Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Daily
Speaker 1: we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. I
Speaker 1: would suggest the most important political conversation of the day,
Speaker 1: Marty Walsh is from Boston, but it is a different
Speaker 1: path than anybody else. I know, the gentleman who fought
Speaker 1: off cancer as a child, went to BC and then
Speaker 1: he had to root for the New England Patriots. He
Speaker 1: appears with us today even though the Patriots are not
Speaker 1: the patriots he and I know, and even though Brady
Speaker 1: did better than good last night. Marty Walsh, it is
Speaker 1: a Boston in transition. Clearly you are for President Biden.
Speaker 1: What do the cities need from an administration day one? Uh,
Speaker 1: the collaboration, I think is the first and first thing
Speaker 1: that we need the most. Myself and me at Lance
Speaker 1: Bottoms from Atlanta just didn't not bed and we talked
Speaker 1: about the importance of having a White House that that
Speaker 1: understands how a city works and understands the relationships that
Speaker 1: need to happen and in the last three and a
Speaker 1: half years, I've had no meetings, no conversations with the
Speaker 1: White House. The White House the way currently exists is
Speaker 1: a top down approach, and the Joe Biden White House
Speaker 1: will be very different. Mayor Walsh, Christopher Whale, and a
Speaker 1: good friend of the show, an expert in financial history,
Speaker 1: just put out a photo on Twitter on Central Park
Speaker 1: South and it's from the Trump campaign. New Yorkers are
Speaker 1: going to suffer and that's their problem. That's been the
Speaker 1: attitude of this president towards Democratic strongholds, and yet we
Speaker 1: see Republican cities as well having challenges in the pandemic.
Speaker 1: How much do you need from Washington and what will
Speaker 1: you do with the money when you get it? Well,
Speaker 1: when it comes to me, as mayors don't regard each
Speaker 1: other as Democrats and Republicans. We regard each other as
Speaker 1: mayors that run our cities, and we collectively need to
Speaker 1: have an administration of Washington that's gonna work with us.
Speaker 1: And I can say firsthand here in Boston, from their
Speaker 1: early days of the pandemic right through the pandemic, there's
Speaker 1: been no assistance from Washington. We've had to go alone
Speaker 1: for the most party, including states, we've had to figure
Speaker 1: out ppe we've had to figure out even thinking about
Speaker 1: how how do we prepare our residents for the future.
Speaker 1: As far as being careful and physical distancing and show
Speaker 1: social distancing messages have been consistent across America. It's really important.
Speaker 1: And then as racism read, it's ugly head in America
Speaker 1: again and we had protests and demonstrations across the streets
Speaker 1: around the streets in America. Uh. This White House quite
Speaker 1: honestly just agitated and incited violence. Uh. And it's really
Speaker 1: we need leadership right now. And in Boston, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you a hundred and fifty nine thousand people have already
Speaker 1: voted before election day. So there is definitely a feel
Speaker 1: for change in the air. And it's not just democratic cities,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's all cities across America. Mayywell's there is
Speaker 1: a feeling of change. There's also a feeling of fear.
Speaker 1: And my younger son last night said to me, you know,
Speaker 1: is there going to be violence? And he's looking around
Speaker 1: and he's seeing all of the boarded up windows around
Speaker 1: New York City. And I believe in Boston as well,
Speaker 1: your town, how concerned are you about violence in response
Speaker 1: to any election outcome, particularly if President Trump is in
Speaker 1: the lead. Given the fact that people in democratic cities
Speaker 1: are the ones, honestly that are having boarded up windows,
Speaker 1: just think about what the question you just asked me.
Speaker 1: We live in the greatest country in the world, where
Speaker 1: where freedom and democracy is what we're proud of, and
Speaker 1: we have cities and businesses all across America putting boards
Speaker 1: on windows worrying about violence because of the general election.
Speaker 1: We've never seen anything like that. This is not result
Speaker 1: of of Joe Biden and his speeches. This is a
Speaker 1: result of a president who has failed America. This is
Speaker 1: the result of a president whos failed American economy. He's failed,
Speaker 1: He's failed everything that he claims he stands for. UH.
Speaker 1: And I'm hoping that after today's election we don't see violence.
Speaker 1: And what I'm focused on today is making sure that
Speaker 1: people get out to vote, people can vote without intimidation,
Speaker 1: people can vote safely, UH, And that they should be
Speaker 1: able to do that in Boston, Massachusetts, and they should
Speaker 1: be to do that all across America today without that fear.
Speaker 1: I hope that's not the country that we're becoming quite honestly,
Speaker 1: Mary wash one final question, if we would uh this morning.
Speaker 1: Dorchester represents the heritage of a Democratic Party that has
Speaker 1: lost so many people to the Republicans or at least
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. What is the policy prescription you would suggest
Speaker 1: for the Liberals in your party to get back to
Speaker 1: the kind of voters that made Dorchester years ago. I think,
Speaker 1: first and foremost, we need to elect Joe Biden president today.
Speaker 1: And I think that then we go back and to
Speaker 1: kind of look at the party and not I would
Speaker 1: say we have to rebuild the Democratic Party, but certainly
Speaker 1: we have to go back and get those Democrats that
Speaker 1: used to be Democrats and pull them back into the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. The values of the Democratic Party of the
Speaker 1: same values that those people the party they joined many
Speaker 1: many years ago. And as mayor of the City of Boston,
Speaker 1: I'm committed to doing that, and as other may as
Speaker 1: across America were committed to bring out party back and
Speaker 1: representing everyone. Mayor wasalh. I'd like to see it. Tom
Speaker 1: English is pub but I believe it's shut down a
Speaker 1: year ago. There's still one in Southie. That's all that matters. Mayor.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Marty Walsh, the Mayor of Boston.
Speaker 1: Here on a most interesting day, and again we say
Speaker 1: good morning to Bloomberg Radio listening across the England. One
Speaker 1: of six one f M right now in trouble is
Speaker 1: Stephanie Kelly with Aberdeen Standard Investment. She has a really
Speaker 1: interesting mandate at the large investment management firm of trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what all this means for investment management
Speaker 1: and particularly longer term money. Stephanie Kelly, thank you for
Speaker 1: us so much for joining us today. What does this
Speaker 1: mean for active management? How does election play into the
Speaker 1: investment management industry next year? I think if any of
Speaker 1: the US election illustrates just how crucial that role really
Speaker 1: is for us A managers, because if we look at
Speaker 1: what a Biden administration might mean with or without a
Speaker 1: democratic majority, or indeed what happens if gets reelected, all
Speaker 1: of those things I think are really storied about the
Speaker 1: sector rather than necessarily just the pure index. And so
Speaker 1: it's a time when you really need to be thinking
Speaker 1: about what does the regulatory environment mean? And that's not
Speaker 1: always super clear cut, it's not cut and dry, and
Speaker 1: so understanding and actively thinking about what does regulation mean,
Speaker 1: what does legislation mean, and which are the sectors who
Speaker 1: win and which are the sectors who lose. That's what's
Speaker 1: going to be the key to invest gonagement. Summarize the
Speaker 1: state of populism. Right now we have this terrible terror
Speaker 1: attack in Vienna, Austria, the state of populism in Austria,
Speaker 1: in England for that matter, in Canada, and certainly with
Speaker 1: Mr Trump in America, the state of populism on the
Speaker 1: selection day. So I think there's a couple of ways
Speaker 1: to think about populism. We tend to focus on right
Speaker 1: wing populism, and I think that's been the one that's
Speaker 1: been the most successful in recent years. Indeed, you look
Speaker 1: at places like the French, the French Tarty seventeen elections.
Speaker 1: We look in the US, we look to the UK
Speaker 1: that seems to be where the kind of populism support
Speaker 1: is growing. I think the one to watch for investors though,
Speaker 1: is in the next kind of year or so, it's
Speaker 1: actually Italy because although at the moment we have just
Speaker 1: coalition which is relatively stable and for now seems quite stable.
