you know
Speaker 1: the thing is, boy, I'm glad I signed up. I
Speaker 1: can't even remember how I ended up in that, but
Speaker 1: but it ended up being good for life, you know,
Speaker 1: just being able to express yourself in a way that's clear,
Speaker 1: making argument. The society never gets tired of that. Well,
Speaker 1: and then you took a step to the artificial intelligence
Speaker 1: and the robots they still haven't figured out how to replace.
Speaker 1: Then Austin, you took a step down academically. You went
Speaker 1: from Milton Academy to a small school in New Haven, Connecticut.
Speaker 1: So you go to Yale and you're doing the debate
Speaker 1: thing and that How does being on the debate team
Speaker 1: line up your brain? What? What is the process when
Speaker 1: you're a kid where that debate or speech experience helps
Speaker 1: you line up things in your head? Well, you're getting
Speaker 1: you're getting deep on me, Tom, Well you're the chance
Speaker 1: that one look you come on, you wan the whole
Speaker 1: thing organized. You gotta be organized, you gotta be logical. Uh.
Speaker 1: It turns out that one of my main iv ols
Speaker 1: uh in debate when I was in college, that we
Speaker 1: would beat regularly, I might add, was none other than
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. This editor from Texas and uh so I
Speaker 1: got a lot of funny stories about him. So you know,
Speaker 1: part of part of any event like debate, I think
Speaker 1: is getting your mind ready logical and organized, but parts
Speaker 1: also the people you work with. You know you're working.
Speaker 1: You spent a lot of time working on that. But
Speaker 1: you know, high school, I probably spent more time working
Speaker 1: on the speech and debate stuff than all my classes.
Speaker 1: Uh and you know, I don't know if if I
Speaker 1: probably should have been doing my homework more. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I know you slept off. Would you stop at Austin?
Speaker 1: You're killing me? He went on. Folks to the m
Speaker 1: I t or Stan Fisher said, yeah, we'll give you
Speaker 1: a PhD. Okay, why not David here into the lecture
Speaker 1: on critical thinking skills in August? Why don't you bring
Speaker 1: us back to something more useful Austin. You you came
Speaker 1: in a government after a career in academia. We've got
Speaker 1: folks in this administration now, a lot of whom have
Speaker 1: not served in government before. What did you learn about
Speaker 1: that relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch?
Speaker 1: About working with Congress? How how hard was it to
Speaker 1: learn your way down Pennsylvania Avenue up to the Capitol. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, they usually wouldn't release me without an escort,
Speaker 1: you know, over a tigress. But that that's okay. Um.
Speaker 1: I think presidents can take different approaches and the uh
Speaker 1: toward Congress. Some like President Obama are very policy oriented
Speaker 1: and they come up with a lot of specific ideas
Speaker 1: that they have allies and Congress and they say, look,
Speaker 1: here's the president's plan for a B and C. Others
Speaker 1: have followed a model that I thought Donald Trump was following,
Speaker 1: which is the White House itself doesn't really have any
Speaker 1: details or doesn't have that that many and so they
Speaker 1: would be more reflecting what Kyras. Kyras would put up
Speaker 1: the details and they would they would sign bills or
Speaker 1: or you know, focus more on management. Um, I was
Speaker 1: wrong about that. They haven't managed the White House very
Speaker 1: well and they haven't put forward policy. And I guess
Speaker 1: my summary is I don't think that the White House
Speaker 1: realizes that most everything that you're gonna be able to
Speaker 1: do happens in a pretty short window right at the beginning,
Speaker 1: and then as you get to the first midderm, I
Speaker 1: think they're gonna find the same thing Barack Obama found
Speaker 1: and George Bush before that, and others before that. You
Speaker 1: come to the election and the president will say, hey,
Speaker 1: why don't I come down and help your campaign? And
Speaker 1: then the people in starts saying, oh, no, you know what,
Speaker 1: we know are really busy. Why don't you not come
Speaker 1: down here? Why don't you in fact, don't tell anyone
Speaker 1: you know me and don't save my name because they
Speaker 1: all read the polls the same as we do. And
Speaker 1: after the first year, I think it's hard to do anything.
Speaker 1: And I don't think the White House. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: think that White House has factored that in fully. Austin
Speaker 1: Austin who goes we know debate. We enjoy having you
Speaker 1: with us. He is from the Bush School in Chicago.
Speaker 1: Austin goesby, thank you so much, this wanting. He's a
Speaker 1: former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Savannas podcast. Subscribe and listen
Speaker 1: to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene. David Gura
Speaker 1: is that David Gura? Before the podcast? You can always
Speaker 1: catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio