Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jailey. We bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcast, Suncloud, Bloomberg dot Com
Speaker 1: and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. David Kelly joins
Speaker 1: us sound JP Morgan Asset Management, and he knows his
Speaker 1: beloved Liverpool finishing strong have be least third in the
Speaker 1: Premier League, certainly doing better than the Tots. And David Kelly,
Speaker 1: you know, well, there's the yellow card in the red card,
Speaker 1: and what you look back is to your Catholic upbringing
Speaker 1: all those bees and sees you earned an attempt to
Speaker 1: a pink card. You do a mid year review and
Speaker 1: you've got a pinkish a plus tone to the American economy. Well, yes,
Speaker 1: and and this latest out of exam results I think
Speaker 1: will if anything improved that we didn't see GDP move up.
Speaker 1: But what we did see as inventories actually felt even
Speaker 1: more in the first quarter than initially reported. And what
Speaker 1: that means is you get a big inventory bounce in
Speaker 1: the second quarter along with everything else, and then obviously
Speaker 1: seeing unemployment claims coming down towards four hundred thousand, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of improvement there. I also very much like
Speaker 1: seeing this growth in capital goods orders, so investment spending
Speaker 1: looks strong. So this is really an economy that is
Speaker 1: just you know, growing in terms of momentum, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think it just does poison pose a question, why
Speaker 1: are interest rates not higher given how strong the economy is?
Speaker 1: What's sixty nine? Um it is someone mysterious. I mean,
Speaker 1: it seems like the fixed income markets are believe the
Speaker 1: very devilish tone coming out of the Federal Reserve. But um,
Speaker 1: I don't know that they should believe the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: in this because I think when the data change, particularly
Speaker 1: you get those higher inflation numbers, and provided the economy
Speaker 1: continues to recover through the through the fourth quarter of
Speaker 1: this year, I think the Fed is going to change
Speaker 1: it too, and it's gonna taper a little earlier than
Speaker 1: they expecting. Things, going to raise short term rates a
Speaker 1: little earlier than many people expect. So I do think
Speaker 1: we'll see higher long term interest rates by the end
Speaker 1: of the year. It's just surprising we haven't seen more
Speaker 1: so far. You just said you think they'll raise interest
Speaker 1: rates sooner than most people expect. David, when is that, well,
Speaker 1: I think what they're going to do is, first of all,
Speaker 1: I think they'll start tapering bond purchases at the start
Speaker 1: of next year, or maybe even in December of this year,
Speaker 1: and I think they'll have to raise a federal funds
Speaker 1: rate either at the end of two maybe the December
Speaker 1: meeting in two or else the January meeting in three.
Speaker 1: But right now their forecasts, they don't think they're going
Speaker 1: to raise the shorter federal funds rate until four at
Speaker 1: the earliest. I think that's just not realistic, given you know,
Speaker 1: the economy is basically going to be fully healed as
Speaker 1: far as we can see from a macroeconomic perspective by
Speaker 1: early next year, and that just doesn't justify rates at
Speaker 1: close to zero. David. How much does the FED policy
Speaker 1: really hinge on what type of spending plan the US
Speaker 1: government decides to pass? This idea that we're looking right now,
Speaker 1: under the Biden's new budget that was just released, or
Speaker 1: at least as reported by The New York Times, the
Speaker 1: total US debt held by the public would rise to
Speaker 1: a hundred and seventeen percent of the size of the economy. One.
Speaker 1: That's what Tom was talking about earlier. Can the Feds
Speaker 1: start to taper, we're starting to talk about borrowing that
Speaker 1: much more money in the near term. Well, well they'd
Speaker 1: better because you know, we need to figure out how
Speaker 1: do we finance that at normal interest rates, Because for
Speaker 1: as long as you keep interest rates are close to zero,
Speaker 1: you're distorting everything in capital markets. You know, you feed
Speaker 1: good businesses, but you allow bad businesses to stay alive,
Speaker 1: allows speculation to run rampants. So it's very important the
Speaker 1: federal reserve normalizes. And if that means that the federal
Speaker 1: government has to be a little bit more picky about
Speaker 1: what it spends money on, that's probably a good thing.
Speaker 1: So I don't think the federal reserves should get scared
Speaker 1: by the level of the debt. Frankly, they're encouraging this
Speaker 1: growth in debt by keeping rates so low. Well, but
Speaker 1: we're are normal rates at this point. I mean through
Speaker 1: every cycle we were talking about before that that rates
Speaker 1: have come lower and lower, and the more debt you incur,
Speaker 1: the slower growth is so some people, including HSBC is
Speaker 1: Stephen Major says it's a natural path of interest rates.
Speaker 1: If benchmark borrowing costs should be lower for the US
Speaker 1: government just based on that slower growth trajectory. Why is
Speaker 1: that not the case. Well, I don't think it should
Speaker 1: be the case. I think it's it's been caused by
Speaker 1: by a federal reserve which is really flooded the economy
Speaker 1: with liquidity. And the key thing is that flooding with
Speaker 1: liquidity doesn't actually stimulate aggregate demand. I think this is
Speaker 1: what they've missed all along. That's why big reason why
Speaker 1: the last expansion was so slow. But what's a good
Speaker 1: level of interest rates? A normal level, it's got to
Speaker 1: be a positive long term real interest rate. If you
Speaker 1: lend money in the long run, you should get a
Speaker 1: positive return after inflation. If you borrow money in the
Speaker 1: long run, it should because you expect to invest in
Speaker 1: something that will generate a positive return after inflation. If
Speaker 1: you don't have an economy that's operating that way, you've
Speaker 1: got to only that's heading in the wrong direction. And
Speaker 1: so I think at least positive real rates. So that
Speaker 1: means tenure treasury eels well above the rate of inflation,
Speaker 1: which you know, even by the FEDS measure is close
Speaker 1: to three percent year over year based on the numbers
Speaker 1: we're gonna get tomorrow. Dr Kelly, I want to take
Speaker 1: your JP Morgan work in dovetail with your work at
Speaker 1: Putnam years ago with the iconic Bob Goodman who was
Speaker 1: the great optimist, and that is in the sum of
Speaker 1: the David Kelly analysis. Are you worried about the gloom
Speaker 1: of jump conditions given what we're doing with our fiscal
Speaker 1: and monetary policy new theories? Maybe see to the pants
Speaker 1: approach or do you see a smoothness where investors can
Speaker 1: say this will work out, will get to the other
Speaker 1: side of the bridge. Well, I don't. I don't lose
Speaker 1: much sleepover because I think it will take a long
Speaker 1: time for the for any crisis to unfold if we
Speaker 1: have a crisis. But where I don't believe in modern
Speaker 1: monetary theory, I think it's nonsense um and I think
Speaker 1: in the long run, the key thing is if you spend,
Speaker 1: if you run big budget depths, and if it actually
Speaker 1: helps the economy, then this level of debt will cause
Speaker 1: the economy to blow up. It's your modern monetrade theory
Speaker 1: only works if it fails to actually achieve any improvement
Speaker 1: in human welfare. So it's it's it's it's a bad idea.
Speaker 1: I think you've got to try to get to normal
Speaker 1: interest rates. If you set interest rates at the correct level,
Speaker 1: then the economy will operate optimally. David always going to
Speaker 1: get here for you, don't hold back, David Kelly that
Speaker 1: if JP Morgan Asset Management, the chief global strategists right now,
Speaker 1: Peter Cheer joins us from Academy Securities on what we
Speaker 1: see in the markets, Peter, it's the question we've all
Speaker 1: been yammered about. But you're the pro Why are yields
Speaker 1: moving given our fiscal stance, our fiscal numbers. I think
Speaker 1: there's three things. One is the fact continues to buy
Speaker 1: a lot of debts, so that's offsetting it. We're seeing
Speaker 1: corporations able to defease their pension plans so they are
Speaker 1: net sellers of equities to buy debt. And then I
Speaker 1: think just no one really believes that either we're going
Speaker 1: to get the fiscal stimm Tho said, it's full extent
Speaker 1: because that bipartisan feeling is gone. And also quite frankly,
Speaker 1: no one really seems to believe that inflation is going
Speaker 1: to be anything but transitory. I do think it's going
Speaker 1: to be persistent. But right now the market hasn't seen
Speaker 1: inflation for so long that they're downplaying that potential. I
Speaker 1: don't think the number one question has changed that much.
Speaker 1: Pay When it comes to a treasury sell off, How
Speaker 1: self limiting would treasury market set off big? How self
Speaker 1: limiting would it be? I think it would be very limiting.
Speaker 1: You know, when we go back and people want to
Speaker 1: talk about a paper tantrum, you see much much different positioning.
Speaker 1: All you even have to do is look at some
Speaker 1: of the e t f s like an l QT,
Speaker 1: which is along dated investment grade bond t LT lawn
Speaker 1: dated treasuries. They've all had significant outflows, so they market
Speaker 1: is much more prepared for a tapering type event. And
Speaker 1: if the that needed to, they had things like Operation
Speaker 1: Twists that they could pull out. So I think we
Speaker 1: can get to two percent on the tenure of this quarter,
Speaker 1: But it's going to be a struggle and nothing's going
Speaker 1: to gap a lot higher. It's very much under control
Speaker 1: at the moment. Do you think we could see a
Speaker 1: cycle high and I know it certainly days and it's
Speaker 1: hard to make the scalpaid, but you can envision a
Speaker 1: psycho high of two on a tenure. I think we're
Speaker 1: ultimately going to push up towards two and a quarter
Speaker 1: two and a half percent, but that maybe later this year,
Speaker 1: next year, and that's only once I think this inflation
Speaker 1: story becomes embedded. And I'm a little bit suspicious about
Speaker 1: what China was saying today. For example, I do believe
Speaker 1: China is working towards that shift to a domestic economy,
Speaker 1: so they care less about providing us with cheap exports.
Speaker 1: So I think there's all sorts of inflation stories out
Speaker 1: there away from this commodity rise that people aren't talking
Speaker 1: enough about. And we'll start focusing focusing on the summer.
Speaker 1: So what does that mean in terms of investing? This
Speaker 1: idea that there is a sort of a self limiting
Speaker 1: factor to the treasury UH sell off that could potentially happen,
Speaker 1: And yet we do have price to perfection when you
Speaker 1: look at certain aspects of credit markets and when you
Speaker 1: look at certain slices of equity markets, where are you
Speaker 1: seeing value? You know, I think it's going to be
Speaker 1: about a domestic growth story, right, we are going to
Speaker 1: see supply chains shift. I think there's going to be
Speaker 1: a real push to help build up our five G
Speaker 1: and anything that we're kind of on that tech side
Speaker 1: competing with China, look for infrastructure spending and a real
Speaker 1: domestic focus. So I think that industry is really exciting.
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna see a push to bring back
Speaker 1: a lot more healthcare, you know, medicine's pharmaceuticals that can't
Speaker 1: be all sourced from China given this kind of level
Speaker 1: of friction and competition. So we're gonna see that brought around.
Speaker 1: That's gonna change supply chains, change where things are, you know, made.
Speaker 1: I think that's the real opportunity figuring out what this
Speaker 1: economy is gonna look like in two years with this
Speaker 1: push towards sustainability, with bringing back some of these industries,
Speaker 1: and that's where the real opportunity is going to be. Peter,
Speaker 1: the full faith in credit space is not so much
Speaker 1: yield but the price. There's somebody bidding on this paper. Now,
Speaker 1: you mentioned the government in the US government in as well.
Speaker 1: Do you see within your macro economics that the foreigners
Speaker 1: will walk away and all of a sudden the price
Speaker 1: will drift down and yield will drift up. I think
Speaker 1: we're actually a okay on that even when foreigners are
Speaker 1: stepping away, which is become a little bit more likely
Speaker 1: given that we have the worst negative real yields. I
Speaker 1: always get confused talking about negative real yields, but you
Speaker 1: can actually earn more on an after inflation basis in
Speaker 1: Japan right now, probably even in Germany, which seems bizarre
Speaker 1: given that they have word lower negative yields than usum.
Speaker 1: But it's that real yields. I think it goes away,
Speaker 1: but there's just so much support from corporate pension plans,
Speaker 1: from pension plans in general, from retirees. I don't see
Speaker 1: it getting out of control. People are too positioned for
Speaker 1: it to get out of control. And finally, the FED
Speaker 1: has a lot of tools that it can bring out
Speaker 1: if it starts seeing that risk. So I think we
Speaker 1: see yields go higher, but it's more of base deepening
Speaker 1: and it's relatively gradual and it's not going to be
Speaker 1: an impediment for stock market either. Get back to New
Speaker 1: York City. We need to can't s up it's gonna
Speaker 1: hit from me, sir, account of my security's head of
Speaker 1: MACROI strategy. This is with our question, our conversation of
Speaker 1: the Day on the state of the American economy, high
Speaker 1: frequency economics, Rights, brilliant sharp notes on global economics, interest
Speaker 1: rate dynamics, and with Reveala Ferouki Rights on the American economy.
Speaker 1: She joins us this morning, Reveal, I've really been looking
Speaker 1: forward to this. You move from a ten percent boom
Speaker 1: economy down to something in the vicinity of five percent economy.
Speaker 1: When you and Karl Weinberg look at that sudden shock
Speaker 1: of deceleration from a boom economy, what are the inertial
Speaker 1: forces we're gonna experience as we slow down? Good morning,
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me. So, you know, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of dynamics and play over here. What we're
Speaker 1: looking at right now is you know, peak growth rate,
Speaker 1: which we expect to be around ten percent in the
Speaker 1: second quarter. But after that is where the uncertainty lies.
Speaker 1: We don't really know what a post pandemic economy looks like,
Speaker 1: what we expect as a decederation as these fiscal measures expire. Uh,
Speaker 1: and you know, if there is a lot of uncertainty
Speaker 1: about how the labor market proceeds from here, and I
Speaker 1: think until we get to that point, until we get
Speaker 1: to say September you know, there is a lot of
Speaker 1: uncertainty surrounding what will happen in the second half. It's
Speaker 1: it's an interesting dynamic because we can't really say that
Speaker 1: we're going to go back to a two percent or
Speaker 1: whether we're going to keep above potential. What we'll see
Speaker 1: class officers do. How will corporations adapted adjust to a
Speaker 1: decelerated economy we've never witnessed before. Well, I think, you know,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of preparation for this. It's not
Speaker 1: like this is going to be a surprise. We don't
Speaker 1: expect to grow at a ten percent growth rate. That's
Speaker 1: you know, it's not exactly possible without uh, you know,
Speaker 1: continued support from fiscal and monetary policy. So I don't
Speaker 1: think this is going to be a shock. It's just
Speaker 1: going to be an adjustment. And again, we are still
Speaker 1: looking at a pretty strong growth rate with a lot
Speaker 1: of uncertainty surrounding that. Outlook, Rubella, let's talk about taper,
Speaker 1: and I just talk about talking about Kathy Joe and
Speaker 1: said yesterday I came on and she said that actually
Speaker 1: the bond market is responding logically to taper talk, which
Speaker 1: means yields down price higher. This is now when people
Speaker 1: are expecting. They were expecting the FED to allow yields
Speaker 1: to climb. Yet the indication is that if they taper
Speaker 1: some of the stimulus, it leads to slower growth, Which
Speaker 1: is is this time different or we're going to fall
Speaker 1: back into that traditional paradigm. So what we're really seeing is, uh,
Speaker 1: the confidence in the FED right and what they're doing
Speaker 1: and what they are messaging. That is what this is
Speaker 1: all about. So if the FED wanted to avoid a
Speaker 1: taper tantrum, this is exactly what they're accomplishing, and the
Speaker 1: messaging has been actually very good so far. I was
Speaker 1: surprised to see mention of tapering in the minutes, but
Speaker 1: it seems to me that that is exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 1: Is is really preparing for a range of possibilities. If
Speaker 1: things are stronger than expected, that the markets will expect
Speaker 1: that the FED will start talking about different But if
Speaker 1: things are not, then you know it's a more delayed process.
Speaker 1: So it's really uh, I do think it's different this time,
Speaker 1: and I think what what the feds objective right now
Speaker 1: is managing expectations and they're doing a great job with that.
Speaker 1: We keep talking about how boring it is this week,
Speaker 1: and how it's even boring amid a pivotal moment in
Speaker 1: the economy. What are we looking for? What are we
Speaker 1: waiting for to determine the trajectory of whether it's very
Speaker 1: hot or whether it's a little bit cooler than people
Speaker 1: are currently pricing in. Well, it's all about the consumer,
Speaker 1: it's all about the labor market, it's all about incomes.
Speaker 1: So what we're seeing right now is the effect of
Speaker 1: what has happened so far, and what we have to
Speaker 1: consider is that we are starting We started the third
Speaker 1: quarter on a very high base, so even if we
Speaker 1: had very little progression, we would have still seen a
Speaker 1: very strong growth growth rate, which we expect to see now.
Speaker 1: Now what happens beyond that is a very different thing.
Speaker 1: We saw a huge deceleration last year because when fiscal
Speaker 1: measures expired, But this time around we will be in
Speaker 1: a different situation, hopefully because the labor market will have
Speaker 1: made progress and we have made a huge proggress on
Speaker 1: the health front. So while there's a lot of uncertainty,
Speaker 1: you know, our focus remains on the labor market. Because
Speaker 1: if you think that is the FEDS focus as well,
Speaker 1: they would rather tolerate a little bit of inflation for
Speaker 1: a little bit of better outcome on the libor market.
Speaker 1: I mean reveal. I know you don't want to talk
Speaker 1: about this, but you know I don't want to get
Speaker 1: you in the Carl Weinberg time out chair. Let's link
Speaker 1: Carl's work together with your work. And that is the
Speaker 1: trade deficit, the fiscal deficit as well. Do you see
Speaker 1: any relief there? Do you just assume an expanding trade
Speaker 1: deficit to GDP a stable or expanding fiscal deficit to GDP. Well,
Speaker 1: if you think about the trade deficit right now, what
Speaker 1: we're seeing are imbalances, right, I mean, the US economy
Speaker 1: is open to the European economy is getting there, not
Speaker 1: quite there. So therefore you have, you know, goods deficit
Speaker 1: in the record. I do expect some adjustment back as
Speaker 1: other economies reopen. So I don't expect that this trade
Speaker 1: deficit issue is going to be us, you know, it's
Speaker 1: just going to persist. I do think we're going to
Speaker 1: see adjustments, but uh, you know on the on the
Speaker 1: on the fiscal on the deficit side, uh, budget deficit side.
Speaker 1: I do think that what happens with these negotiations is
Speaker 1: very important, and especially when we look at you know,
Speaker 1: the Widen administrations push that this is not going to
Speaker 1: be a deficit finance. This is going to be uh,
Speaker 1: you know, this is going to be paid for. So
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of uncertainty. But I do
Speaker 1: think that we could come out on the other side
Speaker 1: of this, you know, maybe not as in bad a
Speaker 1: situation as a lot of people are expecting. Before we
Speaker 1: let you go over about two hours away from the
Speaker 1: initial jobless claims that we get every week, increasingly they
Speaker 1: are going down, and yet people say that they're very
Speaker 1: noisy and markets tend not to trade off them. Are
Speaker 1: they basically useless as any kind of indicator at this point?
Speaker 1: It's it's really I mean, we we still follow it,
Speaker 1: but they're like you said, there is a lot of
Speaker 1: noise in the data. It's really surprising. It's puzzling why
Speaker 1: we would see four thousand people get laid off each week,
Speaker 1: and you know, these filings what we are looking at
Speaker 1: is the continuing claim sample. They are also you know,
Speaker 1: extremely high, but we do see value in it, you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of the you know, it's a high frequency indicator,
Speaker 1: but I do play less less weight on it because
Speaker 1: of the fact that it doesn't really seem to be
Speaker 1: connecting right now with what's happening with the economy. Okay,
Speaker 1: of high frequency it can almost the chief US economist.
Speaker 1: We've gotta leave it there. We get lucky with a
Speaker 1: gentleman from Arkansas on the second Congressional District, the Republican
Speaker 1: French will joins us on four or five other topics,
Speaker 1: which you discard to talk about six trillion dollars, a
Speaker 1: trillion here, a trillion there. Congressman Hill, I want you
Speaker 1: to go all ever dirks and on us and give
Speaker 1: me forget about modern monetary theory, give me the modern
Speaker 1: French kill theory about how all Americans adapt to a
Speaker 1: hundred sevent total debt of g d P ten years out.
Speaker 1: Can we do this? Tom Lisa, good to be with you.
Speaker 1: We haven't seen that since the end of World War two,
Speaker 1: when America was fifty of global GDP, and that debt
Speaker 1: way over g d P was a result of fighting
Speaker 1: and winning a world war. Now we have embedded deficits
Speaker 1: for all the out years from our social safety net
Speaker 1: systems and by government growing as a percentage of GDP.
Speaker 1: I don't believe it's sustainable, and my biggest concerns are
Speaker 1: the potential for creating inflation once again going back to
Speaker 1: high inflation expectations. Secondly, the value of the dollar connected
Speaker 1: to that obviously, and the ability of servicing that debt
Speaker 1: as interest rates inevitably rise from their historically below zero
Speaker 1: level today. Other than winning in two thousand twenty two,
Speaker 1: what is the appropriate Republican response to this budget is proposed?
Speaker 1: And again I don't mean the one year fiscal budget, Congressmen,
Speaker 1: but the idea out ten years. What's a cogent GOP response. Well, look,
Speaker 1: starting in nineteen before the pandemic, as you will recall,
Speaker 1: the budget for discretionary spending was essentially flat. In fact,
Speaker 1: it declined in real terms. So Congress has the ability
Speaker 1: to control discretionary spending and better reform our mandatory spending
Speaker 1: programs like Medicare and Social Security. And we need to
Speaker 1: come back to reality after the pandemic, Tom focus our spending,
Speaker 1: target our spending, reform our mandatory spending programs, and in
Speaker 1: my view as a House Republican, not expand the role
Speaker 1: of government in our daily lives, which this budget does
Speaker 1: in spades. There is a question though, about useful spending
Speaker 1: and the idea that sometimes if you spend, you generate
Speaker 1: more growth. We saw that certainly from the nineteen nineties
Speaker 1: and the Clinton era. We've seen this over time. If
Speaker 1: you borrow, you can actually generate a more positive future.
Speaker 1: What is the distinction between good spending and bad spending
Speaker 1: right now? Well, first of all, I think there's a
Speaker 1: rational level of spending too much, too fast, on two
Speaker 1: on too many things that are not rational spending. And
Speaker 1: you look at the nineteen nineties, President Bush and President
Speaker 1: Clinton had some modest tax increases, that's true, but you
Speaker 1: also had the peace dividend as the Soviet Union unraveled,
Speaker 1: and it allowed President Clinton to work with Congress to
Speaker 1: balance the budget by the end of the decade. And
Speaker 1: they did that through reform, including mandatory spending programs and
Speaker 1: and other social spending. So again, it's targeting, it's reformed
Speaker 1: those programs, it's look at ways to build our country.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to infrastructure, that would be a
Speaker 1: rational spending of public money that needs to be done
Speaker 1: in a targeted way, with a principal focus on things
Speaker 1: that are really in need of repair and reform. Inflation
Speaker 1: has been an interesting debate, and that was one of
Speaker 1: the biggest arguments against running the deficit this deeply a
Speaker 1: lot of people have come out and said they're worried
Speaker 1: about inflation. Has become a bibararity sort of polarizing debate
Speaker 1: in Washington. How much inflation are you looking at that
Speaker 1: would be too much? I mean, are you looking at
Speaker 1: specific thresholds that would create a problem for the economy. Well,
Speaker 1: we have sharp increases in commodity prices. You look at
Speaker 1: lumber being the worst, perhaps, and President Chairman Pal hopes
Speaker 1: that these are transitory. But other members of the Open
Speaker 1: Market Committee, like President Kaplan of the Dallas Bank, are
Speaker 1: concerned that if this gets out of hand, we will
Speaker 1: once again to get into a nine seventies inflation expectation
Speaker 1: situation where instead of trying to cut costs and improve
Speaker 1: productivity at businesses, we just raise prices and suggest that
Speaker 1: up and down the supply chain. If we in bed that,
Speaker 1: we're in trouble on inflation. If we don't, it's transitory.
Speaker 1: The french Hill, one of your charms is you actually
Speaker 1: have fairly close selections, unlike so many other people in Congress.
Speaker 1: French Hill fifty Joyce Elliot in the last go around,
Speaker 1: Republicans are gonna win in two thousand and twenty two.
Speaker 1: A lot of experts tell us here, you're the kind
Speaker 1: of district that's critical for them to sustain themselves to victory. Again,
Speaker 1: what do you need to do to get your district
Speaker 1: to take a more conservative stance? How do you sell
Speaker 1: that to America? Well, look, I think Americans are so rational.
Speaker 1: We operate off the kitchen table, We operate around our
Speaker 1: companies with our employees, and it's about using math and rationality.
Speaker 1: And we think borrowing money at the rate the Biden
Speaker 1: administrations proposing it and expanding government is not really a
Speaker 1: shared value by most American families. So I think it's
Speaker 1: tugget targeting tom and budget priorities, and that's what we
Speaker 1: need to be focused on, is we come out of
Speaker 1: this pandemic. French show, thank you so much, greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 1: From the second Districts. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening. Join us live weekdays from seven to
Speaker 1: ten AMI Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 1: each day from six to nine am for insight from
Speaker 1: the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course, on the terminal. I'm Tom Keene,
Speaker 1: and this is Bloomberg.