Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: As Stephanie Flanders, head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg,
Speaker 2: and this is Trumpernomics, the podcast that looks at everything
Speaker 2: in the economic world of Donald Trump. This week, we
Speaker 2: thought it made sense to talk about how the US
Speaker 2: tax system is struggling to tax gazillionaires and whether any
Speaker 2: of the bright ideas being floated for extracting more from
Speaker 2: the mega rich would actually work. It's not only the
Speaker 2: so called class warriors who are worrying about wealth taxes
Speaker 2: these days. The International Monetary Fund held a war gaming
Speaker 2: exercise a few months back with around fifty finance and
Speaker 2: technology experts. David Ramley wrote about it for Business Week.
Speaker 2: It included folks from Google, DeepMind, and the Rand Corporation,
Speaker 2: and the Federal Reserve, and they spent hours debating how
Speaker 2: AAR could upend the global economy in various ways. The
Speaker 2: AI doomsday scenario they were most concerned about, it turned out,
Speaker 2: was not killer robots, but a potentially civilization ending attack
Speaker 2: on the income tax base. The US government, like many
Speaker 2: relies on income taxes for much of its revenues, so
Speaker 2: if AI destroys well paying jobs, the theory goes, it
Speaker 2: could destroy a lot of those taxes. Now, there's plenty
Speaker 2: of companies and big investors who would be raking it
Speaker 2: in in that scenario. The trouble for the tax base
Speaker 2: is that most of that money would be in the
Speaker 2: form of capital gains on stocks and other assets, which
Speaker 2: tend to be very lightly taxed. In fact, in the US,
Speaker 2: they're often not taxed at all, and a number of
Speaker 2: Bloomberg stories this week have highlighted new and even more
Speaker 2: efficient ways that the super rich are finding to avoid
Speaker 2: capital gains, even as gasoline prizes jump again and the
Speaker 2: high cost of living stays as the number one issue
Speaker 2: for most voters. So no wonder that we're hearing more
Speaker 2: and more proposals from progressive politicians for wealth taxes, both
Speaker 2: in Europe and the US. In California at one time,
Speaker 2: billionaire five percent taxes on the ballot in the midterm
Speaker 2: elections in November. That's got a lot of attention. There
Speaker 2: are others. Could any of them get pasted? And even
Speaker 2: before we get to that, would any of them work?
Speaker 2: Johnny me to discuss this. We have in our DC
Speaker 2: studio Caitlin Riley, who covers Congress for us with a
Speaker 2: focus on tax and fiscal policy. And I should say,
Speaker 2: although she's sitting in a special sound booth in Capitol Hill,
Speaker 2: it is actually pretty noisy. Caitlin, thanks very much for
Speaker 2: joining us.
Speaker 1: Anyway, it is thank you for having.
Speaker 2: Me, and I'm happy to say coming back this week
Speaker 2: is Jason Furman, Professor of economic policy at the Harvard
Speaker 2: Kennedy School and Harvard's Department of Economics, and he, of
Speaker 2: course was chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors,
Speaker 2: writes and thinks about pretty much everything this podcast is
Speaker 2: interested in. Jason, thanks for coming back.
Speaker 3: Great to be back with you.
Speaker 2: Caitlyn, just give us a quick summary of how live
Speaker 2: this issue is of taxing the wealthy where you hang
Speaker 2: out on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: Well, it's increasingly front of mind for Democrats. Democrats are
Speaker 1: not currently in power in either the House, the Senate,
Speaker 1: or of course the White House, and so right now
Speaker 1: these ideas are more theoretical, but they featured heavily in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty presidential primary on the Democrat side, and
Speaker 1: we would expect them to feature heavily again as we
Speaker 1: look forward to twenty twenty eight. There are several competing
Speaker 1: sort of tax proposals on how to get at taxing
Speaker 1: the wealthy. Some of those are wealth taxes, some of
Speaker 1: those would use other types of tax to get at
Speaker 1: that wealth that's not collected as wages. But we would
Speaker 1: expect that Democrats will continue to have this debate kind
Speaker 1: of between the progressive and more moderate flakes of a
Speaker 1: party about how to tax the wealthy. A large part
Speaker 1: of that is because when you want to create ambitious
Speaker 1: new social programs, you have to figure out ways to
Speaker 1: pay for them, and we're already reaching dizzying levels of debt,
Speaker 1: so how to pay for a democratic agenda will be
Speaker 1: front of mind in the years ahead.
Speaker 2: I mentioned about the possible future erosion of the tax
Speaker 2: base due to AI and a reduction in the number
Speaker 2: of certain kind of jobs, but the tax base has
Speaker 2: already been somewhat eroded, right. There is also just a
Speaker 2: concern that the system is getting worse and worse at
Speaker 2: taxing some of the new money coming on stream.
Speaker 1: Exactly, the tax system in the US focuses heavily on wages,
Speaker 1: and that's really not the way that the wealthy collect
Speaker 1: and expand their wealth, and the tax hold has not
Speaker 1: been very good at getting at those types of holdings,
Speaker 1: and we've actually seen the taxes that do target wealth
Speaker 1: erode over time. The estate tax is a big piece
Speaker 1: of that. The corporate tax rate here is also lowered
Speaker 1: over time, and so we've the way that previous generations
Speaker 1: were able to impose heavier taxes on the wealthy eroad here.
Speaker 1: And there's some interesting research by French economists Emanuel Saiez
Speaker 1: and Gabrielle Zuckman who looked at the amount the very
Speaker 1: wealthy paid in tax going back to the nineteen fifties
Speaker 1: and recently for the first time you saw the top
Speaker 1: four hundred wealthiest households, according to their research, pay actually
Speaker 1: a lower effective tax rate than the bottom fifty percent
Speaker 1: of households in the US.
Speaker 2: Jason, first, I should ask whether you sort of buy
Speaker 2: into the idea that we've got less and less good
Speaker 2: at taxing wealth, or was it just that there's just
Speaker 2: a lot more of it about and there's more focus
Speaker 2: on it.
Speaker 3: So let's just state a few facts and then I'll
Speaker 3: get to your question. The first is that the tax code,
Speaker 3: if you look at slices up through the top one
Speaker 3: tenth of one percent, is actually progressive the top one
Speaker 3: tenth of one percent is paying higher taxes on average
Speaker 3: than people in the middle, who are paying higher taxes
Speaker 3: than people on the bottom. Now, I can't tell you
Speaker 3: as an economist is it progressive enough. As a person,
Speaker 3: I think it's not progressive enough, and I'd like to
Speaker 3: make it more progressive. The second question is how has
Speaker 3: it changed over time? It's become a bit less progressive.
Speaker 3: And the biggest action there has been lowering the corporate
Speaker 3: tax rate, which used to be thirty five percent and
Speaker 3: is now twenty one percent, and so that has reduced
Speaker 3: the taxation of capital income, which disproportionately goes to people
Speaker 3: at the top. But there's also been relative to twenty
Speaker 3: years ago or twenty five years ago, things like capital
Speaker 3: gains and dividend rates are lower than they used to be. Then, third,
Speaker 3: there is an issue of the progressivity within the top
Speaker 3: one tenth of one percent. You know, the top four
Speaker 3: hundred people that Caitlin mentioned. And in one sense, there's
Speaker 3: a lot of money that those people have relative to
Speaker 3: the fiscal system as a whole. It's just not quite
Speaker 3: as important as thinking about the top one tenth of
Speaker 3: one percent, or maybe even the top ten percent of Americans.
Speaker 3: And then the very last things is what is your goal?
Speaker 3: Is your goal to raise revenue while causing the least
Speaker 3: pain or is it to discourage some type of activity
Speaker 3: you think is bad. When we do payroll taxes, we're
Speaker 3: mostly trying to raise revenue and we don't want to
Speaker 3: harm anyone. When we do tobacco taxes, we want less smoking.
Speaker 3: The goal is to actually change behavior. When you're taxing corporations,
Speaker 3: when you're taxing the wealthy, what are you trying to
Speaker 3: do raise revenue with minimal pain or changed behavior? And
Speaker 3: that's a real threshold question that's debated.
Speaker 2: Caitlyn has already pointed out that without any kind of
Speaker 2: Democrat control in Congress litt alone the White House, they're
Speaker 2: unlikely to be passed. But you know, you have Bernie
Speaker 2: Sanders and Representative Rocana. They propose a five percent annual
Speaker 2: wealth tax on billionaires, the California initiative, which is on
Speaker 2: the ballot. There's a bunch of them, but the main
Speaker 2: one is a five percent tax, one off time, supposedly
Speaker 2: on net worth over one billion, I mean, measured by
Speaker 2: your tests. Do either of those make sense? Do either
Speaker 2: of those sound like they're just raising money or are
Speaker 2: they trying to get rid of billionaires.
Speaker 3: I am quite skeptical of both of those proposals. So,
Speaker 3: first of all, one it depends on this fork. In
Speaker 3: my view, Jeff Bezos has made the world a better
Speaker 3: place by bringing down prices, expanding variety, even giving access
Speaker 3: to small businesses to ways to sell things they didn't
Speaker 3: used to. I also think Jeff Bezos wouldn't miss the
Speaker 3: money if you raise his taxes. So I very much
Speaker 3: support raising taxes on Jeff Bezos, but I'd like to
Speaker 3: do it in a way that doesn't change Amazon that much.
Speaker 3: I think Rocanna and Bernie Sanders don't mind if you
Speaker 3: got less of the type of economic activity that Jeff
Speaker 3: Bezos engaged in. They think it probably didn't, unbalance, make
Speaker 3: the world a better place. So we're coming from it
Speaker 3: from somewhat different places, which gives you different answers. The
Speaker 3: second thing is, for the two taxes that you just
Speaker 3: gave as examples, the answers are somewhat different at the
Speaker 3: level of California, and I would also say, by the way,
Speaker 3: the same thing at the level of France. It's just
Speaker 3: a lot easier for people to move and so you
Speaker 3: may not succeed in either goal. You may not raise
Speaker 3: revenue if you drive people out of the state and
Speaker 3: lose their jobs and their income taxes and the like.
Speaker 3: And you may not even have fewer billionaires, like fewer
Speaker 3: billionaires in California, but you'll have more in Texas. And
Speaker 3: if you care about the United States as a whole,
Speaker 3: I don't think you'd count that as any sort of victory.
Speaker 3: So the smaller the unit that's trying to do it,
Speaker 3: the harder it is to do this. Then nationally, there's
Speaker 3: another issue you run into, which is the US Constitution
Speaker 3: says you can't have direct taxes unless they're apportioned exactly
Speaker 3: to the population in the state. There's then an amendment
Speaker 3: that says that as an exception for income taxes, there's
Speaker 3: no exception for wealth taxes. Most constitutional scholars would agree
Speaker 3: that the current Supreme Court would rule wealth taxes unconstitutional.
Speaker 3: So at the national level, I think it's just a
Speaker 3: waste of time to be talking about it, even if
Speaker 3: you think it's a good idea, because courts wouldn't allow it.
Speaker 2: Caitlin, is that right that people recognize that there's this
Speaker 2: pretty solid constitutional case against these things. Regardless of whether
Speaker 2: that makes sense that you can't have direct wealth taxes.
Speaker 1: Well, I think supporters of the wealth taxes would probably
Speaker 1: argue that it's an open question. But yes, it's true
Speaker 1: there is this like very large, looming constitutional question, and
Speaker 1: with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, it's difficult
Speaker 1: to see them siding on the side of a wealth tax.
Speaker 1: So there is this potential, very hard stop at the
Speaker 1: end of this debate.
Speaker 2: Caitlin, I remember finding surprising when I first went to
Speaker 2: work in the US million years ago was the step
Speaker 2: up in basis rule that resets the cost basis for assets.
Speaker 2: If you get extremely wealthy in your lifetime, maybe you
Speaker 2: are Jeff Bezos. You don't realize those capital gains. They're
Speaker 2: just sitting there as part of your and your assets
Speaker 2: and your wealth. You pass it on to your children
Speaker 2: and it's considered you sort of starting the clock again,
Speaker 2: and those all of those gains during your lifetime are
Speaker 2: not ever taxed on capital gains.
Speaker 1: I think that's definitely part of the conversation. And then
Speaker 1: another piece of this is not only do those assets
Speaker 1: value reset at the point of death, but for the
Speaker 1: lifetime of the person who holds that wealth, they're often
Speaker 1: able to borrow against it and able to kind of
Speaker 1: like access liquidity without actually selling those assets. And so
Speaker 1: for that reason, those loans are becoming one of the
Speaker 1: focuses of a potential place where you could tax adjusting
Speaker 1: stepped up basis is another piece of it, taxing unrealized
Speaker 1: gains as a proposal Senator Wyden has put forward. He's
Speaker 1: the top Democrat on the Finance in the Senate, which
Speaker 1: has jurisdiction over tax policy. So yeah, there are a
Speaker 1: number of other ideas floating around that would allow you
Speaker 1: to effectively target taxes at the very wealthy.
Speaker 2: Jason, I think it's one of those things that just
Speaker 2: strikes people as an extraordinary benefit. If you're rich enough
Speaker 2: that you just never need to realize these gains, you
Speaker 2: then get to just pass them on in tact to
Speaker 2: your heirs, who, given the way our state tax works,
Speaker 2: potentially don't pay any further tax on them. Is that
Speaker 2: the easiest thing that you could tackle within the constitution.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, that's the way I think we should approach it,
Speaker 3: and it broadly two things. One is, without even getting fancy,
Speaker 3: you could have higher tax rates. You could raise the
Speaker 3: top tax rate, which is thirty seven percent, by several
Speaker 3: percentage points without creating very much of a problem at all.
Speaker 3: You could raise the tax rate on capital gains to
Speaker 3: twenty eight percent, you could raise the corporate rate, and
Speaker 3: those are just one line changes in the tax code,
Speaker 3: no constitutional debate whatsoever, and it would work just fine.
Speaker 3: Second is the type of structural issues that Caitlin was
Speaker 3: bringing up, and they largely get at The capital gains
Speaker 3: rate applies in theory, but in fact, if you hold things,
Speaker 3: you don't pay it, and there's different ways of getting
Speaker 3: at it. One is if you eventually have to pay it,
Speaker 3: then holding it is an advantage, but the advantage is timing.
Speaker 3: It's not the advantage of you're never ever going to
Speaker 3: pay it. That actually has one nice side effect, which
Speaker 3: is right now, sometimes people get locked into assets with
Speaker 3: capital gains. For a capitalist system, you'd like whoever is
Speaker 3: the most productive owner of an asset to own it.
Speaker 3: If it costs money for the productive owner of the
Speaker 3: asset to sell it and someone else to buy it,
Speaker 3: they may not do it. They may get locked in.
Speaker 3: Capital may be in the wrong hand. So one thing
Speaker 3: I like about things that reduce this and taxing gains
Speaker 3: is their accrued the widened proposal that Caitlin cited, or
Speaker 3: taxing them at death, or reducing the ability to borrow
Speaker 3: against them. All of these are different ways of not
Speaker 3: just fixing the existing system, but actually getting rid of
Speaker 3: an economic distortion.
Speaker 2: I guess the reason why the debate is not on
Speaker 2: raising the basic or the highest rate of income tax
Speaker 2: is that that isn't capturing this kind of wealth that
Speaker 2: we're talking about. If you start taxing unrealized gains, I mean,
Speaker 2: aren't they just enormous logistical and technical issues with that.
Speaker 2: You're taxing people on things that they haven't actually received
Speaker 2: as income. Presumably you're addressing the constitutional question by saying
Speaker 2: they've effectively received that income.
Speaker 3: Yeah. The Biden administration had what I thought was actually
Speaker 3: a pretty thoughtful proposal on this, because there's two issues
Speaker 3: you need to grapple with. One is if you tax
Speaker 3: someone on gains when the market runs up twenty percent
Speaker 3: and then it goes down twenty percent, do you send
Speaker 3: them a check? So what they did was basically averaged
Speaker 3: it over five years and had you pay out an installment,
Speaker 3: and then if the market fell, it just canceled your
Speaker 3: future installment, so they handled the refund issue. The second
Speaker 3: is how do you value privately held assets, And they
Speaker 3: basically assumed they had a certain rate of return and
Speaker 3: then when if or when you eventually selld them, you
Speaker 3: reconciled with the assumption that was built into it against
Speaker 3: what had actually happened. I think that was probably a
Speaker 3: workable system. Is also the case that it was exceedingly
Speaker 3: unpopular in certain quarters, and we've seen it actually around
Speaker 3: the world in different countries, I believe Belgium and Italy,
Speaker 3: but don't fact check me, because there's a little bit
Speaker 3: of a distant memory. Have tried at various times to
Speaker 3: disconnect capital gains payments from when you actually get the cash,
Speaker 3: and those didn't last very long or maybe even were
Speaker 3: canceled before they went into effect. So if you just
Speaker 3: tax them at death, you get sort of eighty five
Speaker 3: percent of the way to the benefits of taxing them
Speaker 3: each year as they accrue, with maybe twenty percent of
Speaker 3: the political pain. So that probably is the more proof.
Speaker 3: But I am tempted by be as of the cruise.
Speaker 2: But Caitlin, I mean Jason mentions the unpopularity and actually
Speaker 2: Ben Steven made this point on the podcast the other day.
Speaker 2: Until quite recently, billionaires were not particularly unpopular in the US,
Speaker 2: and then I think partly because they've been so much
Speaker 2: more in your face in recent years and you have
Speaker 2: the likes of Elon Musk and the numbers just becoming
Speaker 2: dizzyingly high, that seems to have tilted a bit. But
Speaker 2: it is still incredibly unpopular to really tax wealth at
Speaker 2: death or tax inheritance at all. I mean, in fact,
Speaker 2: in the Big Beautiful Bill, the estate tax exemption was
Speaker 2: raised to fifteen million dollars per person, and that doesn't
Speaker 2: seem to have been a particularly unpopular bit of the bill.
Speaker 1: That's correct. I will say, when you poll people and
Speaker 1: ask them generally about tax fairness and do you feel
Speaker 1: that your tax fairly do you fear that feel that
Speaker 1: the very wealthier being taxed fairly, Americans do tend to
Speaker 1: support increasing taxes on the way. Many of them also
Speaker 1: feel like they're unfairly taxed. So there is a little
Speaker 1: bit of taxes for you but not for me mentality.
Speaker 1: But it does get more tricky when you dial into
Speaker 1: kind of the nitty gritty of specific tax policy, and
Speaker 1: I think the popularity would also probably depend heavily on
Speaker 1: where these taxes were targeted and what sort of income
Speaker 1: thresholds were placed onto them.
Speaker 2: But Jason, certainly, and this is true in the UK
Speaker 2: as well. I mean, in Harrish's text is just remarkably unpopular,
Speaker 2: even among people who realistically have no chance of ever
Speaker 2: having thes need to pay it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, I've been working on this topic in
Speaker 3: public policy for thirty years now, and I don't have
Speaker 3: a good answer for you. You know, I remember once President Clinton,
Speaker 3: I think he was at a fundraiser, maybe it was
Speaker 3: in Idaho or something like that, and the person traveling
Speaker 3: with him called in to find out the estate tax
Speaker 3: and said, he's hearing a lot of complaints about the
Speaker 3: estate tax here in Idaho, and what can I tell them?
Speaker 3: And we sent back the fact that last year, six
Speaker 3: people paid the estate tax in Idaho, to which the
Speaker 3: person responded, yes, but the children of all six of
Speaker 3: them are currently sitting at the table with them at
Speaker 3: this fundraiser.
Speaker 2: Well, that tells you something about probably political influence of
Speaker 2: those who.
Speaker 3: Right right right, And to beiclely, there's another story that
Speaker 3: is too good to check, so it is in my memory.
Speaker 3: I am sure it has grown in my memory over time,
Speaker 3: but it captures the spirit of it, so that's part
Speaker 3: of what's going on. But yeah, no, I mean I
Speaker 3: remember there used to be farmers that would roll up
Speaker 3: on Capitol Hill with their tractors and you'd go through
Speaker 3: and say, the estate tax has all these different special
Speaker 3: rules for farmers that make it really really low paid
Speaker 3: out over a really long time, and they'd be like, oh,
Speaker 3: this person had to sell their family farm, and that
Speaker 3: was basically mathematically impossible because the way in which it
Speaker 3: paid out over time was such that the income would
Speaker 3: always be way more than sufficient. So I don't know.
Speaker 3: I have a hard time with what I see is
Speaker 3: the irrationality of it. Now. To be clear, if you
Speaker 3: want to make an argument and I have friends that
Speaker 3: make this argument on the conservative side that somebody worked
Speaker 3: hard and they saved a lot and they deserve the
Speaker 3: money and it's unfair, that's not exactly my moral perspective.
Speaker 3: But I don't think that's a crazy perspective. But if
Speaker 3: your perspective is this is destroying small businesses, destroying family farms,
Speaker 3: that's just not factually true.
Speaker 2: I mean, when you talk about things that are moral principles,
Speaker 2: versus just kind of practical principles. You mentioned it for California,
Speaker 2: but you seem to be suggesting, Jason, in the US,
Speaker 2: this question of not being able to tax wealth because
Speaker 2: this is so it's mobile capital and people can go.
Speaker 2: And you may be right on this, you implicitly seem
Speaker 2: to be suggesting, you know, if you're in a European country,
Speaker 2: it's very easy for people to leave a European country,
Speaker 2: but in the US, it's going to be harder for
Speaker 2: people to avoid the US tax jurisdiction altogether. Do you
Speaker 2: think that's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, I was trying to say that, and I agree,
Speaker 3: and I agree with myself on that point. But just
Speaker 3: to be clear, it's not like zero in the United
Speaker 3: States one hundred in Europe. It's a continuum, and it's
Speaker 3: not like if you raise the tax rate to ninety
Speaker 3: percent in the United States, you wouldn't get people more
Speaker 3: people leaving the United States. You would and I wouldn't
Speaker 3: do it. But within the range of the types of
Speaker 3: tax changes that are under consideration that we're talking about,
Speaker 3: the moving out of the United States to me, seems
Speaker 3: like a relatively small consideration. The moving out of California
Speaker 3: and moving out of France is a medium size consideration.
Speaker 2: Just to kind of bring this to close, we've highlighted
Speaker 2: there's obviously leftwood shift, at least in parts of the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party, and that's producing some of these proposals from
Speaker 2: the side of the party that potentially would say, you know,
Speaker 2: we shouldn't have any billionaires. But I highlighted at the
Speaker 2: start that there's also this whole other reason why we
Speaker 2: want to get better at taxing wealth is that the
Speaker 2: income tax base could be eroded quite significantly by AI. Jason,
Speaker 2: I mean, we've debated this in the past, how dramatic
Speaker 2: the change might be from AI. But do you think
Speaker 2: that that could make these questions more current and the
Speaker 2: kind of analysis that you've shared about the best ways
Speaker 2: of doing this will become a much more live issue
Speaker 2: for policymakers.
Speaker 3: I think there's a decent a chance it will become
Speaker 3: a much more live issue. But it would be a
Speaker 3: shame if we thought it was the only issue. So
Speaker 3: first of all, in terms of AI, yes, we don't
Speaker 3: know productivity, we don't know the impact on jobs, et cetera.
Speaker 3: One of the more robust predictions though, is that it
Speaker 3: will lower the labor share and raise the capital share
Speaker 3: over time. I'm not sure about that, but I'd bet
Speaker 3: on that a little bit more heavily than i'd bet
Speaker 3: on the job loss, and I wouldn't bet zero, you know,
Speaker 3: bet entirely against the job loss. So so that is
Speaker 3: in the sense that I agree with you that this
Speaker 3: is going to become a more important issue. It is
Speaker 3: the case though the labor share right now is seventy percent,
Speaker 3: I'd be shocked if in a decade it was below
Speaker 3: fifty percent. Maybe thirty years from now it'll be thirty percent.
Speaker 3: In all of those how you tax income is still
Speaker 3: going to matter, And so yes, we should figure out
Speaker 3: how to tax the capital side, which right now is
Speaker 3: thirty percent of income, probably rising, and the holes in
Speaker 3: the way we tax it, as Caitlin and you and
Speaker 3: I have been talking about, have been growing. So absolutely
Speaker 3: do that. But I don't think we should forget the
Speaker 3: old fashioned income side, which is still the majority and
Speaker 3: likely to be for some time, and there's more room
Speaker 3: there as well.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, so we don't have to worry about Maybe
Speaker 2: we should just go back to worrying about killer robots.
Speaker 2: Jason Furman and Caitlin Riley. Thank you so much, thank you,
Speaker 2: thank you, thank thanks for listening to Trumpnomics from Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: It was hosted by me Stephan Flanders and I was
Speaker 2: justjoined by Bloomberg reporter Caitlin Riley and the Harvard economist
Speaker 2: Jason Furman. Trumponomics was produced this week by Moses and
Speaker 2: dam and Samasadi, with help from Gilda Dakali in New
Speaker 2: York and Amy Keith. A sound designed by Blake Maples
Speaker 2: and Kelly Garrett. And to help others find us, please
Speaker 2: rate and review us Higley wherever you listen