Speaker 1: But my fear is that that kind of is hiding
Speaker 1: what is underneath, which is that actually the majority of
Speaker 1: support for parties in Italy is for populist parties, and
Speaker 1: in particular it looks as though a right wing populist
Speaker 1: coalition could be the next government when we get to
Speaker 1: the next selection. So that's one to watch for the
Speaker 1: next year. It's a near term risk, but it's definitely
Speaker 1: one to bear in mind that it leaves this permanent
Speaker 1: kind of challenge with populism and systemic issues and cyclical
Speaker 1: issues that make it for me quite a kind of
Speaker 1: ever present source of president of political risk. Just not
Speaker 1: right now. This definitely is state the obvious. There is
Speaker 1: upside risk as well as downside risk, and I wonder
Speaker 1: what we're learning about what populism actually means for financial markets. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the interesting things is that, you know, we
Speaker 1: use this kind of term populism very broad sweep. What
Speaker 1: matters is like, what are the policies that they're incorporating
Speaker 1: or are they making a risk event, you know, bigger
Speaker 1: than it would be otherwise. Right to an election is
Speaker 1: a good example. I think here we probably need to
Speaker 1: give your away from just the populism and think more
Speaker 1: about that polarization. Right It's not just that you've got
Speaker 1: parties in the far right or the far left, it's
Speaker 1: not those more centrist parties can also pull apart. And
Speaker 1: in the US prime example, we're looking at a Democratic
Speaker 1: party that's much further left than it was four years
Speaker 1: ago against a Republican party which remains kind of quite
Speaker 1: conservative at its core, although of course Trump is kind
Speaker 1: of implemented this additional element. I think what that means
Speaker 1: is that from one election to the next, you can
Speaker 1: get a lot of swings, and that's where the risk
Speaker 1: comes in for investors at the short term risk. And
Speaker 1: then really the question, as I mentioned, it's what is
Speaker 1: once you're over the event, once you know the result,
Speaker 1: once the uncertainty has gone, what does regulation look like?
Speaker 1: What does legislation look like? And what does that mean
Speaker 1: for the companies you're investing in. That's the way we
Speaker 1: have to think about it, Stephanie. Just to build on
Speaker 1: that sort of connection between markets and politics, can you
Speaker 1: give us a granular sense of the process of how
Speaker 1: you work with investment managers, whether you're looking at long
Speaker 1: term place or short term place based on some of
Speaker 1: the political developments that you were just talking about. Sure,
Speaker 1: so there's a couple of ways that we do this.
Speaker 1: The main was when I started doing this kind of
Speaker 1: political analysis in the asset management industry, which I have
Speaker 1: to say, there aren't that many political economists blowing around
Speaker 1: the asset management industry, and so I was quite struck
Speaker 1: by the extent to which they're just weren't these frameworks
Speaker 1: in place to think about politics. So I always say
Speaker 1: to our investors, to our clients, you know you have
Speaker 1: to do in scenarios. It's not enough to just have
Speaker 1: a base case. Investors always anchor on this kind of
Speaker 1: base case approach when it comes to politics. You have
Speaker 1: to accept there's a lot of information you don't know.
Speaker 1: We don't know if pauls are accurate until they've proven
Speaker 1: accurate or inaccurate. We don't know how politicians are feeling inside.
Speaker 1: We can do lots of engagement, we can do lots
Speaker 1: of research, but I think the best way to think
Speaker 1: about it is not single base case what's going to happen,
Speaker 1: but what's the distribution of risks here? And then from
Speaker 1: that say, okay, this is the distribution of political risks,
Speaker 1: what happens to markets in each of those scenarios, And
Speaker 1: then that way you have not only a distribution of
Speaker 1: political risk, but actually of market risk, and then you
Speaker 1: have a better understanding of how exposed you are to
Speaker 1: a given outcome, be that Brexit, be that U. S.
Speaker 1: China trade relations, or in d the U. S. Election. Definitely,
Speaker 1: probably the most prominent political economists these days or moonlighting
Speaker 1: perhaps is a political economist is rate Hio of Ridgewater.
