Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane, along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jay Leye. We bring
Speaker 1: you insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot Com, and of course, on the Bloomberg terminal. Lorie
Speaker 1: camp jokes Now Strategy Capital Markets. Laurie, thank you. Tom's
Speaker 1: gonna have a drink. He's going to settle down. Let's
Speaker 1: start right here. It secuity market within a couple of
Speaker 1: percentage points from all time highs. We're doing this in
Speaker 1: the face of slowing growth in China. We're doing this
Speaker 1: in the face of a conversation about higher interest rates
Speaker 1: at the Federal Reserve. What is the resilience of this market,
Speaker 1: says you, Laurie. Look, I think the resilience of the
Speaker 1: market has been absolutely remarkable. UM And I think you
Speaker 1: know one of the things that we noticed last week, frankly,
Speaker 1: as we went through our names the big banks, we're
Speaker 1: talking about how much cash consumers have sitting in their
Speaker 1: bank accounts. Um, and so when we think about just
Speaker 1: the underlying appetite that's out there from both corporates and consumers. Um.
Speaker 1: Just that strength of the balance sheet is something that
Speaker 1: you know, really has made talk of a growth scare
Speaker 1: very premature over the last month or two. So we've
Speaker 1: got some clear speed bumps. The central banks are one
Speaker 1: of them. Um. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the balance sheets are fine, the consumers are in great shape,
Speaker 1: the appetite is very, very healthy, and I think that's
Speaker 1: allowed investors to look through some of these supply chain issues.
Speaker 1: We're talking about, the supply chain issues, Laura, I'd love
Speaker 1: you to pick up on that. In your recent note,
Speaker 1: you said there are signs in the data its supply
Speaker 1: chain disruptions are peaking. What are those signs? So you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things we've been talking a lot about,
Speaker 1: Lisa over the last few weeks is if you look
Speaker 1: at the relationship between global COVID cases and freight costs,
Speaker 1: global COVID places tend to be a leading indicator, a
Speaker 1: very loose one by about one to two months, but
Speaker 1: a leading indicator nonetheless, And guess what, a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago we actually started to see some very modest
Speaker 1: declines and freight costs. So that's one of them. It's
Speaker 1: still very early days. We'll see if it ends up sticking,
Speaker 1: but that's one of the glimmers of hope we've seen.
Speaker 1: Some of the others we've seen, frankly, are looking at
Speaker 1: regional fred surveys, where we've looked at indexes on delivery
Speaker 1: times and backlogs um and orders that are hard to fill,
Speaker 1: and we're not seeing outright improvement on those indicators yet,
Speaker 1: but we are starting to see a modest improvement in
Speaker 1: the rate of change, so growth that's a little bit slower,
Speaker 1: and that's something we talked about with freight costs about
Speaker 1: a month ago or so, that we had started to
Speaker 1: see the rate of growth start to come in. We
Speaker 1: start we're talking about that with global COVID cases over
Speaker 1: the summer. These rates have changed. When they start to improve,
Speaker 1: that's a necessary precondition to getting outright relief, and we
Speaker 1: think that we're starting to see that in a lot
Speaker 1: of different parts of the data. LORI LORII. Then does
Speaker 1: this mean that it's time to start buying a consumer discretionaries, industrials, materials.
Speaker 1: So look, we're actually neutral on all those sectors. We
Speaker 1: never went to a full on bear tilt. We did
Speaker 1: downgrade Materials at the beginning of August because we noticed
Speaker 1: that the rate of upward revisions was starting to decelerate.
Speaker 1: What I've told people is that if you want to
Speaker 1: bottom fish and one of those supply chain oriented sectors,
Speaker 1: I think materials is probably the safest place to do it,
Speaker 1: just because the valuations there are already pretty cheap. Industrials
Speaker 1: and consumer discretionary are still looking pretty expensive in the
Speaker 1: big cap world, but Materials has had a nice valuation
Speaker 1: story all along, And I would just add Leasta, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things we've been talking a lot about
Speaker 1: the last couple of weeks is if you look at
Speaker 1: industrials and materials, the rate of upward revisions has just
Speaker 1: fallen like a like a rock. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: got straight down, and we're actually seeing levels of upward
Speaker 1: revisions that are consistent with bottoms in that particular indicator
Speaker 1: when you're not in a big recession. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we do think that there's a good chance that a
Speaker 1: lot of these supply chain pressures are baked in. Lauri,
Speaker 1: the gloom crew is taking a view of earnings is
Speaker 1: being problematic. You flat out say they're wrong. You say
Speaker 1: there's a positive tilt sector to sector, company to company
Speaker 1: with your analysts. Discuss that when you listen and read
Speaker 1: your analysts, what are you listening and reading? So it's
Speaker 1: a it's a great question, Tom, And once a quarter
Speaker 1: we do a check in with all of our analysts.
Speaker 1: We basically survey our analysts across the industries we cover,
Speaker 1: and we just say, what do you think in terms
Speaker 1: of performance for the outlook for the industry you cover,
Speaker 1: but also what do you think about fundamentals, policy, valuation UM.
Speaker 1: And what we found, basically, Tom, is that they're still
Speaker 1: looking for a pretty strong outlook over the next six
Speaker 1: to twelve months. They still have very favorable views on
Speaker 1: the fundamental backdrop, very favorable views on cash deployment, which
Speaker 1: is actually the area they're most bullish on. The valuation
Speaker 1: for us have gotten a little bit better since the
Speaker 1: last survey in June. They're cool on policy, they're concerned
Speaker 1: about margins UM, but on balance, they see pretty good
Speaker 1: indicators over the next six to twelve months, and we
Speaker 1: have to listen to that. That's the boots on the
Speaker 1: ground feel, even on supply chain issues. Tom I was
Speaker 1: frankly floored that only a handful of them told me
Speaker 1: it was a major problem for their industries. Most of
Speaker 1: them were in the moderate problem camp, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them told me it simply wasn't a relevant issue.
Speaker 1: End next year, what's the number. So we're still at
Speaker 1: fort hundred, which from where we are today is about
Speaker 1: a nine percent gain. You know, it's funny I get
Speaker 1: accused by some investors of being too barish. I get
Speaker 1: accused by a lot these days of being too bullish.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty trend like forecast. It's not heroic um,
Speaker 1: but we do think that there is room for this
Speaker 1: market to continue to move up in the year ahead.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a slower pace than what we've seen.
Speaker 1: We're removing some of that accommodation. But nonetheless, we do
Speaker 1: think the bones of this economy are very strong. And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, John, I have not heard anything in
Speaker 1: the last you know, sort of a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: in this early part of recording season that's made me
Speaker 1: change that view. Laurie, Thank you constructive on the year ahead,
Speaker 1: Laurie Canvassin and that of MBC Capital Market. It's larly
Speaker 1: great to kick off the week with you. This is
Speaker 1: a really really important conversation. It's two parts. It's the
Speaker 1: institution and it's the chief economists. The institution is a
Speaker 1: conference board, and they really look at the granularity that's
Speaker 1: out there. Think Ellen Greenspan. Dana Peterson joins us this morning. Dana,
Speaker 1: I love what you say. Watch what they do, not
Speaker 1: what they say. You're fairly optimistic on consumption. Yes, we are, certainly.
Speaker 1: We look at the August and September retail sales data,
Speaker 1: even abstracting away from higher prices, consumers came back and
Speaker 1: they spent even amid the delta variant. Now, unfortunately, the
Speaker 1: better readings in August and September won't make up for
Speaker 1: the abysmal reading that we saw in July. But again,
Speaker 1: July was really the start of the delta variant. And
Speaker 1: we when we look at the data regarding infections, they're
Speaker 1: starting to come off um and so we have very
Speaker 1: good momentum heading into the fourth quarter. We had very
Speaker 1: good momentum of the fourth quarter. Is that in is
Speaker 1: that in the central bank? Few right now? Is the
Speaker 1: Central Bank looking at that saying everybody calm down? I mean,
Speaker 1: is that where you go? The central banks? The Feds
Speaker 1: got it right well, I've think the Essential Bank is saying, look,
Speaker 1: we really need to watch the data here UM and
Speaker 1: certainly when we look at consumer spending heading into the
Speaker 1: fourth quarter, it could potentially be constrained. Not because of
Speaker 1: lack of demand. There's very strong demand for buying things
Speaker 1: um and also rising demand for services. Indeed, many people
Speaker 1: will be traveling. But it's really about inventories, inflation, and
Speaker 1: transportation costs and also labor costs that have risen. UM.
Speaker 1: Inventories are clearly lean because you're having issues producing amid
Speaker 1: the delta variant, and also once you move those products
Speaker 1: across the seas, it's really hard to offload them and
Speaker 1: then move them by trucking around the country. And certainly
Speaker 1: prices have risen pretty aggressively, and we can talk about that,
Speaker 1: but certainly that may put off some consumers from buying. Meanwhile, data,
Speaker 1: I uh, We've got Mr Blanche Flower over at dart
Speaker 1: Math screaming at the screen, probably watching that, saying, did
Speaker 1: you not read my report? You have read his report
Speaker 1: saying that typically one consumer confidence rolls over to the
Speaker 1: sense that it has it does portend recession, and you
Speaker 1: kind of dismiss it. Why do you not necessarily take
Speaker 1: his point that when you get such a decline in
Speaker 1: consumer confidence that is a telltale signal of something negative
Speaker 1: happening in the economy. Sure, well, a few things, and
Speaker 1: we did look at the report and we did not
Speaker 1: ignore it. First off, and uh, he's right. There are
Speaker 1: many instances when you see a dip, a significant dip
Speaker 1: and the expectations gauge within our consumer confidence report, and
Speaker 1: that did follow recessions. However, there were at least six
Speaker 1: or seven, maybe even eight other instances where you did
Speaker 1: not see a recession. Um. Also, it's very important to
Speaker 1: look at the level. So the level of expectations is
Speaker 1: right around where we were back in seventeen. I don't
Speaker 1: remember anyone really thinking we were going into a recession,
Speaker 1: other than the fact that, well the cycle has been long,
Speaker 1: but we know cycles don't die of old age. Um.
Speaker 1: And then also when you look at the details beneath
Speaker 1: the expectations gauge, there more people who were expecting economic
Speaker 1: conditions and just general conditions to improve relative to those
Speaker 1: who think things are going to get worse. So those
Speaker 1: are our views, but data, I'm atty fast does the
Speaker 1: economy have to grow given how much debt we have
Speaker 1: given how much we've leveraged up this economy and are
Speaker 1: relying on consumers to deploy their cash. Sure, that's a
Speaker 1: great question, but also when we look at the U.
Speaker 1: S economy, we're probably gonna grow around five and a
Speaker 1: half six percent this year and then probably slowed to
Speaker 1: four And even if we slowed to three or even
Speaker 1: two percent, that's still really astounding. The economy grew on
Speaker 1: average two point two percent in the decade following the
Speaker 1: Great Financial Crisis, and even just before the pandemic, we're
Speaker 1: growing around two and a half percent, So if we
Speaker 1: slow to three percent next year, we're still growing well
Speaker 1: above potential and even above the pace that we saw
Speaker 1: prior to the pandemic. And just speaking of debt, certainly
Speaker 1: you did have a lot of fiscal stimulus that padded
Speaker 1: people's um wallets. But when we think about what people
Speaker 1: use that money for, a third of it was saved,
Speaker 1: a third of it was invested, and then only a
Speaker 1: third of it was consumed, So that means there's still
Speaker 1: a lot left for people to spend on. Then I
Speaker 1: want you to go back to the heritage of the
Speaker 1: Conference Board, truly back decades folks to World War two
Speaker 1: and and on from that, you see the glass half full.
Speaker 1: What is the major misjudgment on Q four, Q one,
Speaker 1: Q two of next year? Sure, I think that well,
Speaker 1: certainly we're going to have the whole dead ceiling and
Speaker 1: budget crisis debacle issue return to US in December, so
Speaker 1: there's still risk of a shutdown. I think inflation really
Speaker 1: is the biggest issue that we're looking at. We're expecting
Speaker 1: that prices are going to continue to rise on the
Speaker 1: year on your basis, through the end of the year,
Speaker 1: and they are big questions about how quickly they slow.
Speaker 1: There's some factors that are just not going to go
Speaker 1: overweight overnight. Indeed, when we look at the semiconductor shortage
Speaker 1: that's driving up prices for cars and high tech goods,
Speaker 1: that's not going to be resolved overnight. And certainly when
Speaker 1: we look at other areas of inflation, um rents, they
Speaker 1: were depressed throughout the pandemic, so we should expect that
Speaker 1: they're going to rise again and that's going to put
Speaker 1: upward pressure on core inflation. So I think inflation certainly
Speaker 1: is one of the bigger risks that we're seeing in
Speaker 1: the short run for the US economy. Danna just brilliant
Speaker 1: as always, really brilliant. Dinna paidis in that of the
Speaker 1: Conference board on this economy right now, there is no
Speaker 1: debate Tomorrow in the eleven o'clock hour. I will brave
Speaker 1: it once again. John Farrell coming along to hold my hand.
Speaker 1: I'll get my booster shot. I've been actively waiting for that.
Speaker 1: I took the first appointment I could get us the
Speaker 1: only reason. Joshua Sharfstein joins us this morning by Steen
Speaker 1: at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Joshua Sharfton,
Speaker 1: when we were kids, getting a booster out wasn't even discussed.
Speaker 1: It's just something you did. Why are we having this discussion, Well,
Speaker 1: because at the beginning, we didn't know when it was
Speaker 1: going to happen. You know, most times the entire series
Speaker 1: is well known before the vaccine is you know, approved. Here,
Speaker 1: we had an authorization that happened because of the speed
Speaker 1: that was necessary, you know, thinking there probably would be
Speaker 1: a booster shot necessarily, but just not when. So then
Speaker 1: suddenly when it pops up, then everybody is kind of
Speaker 1: trying to figure it out in real time. Usually this
Speaker 1: would all happen, you know, well in advance, do you
Speaker 1: have a clue the duration of two vaccines and a
Speaker 1: booster shot? Is that a duration out one year, out
Speaker 1: five years lifetime? Um, well, we don't know because we
Speaker 1: don't have the time, but it's most likely, you know,
Speaker 1: pretty pretty significant. I would think that for that particular strain,
Speaker 1: it's going to be you know, durable. You know, most
Speaker 1: people are saying at least for a couple of years.
Speaker 1: The real question mark here, though, is whether there is
Speaker 1: a mutation in the virus that makes the vaccine not
Speaker 1: so good, in which case it's not really a booster,
Speaker 1: it's a different vaccine against a different form of the
Speaker 1: virus that we might need. Joshua, there is an issue
Speaker 1: right now, not only of the developed world, which frankly
Speaker 1: does seem to be on the decline when it comes
Speaker 1: to the number of COVID cases, thankfully, but the rest
Speaker 1: of the world that might not have access to vaccines.
