Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferroll and Lisa Brownowitz. Daily 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. We continue and
Speaker 1: focus on one fellow reserve. It is the Richmond Fed,
Speaker 1: which has a fabulous history from Black to broad Us
Speaker 1: to Lacquer and now to Barkin. The Richmond Fed one
Speaker 1: of my favorites with the wonderful Tom Humphreys on the
Speaker 1: history of our economy. It's had a wonderful leadership, including
Speaker 1: under Jeffrey Lacker, the former Richmond FED president joins us. Now, Michael,
Speaker 1: it's a different fet, isn't it. Well, it's a different fat,
Speaker 1: It's a different economy and we have learned a lot
Speaker 1: and now we have an do reaction function for the FED,
Speaker 1: which is where I'd like to start. Jeff, you have
Speaker 1: expressed some reservations about this new policy of letting the
Speaker 1: economy run a little hot till we can average inflation,
Speaker 1: because you've expressed concern that that could unmore inflation expectations.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the Fed, in particular J Powell,
Speaker 1: over the last couple of weeks and with his address
Speaker 1: on Friday, maybe UH put a little bit of those
Speaker 1: concerns to rest by emphasizing the fact that the Fed
Speaker 1: is going to stay focused on inflation. UM somewhat, but
Speaker 1: I think UM, I think the Fed's in a tough
Speaker 1: spot the UH the danger that they face from this
Speaker 1: inflation surge. UM, we have inflation on a six month
Speaker 1: basis higher than it's been since nineteen three. The danger
Speaker 1: is that that persists. Rob Kaplan was talking on Friday
Speaker 1: about the then to which businesses were reporting that they
Speaker 1: expect these supply constraints to continue, but then beyond that
Speaker 1: getting embedded in inflation expectations. And I think that's the
Speaker 1: real key risk that UM, the FED is running these days.
Speaker 1: So I was glad to see that Powell addressed that
Speaker 1: in his remarks on Friday. He's and he's done that
Speaker 1: elsewhere as well as trying to assure the public that yes,
Speaker 1: if inflation persists at a high level, we have the
Speaker 1: tools to deal with that. But it's it's somewhat like
Speaker 1: I'm a friend of mine likinged it to um, you know,
Speaker 1: dr telling you you have gang green in your leg
Speaker 1: and don't worry. We have the tools to deal with it.
Speaker 1: But it's you know, the tools are the amputation kit
Speaker 1: and they include a big saw. So it's what we
Speaker 1: went through in the early eighties to get inflation down
Speaker 1: was exceptionally painful, and that's what motivated those of us
Speaker 1: who over time have advocated a more preemptive policy. The
Speaker 1: Fed's moved away from that and it's strategy statement last year.
Speaker 1: The risk it runs is that that shift last year
Speaker 1: UM is sort of a kin to going off Breton Woods,
Speaker 1: and and that it it gives people the license to
Speaker 1: believe that there's an entirely new regime in place now
Speaker 1: with regard to inflation. In terms of tools, one of
Speaker 1: the papers presented on Friday at Jackson Hall suggested that
Speaker 1: our star, the level of interest rates that would be neutral,
Speaker 1: is much lower than it had been. So does the
Speaker 1: FED really have tools? Can they raise rates and cut
Speaker 1: off inflation without sending the economy into recession? And I
Speaker 1: think they very clearly can, and um, you know, more
Speaker 1: to the point, I think they can nudge up the
Speaker 1: polar expected policy path um, you know, over the coming year,
Speaker 1: and I expect they're going to have to do that
Speaker 1: to keep inflation expectations contained. Um So, I think they
Speaker 1: have the tools to combat it. I mean, it's the
Speaker 1: blunt we haven't used them in a long time, but
Speaker 1: um yeah, I think the FED has the tools to
Speaker 1: do that if they well, let me put it this way,
Speaker 1: can they go back to jaw jaw to paraphrase Winston
Speaker 1: Churchill and job owed uh the economy into place? Or
Speaker 1: is it going to take action to get wall streets attention? Now?