Speaker 1: He's been talking a lot about the rise of populism,
Speaker 1: about the inequality, and about cash is trash, the expectation
Speaker 1: for inflation in the United States. Do you agree with
Speaker 1: his conclusions based on his assessment of the political landscape,
Speaker 1: But I think that there's a there's a lot of
Speaker 1: parts out in terms of that connection. I think we
Speaker 1: should never kind of be too quick to rush into
Speaker 1: what it means. And in particular, I think you know,
Speaker 1: there tends to be in a particularly that relationship, and
Speaker 1: I don't mean specifically to rad Dalio here, but there
Speaker 1: tends to be this discussion that takes place whereby more
Speaker 1: government intervention equals lots more inflation, and I think we
Speaker 1: really need to put that in the context of what
Speaker 1: other political kind of issues are going on. And one
Speaker 1: big one is actually the globalization element, but also the
Speaker 1: kind of cyclical weakness and the structural weakness. Those things
Speaker 1: push and pull against inflation in different ways, and so
Speaker 1: I think it's another example of where we've got to
Speaker 1: be quite careful and kind of considered when we think
Speaker 1: about each individual risk and how that plays into the
Speaker 1: big macro themes, which still also rely on kind of
Speaker 1: you know, bread and butter economics. Right, what's being produced,
Speaker 1: what's being where's the demand, where's the supply? Thanks deephitiely
Speaker 1: Kelly of Aberdeen Standard Investments, definitely, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Michael Jesus is with us with Morgan Stanley, not only
Speaker 1: doing policy research, but with a foundational understanding of our
Speaker 1: municipal finance. We're thrilled you could join us this morning. Michael,
Speaker 1: every single conversation we have in your area says and
Speaker 1: then they'll be infrastructure, and yet there's never infrastructure. What
Speaker 1: is a political outcome you need so there can be infrastructure.
Speaker 1: I think it is a necessary condition to get a
Speaker 1: meaningful infrastructure package that you end up with a situation
Speaker 1: where the Democrats take the White House and the Senate
Speaker 1: and keep control of the House. Uh. Simply put in
Speaker 1: a divided government scenario, there's not much legislation getting done.
Speaker 1: Beyond perhaps another COVID relief package under certain circumstances. In
Speaker 1: a scenario where the Republicans take control of the House
Speaker 1: and keep the White House in the Senate, you have
Speaker 1: the same problem that you had in every other time
Speaker 1: that you've had complete control by the Republican Party. In theory,
Speaker 1: they're on board with the idea of infrastructure spending. In practice,
Speaker 1: they haven't been able to get there because they also
Speaker 1: can't agree on raising taxes to do it. They are
Speaker 1: against letting the deficits expand to do it. So you
Speaker 1: end up uh to twist it up without a solution. Uh.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party uh sort of is obviously a little
Speaker 1: more amenable to raising taxes are expanding deficits when it
Speaker 1: comes to spending. So again I say it's a necessary
Speaker 1: condition that that's the configuration that you get, uh, not
Speaker 1: a sufficient one, because of course the Democrats are gonna
Speaker 1: have to balance their um uh their policy priorities, and
Speaker 1: healthcare is certainly in the mix and probably a high
Speaker 1: priority of them. Also, Michael, there's a lot to unpack
Speaker 1: their I think the broader theme to all of your
Speaker 1: comments is just the risk of a divided government when
Speaker 1: it comes to fiscal spending. How big of a downside
Speaker 1: risk could there be the markets should there be a
Speaker 1: divided government, because it does not appear that that's being
Speaker 1: priced in. Yeah. Well, so the first thing to say
Speaker 1: is that in most post election configurations here lead to
Speaker 1: fiscal expansion. The one that concerns us is the one
Speaker 1: where the Democrats take the White House but the Republicans
Speaker 1: keep control of the Senate. And it's not to say
Speaker 1: that you might never get fiscal expansion or COVID specific
Speaker 1: relief in that situation, but that you might need a
Speaker 1: greater demonstration from economic data or markets that such a
Speaker 1: response is needed. And that's because we know where the
Speaker 1: Democrats are on COVID relief. They want to go big. Uh.