Speaker 1: Are the big biopharmaceutical companies doing the best that they
Speaker 1: can in your view, to increased distribution and supplies to
Speaker 1: the other countries that have not yet really seen penetration
Speaker 1: with vaccines. Now, in my view, no, they're not, and
Speaker 1: it's really appalling unfortunately, and particularly I think the criticism
Speaker 1: from Maderna has been pretty intense because the company is
Speaker 1: selling just a very very small amount of vaccines, sometimes
Speaker 1: at high prices to low income countries, and there are
Speaker 1: many many parts of the world that have very poor
Speaker 1: access to those two very effective vaccines. I think fies
Speaker 1: Are is considered to be doing somewhat better job, but
Speaker 1: really what we need is real manufacturing capacity in those
Speaker 1: countries so that they're not dependent on exports, and in
Speaker 1: the future they can use that capacity if there is
Speaker 1: another strain that needs a vaccine, or there are other
Speaker 1: vaccines that need to be made. And you know, the
Speaker 1: the government really funded the technology here in many different ways.
Speaker 1: It is really appropriate for that technology to be transferred effectively.
Speaker 1: Where is the burden here? Should it be on the
Speaker 1: public sector because this is a global health issue and
Speaker 1: it's not just a humanitarian one. It's also about health
Speaker 1: to get the the the the COVID under control around
Speaker 1: the world. Or is this really on the specific private
Speaker 1: biopharmaceutraceutical companies. Well, there's such a mix in terms of
Speaker 1: how this whole project work. I mean, the technology was
Speaker 1: supported by you know, investments from the public sector. The
Speaker 1: actual um vaccines, you know, only possible because of guaranteed
Speaker 1: purchases and in the upfront investments in the case of Maderna,
Speaker 1: from the public sector. And so that's where the technology
Speaker 1: is that you can't say to the public sector, will
Speaker 1: you know, go fix it without the fiser and Maderna vaccines,
Speaker 1: those are public sector creations. And so it is really
Speaker 1: you know, all of our responsibility, you know, to the world,
Speaker 1: not just to be handing out vaccines, but to be
Speaker 1: helping them grow the capacity to make them themselves. We
Speaker 1: all have our way of measuring this natural disaster. Dr
Speaker 1: scharf Stein for me, I look at one statistic in
Speaker 1: one of the papers, and the good news is it's
Speaker 1: ebbing down number of deaths per day. Do you have
Speaker 1: a target for number of deaths per day in the
Speaker 1: United States of America? Well, you know, I'm really looking
Speaker 1: forward to it going under a hundred. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: still at like I'm us, yeah, it's it's really high.
Speaker 1: I mean I think that, I mean, I'll feel like
Speaker 1: we're in a much better place when we're at under
Speaker 1: a hundred a day, which is totally possible, you know,
Speaker 1: I think with with with vaccination and with a little
Speaker 1: bit of passage of time here, you know, but but
Speaker 1: we really do have to, um, you know, keep pushing
Speaker 1: forward just quickly. What is the efficacy of the g
Speaker 1: n J vaccine after six months? What do we founding
Speaker 1: out about that? UM? We're finding out that it's I
Speaker 1: think kind of holding steady in the seventies somewhere UM,
Speaker 1: particularly for hospitalization, and that is not as good as
Speaker 1: the other vaccines, which is I think what you're hearing
Speaker 1: at the FDA Advisory committee. So why why are we
Speaker 1: still using that here in America? Then? Doctor? Why are
Speaker 1: we not just pushing that one to one side and saying, look,
Speaker 1: the efficacy is not there. Why keep using it that?
Speaker 1: You know, that's not an unfair question to ask. I
Speaker 1: think that part of the reason is that it looks
Speaker 1: pretty good with two doses. So I think that UM
Speaker 1: and and that second dose maybe from one of the
Speaker 1: other vaccines. It may be that the FDA will say
Speaker 1: it's it's fine to you know, use a booster with
Speaker 1: the different joes. But you're asking a good question, you know,
Speaker 1: why start out with it? If we have these other vaccines.