Speaker 1: I think I think actions have always spoken louder than
Speaker 1: words in this Throughout the seventies, the Fed um loudly
Speaker 1: proclaimed it's uh opposition to inflation and it's desire to
Speaker 1: have inflation be lower. It just didn't take the actions
Speaker 1: to back that up until Volker in one started letting
Speaker 1: interest rates rise and engineered the recession that that brought
Speaker 1: inflation expectations down. Jeff Lacker, Tom Can, good morning to you.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the preemptive nature of a theory and that
Speaker 1: Richmond has led on that. I think of the late
Speaker 1: Marvin good Friend with a cause for concern over inflation,
Speaker 1: the whole shadow Open Market Committee. What we saw out
Speaker 1: of Carnegie Melon as well. Where did the inflation Eastas
Speaker 1: get it wrong? On your watch? So, I think that
Speaker 1: the stability of inflation expectations coming out of the recession
Speaker 1: UM was a bit of surprise, I mean a bit. Um.
Speaker 1: They were a bit more strongly anchored then I and
Speaker 1: several others expected, So the upside risk to inflation didn't emerge. Um.
Speaker 1: I'd point out um at the same time that UH
Speaker 1: inflation doubs were also also missed it. They were afraid
Speaker 1: of dramatic sag and inflation. Jeff, this came up, Jeff,
Speaker 1: this came up over the weekend. And this is a
Speaker 1: critical question in defense of the inflation Easta's the idea
Speaker 1: that the reason we didn't see the inflation is we
Speaker 1: just moved the inflationary impulse over to an increased asset
Speaker 1: allocation and an asset battle of sheet inequities in real estate,
Speaker 1: all the summer properties. Mike McKee can't afford. Sorry about that, Mike,
Speaker 1: Good to be with you, Tom Um. So I think, um,
Speaker 1: what people lost sight of with a huge increase in
Speaker 1: the Fence balance sheet is that the monetary liabilities it
Speaker 1: was pumping in the economy. We're being absorbed by a
Speaker 1: tremendously a tremendously large demand for liquid assets by the
Speaker 1: banking system, driven by the bank's natural reaction to what
Speaker 1: happened in two thousand and eight, but also regulatory um
Speaker 1: you know, impetus provided for them to hold larger liquid buffers,
Speaker 1: and that means that, you know, the demand for money
Speaker 1: is essentially flat at the interest rate on reserves, and yeah,
Speaker 1: we could increase the money supply a lot until we
Speaker 1: start forcing banks to hold more liquidity than they want.
Speaker 1: And we're we were ways away from that, so the
Speaker 1: size of the balance sheet wasn't really doing much for
Speaker 1: the economy. On the flip side of the station debate, Jeff,
Speaker 1: is the employment picture, and we're gonna get a better
Speaker 1: read on that perhaps on Friday. If you were still
Speaker 1: on the Fed, what would you be looking for to
Speaker 1: determine just how much slack or how tight the labor
Speaker 1: market really is. It's a really good question. You know,
Speaker 1: we had all these debates about what maximum employment meant
Speaker 1: or what that number was. It's really a long run,
Speaker 1: long horizon kind of thing. It's like, after all the
Speaker 1: sectoral reallocation has occurred. After all the matching that has
Speaker 1: to go on between people looking for another job, what
Speaker 1: kind of careers are going to be. I want a
Speaker 1: different occupation. I want to be in a restaurant anymore,
Speaker 1: and uh, firms looking for where they're going to find
Speaker 1: someone with the skills that I need. After that process
Speaker 1: plays out, Yeah, maximum employment might be a lower unemployment
Speaker 1: rate we have now, but that takes time, and maximum
Speaker 1: employment in September of it's really close to where we
Speaker 1: are right now. We're really close to September maximum employment.
Speaker 1: We can't we can't get maximum unemployment much above where
Speaker 1: it's it's going to be in September. So um, I
Speaker 1: think that you have to keep in mind the dynamic
Speaker 1: process in which labor markets. Heal some recent research by
Speaker 1: Bob Hall and Marianna kudlak Um in that regard is
Speaker 1: painting a very different picture of labor markets. You think
Speaker 1: of the unemployment ratist shooting up in a a recession
Speaker 1: coming down, but you know, uh, it looks like it
Speaker 1: just comes down at the same pace every every expansion. Jeff,
Speaker 1: you were very much an inflation used to when you
Speaker 1: were on the board, and I'm wondering if you've seen
Speaker 1: what the current FED seems to be arguing that inflation
Speaker 1: dynamics have changed, uh, and there is, as j Pal
Speaker 1: said on Friday, a natural disinflation in the global economy.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure i'd buy it. Um what people have
Speaker 1: been uh increasing the weight they place on um inflation
Speaker 1: expectations and inflation dynamics over the last couple of decades.