Speaker 1: Senate Republicans um are expressing skepticism that the economy needs it,
Speaker 1: are also expressing concern about raising deficits further, and so
Speaker 1: that disagreement manifests in that type of election outcome. And again,
Speaker 1: you might eventually get there, but the fiscal reaction function
Speaker 1: becomes very reactionary as opposed to proactive, which is what
Speaker 1: markets are expecting right now. Mike, I'm really interested in
Speaker 1: the conversations you're having with clients at the moment, if
Speaker 1: you were to ask them you think whether they would
Speaker 1: prefer to know the outcome of the Senate rice or
Speaker 1: the White House White House rice ahead of time? What
Speaker 1: do you think I'd say most clients would prefer to
Speaker 1: know the outcome of the presidential race. Is that the
Speaker 1: consensus is still, at least in terms of the surveys
Speaker 1: that we've run, the consensus is still that a divided
Speaker 1: government outcome of any type is preferable to be unified outcome,
Speaker 1: mostly because it creates certainty around policy, or at least
Speaker 1: that's the perception right abviously outlined an argument where I
Speaker 1: think it's it's nuanced in a little bit different. So
Speaker 1: I do think that that's where most investors are paying
Speaker 1: their attention. But they are also obviously understand the difference
Speaker 1: between the Democrats taking the White House without the Senate
Speaker 1: versus with the Senate um and generally speaking, in our
Speaker 1: surveys are agreeing that you get the biggest physicist boost
Speaker 1: in that situation, Mr Jasus. The votes are in in
Speaker 1: the judiciary, and I believe we have nine justices. At
Speaker 1: some point here is the clerks get ready to help
Speaker 1: justice Cony Barrett. Great, what about the Affordable Care Act?
Speaker 1: What does a Morgan Stanley view on where the Affordable
Speaker 1: Care Act is, say in March of two thousand twenty two. Again,
Speaker 1: I think this is very past dependent. So, um, if
Speaker 1: we generalize a bit, not specific to the Affordable Care Act,
Speaker 1: but whether or not in one you're going to have
Speaker 1: the same level of government spending on the healthcare or greater.
Speaker 1: The situation that makes that true is the Democrats taking
Speaker 1: the White House in the Senate, regardless of what the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court outcome is, because one could expect a pretty
Speaker 1: uh quick response legislatively should the Supreme Court overturn the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act. Uh. In the situation where the Democrats
Speaker 1: take the White House Republicans keep control of the Senate,
Speaker 1: I think it gets quite a bit trickier and obviously
Speaker 1: gets trickier, um if the Republicans maintain the White House.
Speaker 1: So to the extent that you're looking for and certainly
Speaker 1: are healthcarectly team looking at managed care organizations thinks the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act has largely been beneficial for the bottom
Speaker 1: line of large m c o s. The configuration that
Speaker 1: gets you the best outcome there is the Democrats winning
Speaker 1: the White House and the Senate. Michael, appreciate your time, says,
Speaker 1: send up best to the team at Morgan Stanley. Why
Speaker 1: do you Michael zesus that of Morgan Stanley right now
Speaker 1: James Sweeney joins us with Credit Sweete. And this is
Speaker 1: an important conversation because in the mix of the political
Speaker 1: pundantry and frankly the financial pundantry. Mr Sweeney has been
Speaker 1: very clear of a cautious view on American economic growth.
Speaker 1: James Hugh still continue with the view that it will
Speaker 1: be a struggle forward. Well, I I think it largely
Speaker 1: depends on the stimulus outlook. And and so you know
Speaker 1: what I'll be looking for today is do we get
Speaker 1: a clean, sweep scenario where the stimulus expectations become clear,
Speaker 1: or do you have something in a lot more modeled
Speaker 1: I think effectively, what's happened in recent months is that
Speaker 1: the big increase in deposit balances of a lot of
Speaker 1: households and the fact that people have bought a lot
Speaker 1: of physical goods while they haven't been buying a lot
Speaker 1: of services has hidden some problems that the household sector
Speaker 1: has with cash flows. If we don't get that stimulus
Speaker 1: there are quite a few things that are going to
Speaker 1: restrict household cash flows and incomes in the month's ahead
Speaker 1: without new help from the government. It James, when you
Speaker 1: say problems, can you be more specific about those problems
Speaker 1: and why you think they are sure? Well, first, you
Speaker 1: remember the unemployment insurance which we had supplementary unemployment insurance
Speaker 1: during the worst part of the pandemic. It expired in
Speaker 1: August UM. People said there would be a cliff. There
Speaker 1: was a cliff, it fell UM. But there's another cliff
Speaker 1: at the end of December UM, so there's more. Basically,
Speaker 1: unemployment payments from the government will be reduced further. There's
Speaker 1: also forbearance measures that many households have benefited from, which
Speaker 1: will expire at the end of the year. UM. If
Speaker 1: you look at labor income, it's very unlikely we're going
Speaker 1: to continue to see six d to a million in
Speaker 1: jobs growth per month. So jobs growth should be good,
Speaker 1: but it should continue to slow. Wage growth should slow
Speaker 1: because wage growth has been driven up by an odd
Speaker 1: composition effect in the in the jobs data, and and
Speaker 1: the hours worked per week should slow due to a
Speaker 1: similar effect. So if you're in the nerdy details, UM,
Speaker 1: a lot of them point south in the near term
Speaker 1: in terms of the cash flows of of of households. James,
Speaker 1: I've got to say, you just don't sound as constructive
Speaker 1: as you were maybe a month or so ago on
Speaker 1: this recovery. Is that a fair characterization of your development
Speaker 1: of your ideas in the last month or so? Uh? Well,
Speaker 1: I think I think I just see it as very
Speaker 1: stimulus dependent in the in the near term. I name, recently,
Speaker 1: we we are in a little bit of a slowdown
Speaker 1: relatives to the sharp acceleration that we had in Q three,
Speaker 1: But economy is not contracting. The economy is growing right now.