Speaker 1: I'll give you one other reason, which is that there
Speaker 1: are some people who are allergic to some of the
Speaker 1: components of the m R and A vaccines they cannot
Speaker 1: take them, in which case, you know, the Johnson Johns
Speaker 1: of vaccines did alternate. Thanks for that perspective, appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Just with Chef staying there on an important conversation hits
Speaker 1: almost we start to find out more and more about
Speaker 1: just how effective these vaccines are. Six months after the
Speaker 1: first shot, the second shot Bloomberg surveillance across this nation
Speaker 1: and around the world, Colin Powell did at eighty four.
Speaker 1: There are any number of wonderful guests we could line
Speaker 1: up in the scramble to speak of the general, not
Speaker 1: a five star general, nut general of the army, as
Speaker 1: so many others, including one of his heroes, George Marshall.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless Colin Powell, we get Bobby Ghosh. And this
Speaker 1: is a wonderful thing because in journalism he's the one
Speaker 1: who actually did it. Others talked he lived in Baghdad
Speaker 1: in the Red Zone for Time magazine, and it wasn't
Speaker 1: the red zone because of Time magazines cover. It was
Speaker 1: the red zone of danger. Is well, when did you
Speaker 1: first come directly in contact with this unique general. Was
Speaker 1: it Iraq or was it before? Well, I first lived
Speaker 1: the consequences of of some of his decisions as a
Speaker 1: journalist in Iraq, but I didn't actually encounter him until
Speaker 1: after I had left the country. I think it was
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight or two thousand and nine. I
Speaker 1: was still a Time magazine. He had come to an
Speaker 1: event that Time Magazine was was hosting, and we spoke
Speaker 1: briefly about Iraq and everything that unfolded there was It
Speaker 1: was not the best place for a deep conversation, um
Speaker 1: and of course we were surrounded by a lot of
Speaker 1: other people, so I felt like he couldn't be as
Speaker 1: candid as he might have been. You were candid not
Speaker 1: only with Nate Rowlands years ago about the chain you
Speaker 1: never racked, but before that, this distinction at the time
Speaker 1: of General Powell's courage, in his lack of naivete versus
Speaker 1: others like Mr Bremer as well. How how was he
Speaker 1: listened to as we went into Iraq? Well, he was
Speaker 1: given the the impossible task of trying to defend the
Speaker 1: decision to go in there. And then once we were there,
Speaker 1: and once it was clear that the weapons of mass
Speaker 1: destruction were not there. He was in an impossible position
Speaker 1: of trying to then explain why we were we were
Speaker 1: still there. Um. He was not an an insider politician
Speaker 1: like Bremer was. He was a soldier first and foremost,
Speaker 1: and and the sense I got from him was that
Speaker 1: he was deeply pained by the military losses and the
Speaker 1: loss of prestige that the United States military had had
Speaker 1: to endure because of that decision. Um, you know later on,
Speaker 1: as he would explain in his in his autobiography, this
Speaker 1: is something that exercised him deeply to the end. He
Speaker 1: remained although he joined politics and he became a powerful
Speaker 1: figure in Washington, to the end, he remained a soldier,
Speaker 1: and the soldiers view off foreign policy very much informed
Speaker 1: his thinking. Bobby, just to discuss though, that one moment
Speaker 1: where he did help President Bush for a president push
Speaker 1: sell Operation Desert Storm, and the invasions, the subsequent invasions
Speaker 1: after the two thousand and one attacks. What is his
Speaker 1: legacy in terms of generals acting on the behalf of
Speaker 1: the president versus general's acting on the behalf of an
Speaker 1: independent party, which is something we have increasingly seen over
Speaker 1: the years. Well, it is I guess a cautionary tale
Speaker 1: for those who come after him. UM, be aware of politicians,
Speaker 1: I suppose is the is the simplest way to think
Speaker 1: of it. And it undermines his legacy. And it's a
Speaker 1: shame that it did at the time undermine his legacy
Speaker 1: as a soldier, as a commander. The power doctrine that
Speaker 1: he sort of author during the First Gulf War was
Speaker 1: then undone during the Second Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq. Um.
Speaker 1: I think any military commander who has sort of then
Speaker 1: after come into politics will have been and will continue
Speaker 1: to be deeply aware of the risk um of being
Speaker 1: associated with a particular brand of politics. Um. And when
Speaker 1: you when you give up the uniform, you give up
Speaker 1: the neutrality and you have to live with the consequences
Speaker 1: of General Powell is is dead. Also at a very
Speaker 1: crucial moment for the US is intervention, or perhaps lack
Speaker 1: of intervention in certain places in the world. There has
Speaker 1: been a shift in foreign policy away from international intervention
Speaker 1: to a more domestic policy. How did he figure into
Speaker 1: this transition that we seem to be in an ongoing
Speaker 1: way even under President Pidon Well. I think if it
Speaker 1: felt like he was a man out of time he
Speaker 1: was he was an old school Republican. He believed in uh,
Speaker 1: small government, he believed in in in low taxes, and
Speaker 1: that sort of republican. He was out of place in
Speaker 1: the sort of hyperpartisan, uh social republicanism that you see now.
Speaker 1: He he didn't have sort of He he didn't want
Speaker 1: really to get involved in the in the sort of
Speaker 1: dirty down, sort of messy um ideological battles that we're
Speaker 1: seeing take place now, which is why he eventually left
Speaker 1: the party. He was deeply pained, it was clear by
Speaker 1: the by the instruction on the sixth of January, and
Speaker 1: then he decided that that was it. He didn't want
Speaker 1: to be part of the party anymore um and became
Speaker 1: an independent. I'm sure that that brought him a lot
Speaker 1: of pain right at the end of his life. Edward
Speaker 1: Lerby's classic book on FDR The Commanders, talks about the generals,
Speaker 1: and there was Ike after the war drafted aggressively to
Speaker 1: be a presidential candidate. You move forward decades to Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: In the middle is Powell, who was really never drafted
Speaker 1: to be president? Why not? I've often wondered about that,
Speaker 1: And there was a moment when it seemed like it
Speaker 1: might be possible, um, but he was reluctant himself to
Speaker 1: go that far. Um. You know, Obama came, came, and
Speaker 1: and and and went to the White House and became
Speaker 1: the sort of the figure that represents the possibility of
Speaker 1: minorities in this country. But until that, that that time
Speaker 1: we forget now that Colin Powell was the first of
Speaker 1: those figures. That when he became Secretary of the State,
Speaker 1: he was the first African American to to to reach
Speaker 1: that role and was an inspiration for everyone, including Lloyd Austin.
Speaker 1: I mean, the fact is the second name of what
Speaker 1: you want Secretary of Defense Austin and so many others
Speaker 1: of so many different ethnicities and race, it began with him.
Speaker 1: Is that safe to say? I think that is very
Speaker 1: safe to say. So that his legacy in the military
Speaker 1: is enormous, um, you know. For but for that one
Speaker 1: blip with the war in Iraq, unfortunately it's a very
Speaker 1: big blip. It will always be an asterix in any
Speaker 1: description of him going forward. But I hope we don't
Speaker 1: forget that there was a there was a time when
Speaker 1: he represented the best of this country. Are you gonna
Speaker 1: like it? In New York. Bobby ghost Folks has have
Speaker 1: been living large in London here for for many different
Speaker 1: weeks and years as well. You're moving to New York right,
Speaker 1: it's day one. I'm this is day one in New
Speaker 1: York days. I'm Gonada home. We are hugely advantaged to
Speaker 1: have you with us on this important day. Bobby Ghosh
Speaker 1: with years, I should say, in Baghdad for Time magazine,
Speaker 1: and we are thrilled he's with Bloomberg Opinion. This is
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join us live
Speaker 1: weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg Radio
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg Television each day from six to nine
Speaker 1: am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And some ascribed to the Surveillance podcast
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course
Speaker 1: on the terminal. I'm Tom keene In. This is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: m