Speaker 1: I know, you know, early two thousands people thought it
Speaker 1: was all sort of a backward looking process. The important
Speaker 1: thing to remember and think the thing people neglect about
Speaker 1: inflation expectations. People talk about it as if it's some
Speaker 1: exogenous external force of nature or else some collective psychological
Speaker 1: whim or something. It's really expectations about what the FED
Speaker 1: is going to do in the near future. And so
Speaker 1: when you look at inflation expectations, that's really credibility of
Speaker 1: the FED, and that can change. And the process by
Speaker 1: which that shifts and changes over time is not one
Speaker 1: that's deeply deeply understood in the economics profession. So Lecker,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. With VCU and of course the
Speaker 1: former president of the Richmond FED, thank you, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. We've got the perfect guest for you. Kitchens
Speaker 1: of Society General. We spoke to his people last night
Speaker 1: and they said he would make an appearance with us,
Speaker 1: even though his arsenal struggles there. Kid, let me start
Speaker 1: with the first important question of the week. If Harry
Speaker 1: Kane and Ronaldo joined Arsenal, would that help? No, we
Speaker 1: can't defend the goal scoring is less of a problem
Speaker 1: unless one of them places full back. It's been sport
Speaker 1: to say the least. Kid, let's get started in a
Speaker 1: serious matter here. It is the summer doldrums, but it's
Speaker 1: not What are you looking for? How do you frame
Speaker 1: a set up to maybe a more active September in October?
Speaker 1: I think you know, we have to get away from
Speaker 1: being driven just by the FED tape of story. Um,
Speaker 1: so you know the the other currents will take over.
Speaker 1: I'll be interested, Oh, what's happening outside the United States?
Speaker 1: Only in the sense that things change if other parts
Speaker 1: of the world start to see recovery. If you started
Speaker 1: to get better data in Europe coming through relative to
Speaker 1: the States, that could change things a little bit. But
Speaker 1: but while we're bogged down with this idea of not
Speaker 1: even when does the FED start to slow its asset
Speaker 1: purchases down? But what does that mean about when they're done?
Speaker 1: And what does that mean about when rate rice has
Speaker 1: come and they're not going to come to three? So hey,
Speaker 1: what are we going to do in two? You know,
Speaker 1: we have to we have to get past that, that
Speaker 1: whole story. But I think you know, there's there's geopolitics
Speaker 1: coming up. The comment situation is is is either going
Speaker 1: to improve or or it's going to become a real
Speaker 1: economic factor again, so that that's not static. Um and um.
Speaker 1: You know, the the range of forecasts for Friday's peril
Speaker 1: numbers over on your side of the pond is huge,
Speaker 1: So we will get surprised by this. We we don't
Speaker 1: have a handle on the place of job creation really,
Speaker 1: we just guess kit taking a step back, it seems
Speaker 1: like the market is saying that the taper is a
Speaker 1: non event. Is that what we're seeing that basically Fed
Speaker 1: Chair J. Powell has successfully made tapering the one billion
Speaker 1: dollars of monthly bomb purchases an entirely non event from markets.
Speaker 1: It should be. I mean, in a sense, the whole
Speaker 1: idea of the table was the you know, the FED
Speaker 1: slows down its asset purchases at the same time as
Speaker 1: the government spends less money and the needs to issue
Speaker 1: fewer bombs. So who cares, right, Because what what we've
Speaker 1: done is we is the United States finance the pandemic
Speaker 1: with the government handing out checks paid for by issuing
Speaker 1: debt that was brought by the Fed. Just unwind the process.
Speaker 1: Just stop paying out checks and stop stop buying the bombs,
Speaker 1: and then and then we can get back to discussing
Speaker 1: important stuff, which is did all these checks create savings?
Speaker 1: Did all these create checks create demand? Did all these
Speaker 1: checks create inflation somewhere out there with all these bottlenecks
Speaker 1: and things like that, And I think that's what we're
Speaker 1: going to find out. But the focus is on can
Speaker 1: can the US government have spent this much money getting
Speaker 1: the on me to recover this fast from the pandemic
Speaker 1: without without some inflation that's stickier than the legged than
Speaker 1: the FED is going to feel comfortable with. And we're
Speaker 1: going to find that out over the next six months
Speaker 1: in a big way, I think, you know. Okay, speaking
Speaker 1: of being this far from the pandemic, it is interesting
Speaker 1: that people are saying that when we taper, we have
Speaker 1: to go faster given how far into this we are
Speaker 1: eighteen months or so. How are you thinking about a
Speaker 1: pace of a taper um. Well, you know that the
Speaker 1: consensus view on tapering is you reduce. You reduce the
Speaker 1: pace by ten billion each FMC meeting instead of the
Speaker 1: five billion for treasuries that they did in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: and that takes a year. Now you could go every month,
Speaker 1: you could try more. In a sense, it should be
Speaker 1: possible to go fast because the Treasury is going to
Speaker 1: be issuing less debt into it, so you're you know,
Speaker 1: you've got you kind of got things lined up. The
Speaker 1: only difficulty would be if we started to get seriously
Speaker 1: worried out the inflation data and the strength of the
Speaker 1: economy at the same time as they're tapering, and then
Speaker 1: the bond market is going to struggle and that kind
Speaker 1: of catches us where we are. It's really easy, it's
Speaker 1: really easy to to taper without yields going up if
Speaker 1: inflation is low and the economy is not growing too fast.
Speaker 1: But if you if you lose control of the story
Speaker 1: while you're doing it, it can get pretty messy. So
Speaker 1: I think they'll I mean, I would go as fast
Speaker 1: as the market let me go once I started, because
Speaker 1: it buys me a degree of freedom. But you have
Speaker 1: to be market lead. You know, if you if you
Speaker 1: cut back your your purchases by ten billion one month
Speaker 1: um and yields back up study basis points in the
Speaker 1: first week, you know you kind of you go and
Speaker 1: have a scratch of your head pretty quickly. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, greatly appreciated. A good conversation to start the
Speaker 1: week for me, society General and the chief Foreign Exchange
Speaker 1: Strategies right now is the most important conversation of the
Speaker 1: day and even of the week. For those that are saying,
Speaker 1: you know, lose the fancy talk, just give me some courage.
Speaker 1: Robert Doll for decades has done just that, a storied
Speaker 1: career in the equity markets with cross market global investments,
Speaker 1: and Bob Doll I love within your research. Note you say, look,
Speaker 1: we've got to invest in a quote a still good economy.
Speaker 1: What does stocks do in a still good economy? They
Speaker 1: generally go up. Tom uh. You know, a good economy
Speaker 1: means good earnings and so the path of LEAs resistance
Speaker 1: has been and likely will continue to be to the upside.
Speaker 1: That does not mean there aren't flies in an ointment.
Speaker 1: I can give you a list but the path of
Speaker 1: least resistance is still higher. Tom. You know that, Bob,
Speaker 1: the flies an ointment, Let's go right there, because that's
Speaker 1: how I roll. I mean, honestly, what material fly in
Speaker 1: the ointment are you looking at that potentially could disrupt
Speaker 1: things in a way that people are not expecting. Well,
Speaker 1: if they're all at the margin. You all just talked
Speaker 1: about coronavirus and in the delta variant that that that
Speaker 1: is one. But inside the market, earnings estimates for the
Speaker 1: third quarter peaked in early August and they're off a
Speaker 1: little bit. That's after four quarters were right. During the
Speaker 1: quarter of the earnings estimates kept going up. Brett's the
Speaker 1: average stock peaked in June. What's that telling us? Its
Speaker 1: telling us the markets get a little tired. So I
Speaker 1: can find flies and annointment are the material ones? Great question, Bob?
Speaker 1: Can you answer the question for me? Can we get
Speaker 1: a reflationary cyclical trade if bond yields don't rise? Uh?
Speaker 1: That's the million dollar question. If you dropped me on
Speaker 1: the planet and told me everything except where the tangy
Speaker 1: year and asked me to guess, I guess a lot
Speaker 1: higher than one thirty something going on the bond market
Speaker 1: when the SUP has the same yield as a tenure treasury. Um. Uh,
Speaker 1: we need to watch that carefully. That has that you
Speaker 1: has to go up. Uh in my view to have
Speaker 1: this cyclical trade. To come back on, Bob Dol, you
Speaker 1: have fought against the pendulum of flies in the ointment
Speaker 1: for decades. In decades you have said you have to
Speaker 1: participate in the foundation of that, Bob Doll, is it
Speaker 1: corporations will adjust? Do you observe and in what way
Speaker 1: do you observe corporations adjusting into two thousand twenty two. Well,
Speaker 1: I'll start look in the rear view mirror. First. If
Speaker 1: you had told me they're more companies in the SMP
Speaker 1: five dred that would benefit from COVID, then would be hurt.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have believe you wanted to get. But that's
Speaker 1: exactly what's happened. Corporations are figuring out how to morph. Uh.
Speaker 1: They're dealing with very low interest rates. Uh. They've learned
Speaker 1: how to raise prices in environment where pricing power is
Speaker 1: coming back. They've kept cost down. A labor I think
Speaker 1: will be a flying ointment on that one. But corporations
Speaker 1: have morphed in lots of ways that caused them to
Speaker 1: print these slin earnings reports. I'll talk about another flying
Speaker 1: the ointment, just to keep repeating the image on this
Speaker 1: Monday morning for everybody eating breakfast. I do wonder going forward, Bob,
Speaker 1: about the potential for higher taxes, and I look to Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Pulling together some sort of infrastructure plan. What
Speaker 1: have you accounted for in your projections and what isn't
Speaker 1: accounted for? Right now? Yeah, I still think the path
Speaker 1: the least resistance for that legislation is that we do
Speaker 1: have a Democrat reconciliation package following the bipartisan um infrastructure plan,
Speaker 1: but a much watered down one. Uh. Let's call it
Speaker 1: two trillion with up to a trillion dollar of tax increases,
Speaker 1: kind of the plane Vanilla ones, higher for higher wage earners,
Speaker 1: for corporations, and higher capital gains. But you know, the
Speaker 1: Afghanistan thing, uh, does not raise President Biden's political capital
Speaker 1: get that through. So whatever you thought the probability there,
Speaker 1: it is lower. Now, Bob Don, what's your target on
Speaker 1: SMPF hundred. I'm embarrassed to say fifty. Uh, as the
Speaker 1: thing just keeps going up, I've not revised my target.
Speaker 1: Let's revise it. Right now. It's a slow Monday. We
Speaker 1: had to get Riggs on the show for Taylor. Riggs,
Speaker 1: do your revision right now. Al there we go. We're
Speaker 1: making news. Bob Doll, thank you so much. Dollar, I
Speaker 1: love it, Taylor Dollar, cross Mark pretty cool joining us now.
Speaker 1: Peter Truowittz from the London School of Economics with all
Speaker 1: of his good work over the years at the University
Speaker 1: of Texas at Austin, and Professor Trubowitz. We talked to
Speaker 1: Afghan experts. I want to talk to you about United
Speaker 1: States experts, and I go back to your landmark politics
Speaker 1: and strategy. Do we have a strategy in foreign policy
Speaker 1: that gets us out to say, two thousand twenty three
Speaker 1: a year before our next election. Well, Tom, it's good
Speaker 1: to be with you. I would say we have the
Speaker 1: beginnings of a of a strategy. I mean, really, what's
Speaker 1: been going on for well over ten years at the
Speaker 1: United States is in the process of reassessing and adjusting
Speaker 1: strategically and internationally. What that means is moving more of
Speaker 1: its energy, it's time, it's energy, and its assets to
Speaker 1: East Asia and domestically. I think the principal challenge that
Speaker 1: has dogged three administrations. Is UM rebuilding or renewing the
Speaker 1: social contract, which has really been badly damaged by the
Speaker 1: country's failure to keep international openness and social protection and balance.
Speaker 1: This is the challenge. Afghanistan doesn't really change that, but
Speaker 1: I think it kind of draws our attention to it
Speaker 1: in a kind of more focused way. UM. As we
Speaker 1: wind down this chapter and UH and hopefully the United
Speaker 1: States begins a new one, I look Peter at a
Speaker 1: new strategy, and it just seems to be all of
Speaker 1: the ghosts that the looking back. We look back one year,
Speaker 1: we looked back, two decades, we look back three wars.
Speaker 1: Which are you looking back to to find perspective? I'm
Speaker 1: not actually looking back at wars. What I think about
Speaker 1: is I think about I really do think we're in
Speaker 1: a period where the national interest is being redefined, and
Speaker 1: it's not being done in the news cycle. It's being
Speaker 1: done over an extended period of time. So I look
Speaker 1: back at periods for the historians out there, UH, like
Speaker 1: the eighteen nineties and the nineteen twenties and the nineteen
Speaker 1: forties and the nineteen seventies where the United States readjusted, recalibrated,
Speaker 1: change the balance between international and domestic stick interest and
Speaker 1: and that's what I think we're in the middle of.
Speaker 1: And I think it's very hard to see. You have
Speaker 1: to be able to kind of bracket it, step outside
Speaker 1: of it, and get some distance looking at it from
Speaker 1: ten thousand feet rather than from from a hundred feet,
Speaker 1: And right when you're in the middle of something like
Speaker 1: what's going on in Afghanistan right now, it's very hard
Speaker 1: to see that. But I do think that's what Biden wants,
Speaker 1: perhaps trying to get out he is having trouble. That's
Speaker 1: where I wanted to go because right now we're looking
Speaker 1: at an agenda in Washington, d C. That is almost
Speaker 1: solidly Afghanistan. I mean, I was watching the Sunday talk
Speaker 1: shows and the political shows are all Afghanistan at a time,
Speaker 1: and we're heading up into the debt ceiling debate. We're
Speaker 1: heading up until uh this question about infrastructure and getting
Speaker 1: it past. I mean, did this just accomplish the opposite? Yes,
Speaker 1: I think that's you know, they said, that's the great
Speaker 1: irony and all of this. One of the reasons that
Speaker 1: Biden was so keen to get out of Afghanistan was
Speaker 1: to focus more attention on domestic problems and the messy,
Speaker 1: costly withdrawal from Afghanistan has basically only increased the political
Speaker 1: risks of failing to deliver on that front and the
Speaker 1: difficulties of getting it done because he's now open and
Speaker 1: vulnerable to attacks over Afghanistan. You heard it yesterday, people
Speaker 1: calling for impeachment, Lindsey Graham calling for impeachment of Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: you know, and and we'll hear more of that in
Speaker 1: the coming days. I think, Professor, are our allies rethinking
Speaker 1: our commitment to them, and I have Taiwan specifically in mind,
Speaker 1: so you know, I think that is going on, although Frankly, Teller,
Speaker 1: it's mostly on my side of the Atlantic over here,
Speaker 1: and I don't mean the UK, but also in Europe
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people who are very piste off
Speaker 1: about not being sufficiently consulted about the operations with respect
Speaker 1: to the withdrawal. I hear much less of actually from
Speaker 1: our allies in East Asia. So why is that the case.
Speaker 1: I think it's because they know that the goal behind this,
Speaker 1: at least the international goal, is to shift the focus
Speaker 1: to East Asia, to China and more broadly, and that's
Speaker 1: a concern on this side of the Atlantic on on,
Speaker 1: you know, in the European theater, Peter, Are we actually
Speaker 1: going to see the US remove involvement from that region
Speaker 1: or are these drone attacks that we're seeing going to
Speaker 1: be ongoing and then the need to put more personnel
Speaker 1: on the ground in order to get intelligence. Then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, did we really get out in the
Speaker 1: first place? Well, I mean, you know, who knows. But
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna see now because of the terrorist
Speaker 1: strike again that killed you know, US service um men
Speaker 1: and women, We're going to see the Biden administration invest
Speaker 1: more time and energy in this. I think they really
Speaker 1: cannot afford to see this kind of thing happen. It
Speaker 1: really can't happen on their watch. Whether or not it
Speaker 1: can be done over the horizon, that is, with drones
Speaker 1: and some special courses, I think that's the goal. I
Speaker 1: do not think there is a huge push anywhere for
Speaker 1: more kind of boots on the ground, big time with
Speaker 1: nation building the United States. American people, when you look
Speaker 1: at the polls, they're piste off about how the withdrawal
Speaker 1: was handled, but they are not upset about getting out
Speaker 1: of Afghanistan. Peter, Thank you so much. Peter, Trubois with
Speaker 1: us the London School of Economics Professor of International Relations
Speaker 1: that this is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: Join us live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day from
Speaker 1: six to nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course on
Speaker 1: the terminal. I'm Tom keane in. This is Bloomer