Speaker 1: But I do think, uh, stimulus in the very short term,
Speaker 1: something like the package that was negotiated between July and
Speaker 1: this month is very important. And and so you know,
Speaker 1: if you have an election outcome that makes that stimulus likely,
Speaker 1: and I think we can be in pretty good shape.
Speaker 1: But otherwise I think there's there's trouble also the virus.
Speaker 1: I mean, the virus is picking up again and that's
Speaker 1: a new headwind, and the virus is probably picking up
Speaker 1: a little more than a lot of people expected. So um,
Speaker 1: so we're just skittish, I would say, rather than actually
Speaker 1: forecasting a major problem, James. That's where I wanted to go.
Speaker 1: The virus and how much it's spreading. What high frequency
Speaker 1: data are you looking at to gauge the response if
Speaker 1: it isn't lockdowns. There's a lot of people expect the
Speaker 1: US to avoid some of the lockdowns that we're seeing
Speaker 1: in Europe. What are the measures you're looking had to
Speaker 1: determine how much people's behavior is sort of acting in
Speaker 1: a restrictive way on the economy. Well, sure, so, I
Speaker 1: mean on the virus side, we we just look at
Speaker 1: the positivity rates and the spread and you know, the
Speaker 1: direct virus data. On the economy side, I think a
Speaker 1: lot of this new data that we have on on
Speaker 1: foot traffic to establishments on point of sales data. I
Speaker 1: don't think the macro data are all that helpful, and
Speaker 1: I think the market is somewhat accustomed to looking at
Speaker 1: the same old indicators. But but but you can get
Speaker 1: thrown off pretty easily. So, for instance, people have been
Speaker 1: excited about retail sales being strong. Retail sales are goods.
Speaker 1: Consumption consumption is GDP, but only that is actually good
Speaker 1: services are the problem here. So looking at foot traffic
Speaker 1: into restaurants, foot traffic into airports. Things like that, um
Speaker 1: and and related spending numbers are what we're watching. James
Speaker 1: Sweedie Junklat loves word diffusion, except he says it with
Speaker 1: a fancy French accent. I don't have. And right now
Speaker 1: the major question is if we have the haves doing
Speaker 1: better or even prospering in this pandemic, could any of
Speaker 1: their prosperity diffuse over to a large body of Americans
Speaker 1: who are, to be kind economically anxious. Is there any
Speaker 1: ability to see a diffusement of that prosperity, that income,
Speaker 1: that wealth. Well, the problem isn't just that the income
Speaker 1: trends are different, but the concentration of people working in
Speaker 1: lower wage services sectors while having lost their unemployment or
Speaker 1: their extra unemployment and you know, about to potentially be
Speaker 1: losing their their forbearance. Um, that's trouble. So the fact
Speaker 1: that people are buying big ticket durable goods largely imported
Speaker 1: are not necessarily helpful, you know, to a waitress who
Speaker 1: who isn't working, James, quite kind of shop, sir, James Sweeney,
Speaker 1: that of credit sway. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio