Speaker 1: Brought you by Bank of America Mary Lynch. Investing in
Speaker 1: local communities, economies and a sustainable future. That's the power
Speaker 1: of global connections, Mary Lynch, Pierce Fenner and Smith Incorporated
Speaker 1: member s I p C. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and
Speaker 1: of course on the Bloomberg. On the show today, Max Bauchus,
Speaker 1: the former Senator, former US Ambassador to China, Libby Cantrell
Speaker 1: from PIMCO, and we'll talk to Black Rock's head of
Speaker 1: inflation linked to bond portfolios. But first Ed Himan joins
Speaker 1: us here in our Bloomberg eleven three studios. He's the
Speaker 1: rman of Evercore I s I. There was sort of
Speaker 1: a beautiful moment on surveillance television a little while ago,
Speaker 1: Tom Keene having his Warren Beatty moment. He held up
Speaker 1: the ever Cores I s I note with headlines about
Speaker 1: the economy, good and bad event diagram with some on
Speaker 1: both sides of of the chart. There Ed Hyman, how's
Speaker 1: the economy look? When you look at the panoply of
Speaker 1: data right now about the U. S economy, what's your
Speaker 1: sense of how it's doing. I think the economy is
Speaker 1: doing okay. I have a little different view than most people. Um.
Speaker 1: I see an economy that is pretty solid. Uh. I
Speaker 1: look at all the data, you know, like the leading
Speaker 1: indicator retail sales. But I also travel around a lot,
Speaker 1: and I go to different cities, and whether it's Denver
Speaker 1: or Boulder, or Dallas or Boston, Seattle, they're all doing
Speaker 1: pretty well. It doesn't really smack of secular stagnation. So
Speaker 1: I think the economy is pretty solid. My main mantra
Speaker 1: has been slow and steady wins the race, and seems
Speaker 1: to me that that's still pretty accurate description of what's
Speaker 1: going on. We've been growing for seven or eight years,
Speaker 1: and I think over those years have made a fair
Speaker 1: amount of progress. We're learning a little bit here about
Speaker 1: what the White House hope it's hopes to advance, and
Speaker 1: it's in its budget. And one thing that Stephen Manwton,
Speaker 1: the new Treasury Secretary, said last week to Bloomberg News.
Speaker 1: Over the weekend to to Fox News in an interview
Speaker 1: is that his his assumption for growth is now two
Speaker 1: point four percent, So that's less than what candidate Donald
Speaker 1: Trump said when he was on the campaign trails. There
Speaker 1: a new realism pervading Washington here a little over a
Speaker 1: month into the new administration. Uh, the airs out out
Speaker 1: of the balloon. A fair amount what looked like a
Speaker 1: case at the very beginning of this episode has faded
Speaker 1: quite a quite a bit, and that's probably a good
Speaker 1: assessment of it. My forecast is for growth of to
Speaker 1: an a percent for this year, which it doesn't sound
Speaker 1: like a lot, but it's frankly a fairly heroic number
Speaker 1: because we haven't had to an apercent growth. Also assuming
Speaker 1: and inflation something like one and a half or two percent,
Speaker 1: so you're starting to get normal grow up over four percent,
Speaker 1: which is a key level to get. As you mentioned,
Speaker 1: your your growth is something there two point five percent.
Speaker 1: What are the driving factors? There was so much enthusiasm,
Speaker 1: it seemed, in the market for a big infrastructure spending
Speaker 1: package after the elections. He said the era has maybe
Speaker 1: begun to dissipate from that that limited watching didn't what's
Speaker 1: going to be the driver there? Do you think Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I didn't have big hopes that because they're talking about
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars over a decade. Uh So that's that's
Speaker 1: not enough to fix the potholes, you know, a hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year. But the economy is slowly becoming
Speaker 1: self sustaining with emplument gains leading to retail sales. House
Speaker 1: prices are up something like seven percent. It's not markets up,
Speaker 1: so you're getting a broadening out of growth in the US.
Speaker 1: What you invented at C. J. Lawrence, and I think
Speaker 1: of Chairman Greenspan as well, is looking at tangible real
Speaker 1: economic data like what trucks are doing, what railroads are doom,
Speaker 1: what capital goods is doing. Within the I S I
Speaker 1: report that you created every day, what's the one metric
Speaker 1: that gets you to some enthusiasm about a better nominal GDP? Well,
Speaker 1: we we survey about two or three d companies of
Speaker 1: a week. Uh and so I have a very I'm
Speaker 1: almost a perfect knowledge how the economy is doing currently.
Speaker 1: That forecasting, though and not predictive, and those have edged
Speaker 1: up a little bit, consistent with a little over two
Speaker 1: percent real GDP growth and probably something like four percent
Speaker 1: nominal GDP growth. But uh, Thomas and I discussed a
Speaker 1: minute or so ago, what's driving the economy today is
Speaker 1: not what drove it forty years ago. Today it's sports
Speaker 1: and entertainment. It's a new tech, you know, like a
Speaker 1: Facebook or a Snap. It's e e commerce, And then
Speaker 1: it's healthcare and higher education. Of those things that you mentioned,
Speaker 1: the only ones that are gonna employ bodies, warm American
Speaker 1: bodies is healthcare and maybe education. Where are the jobs
Speaker 1: going to come from? Where is how are we going
Speaker 1: to get the people employed that voted for Senator Sanders
Speaker 1: and that voted for Mr Trump. The You know, we've,
Speaker 1: as you well know, because you're such as a student
Speaker 1: of this stuff, Tom, we've had emplument gains, you know,
Speaker 1: pretty steady around a hundred thousand for years now. Uh
Speaker 1: stan Fisher says, we're fully employed, and Danny Blanche Flower
Speaker 1: Upper Dharma says, no, we're done. So it's a debate
Speaker 1: and they and the coach or the referee on that
Speaker 1: will be what happens to wages, And so far wages
Speaker 1: have disappointed me. I thought they'd be over three percent
Speaker 1: by now and they're not. But when you get the
Speaker 1: full employment, you'll know it because you see wages accelerate.
Speaker 1: You know, when the FED makes its decision here March
Speaker 1: whether or not to raise rates, is that is that
Speaker 1: the big X factor here is our wages, the big
Speaker 1: factor that they're going to be weighing. I think so.
Speaker 1: Uh So, I'm I'm sort of in the hole here
Speaker 1: because I've been acting wages to pick up for some time.
Speaker 1: There were one eight and now they're like two and
Speaker 1: a percent. So they have picked up, but not as
Speaker 1: much as I thought. The January number, which set the
Speaker 1: market back a lot, was only point one. Uh And
Speaker 1: when I look back at history, uh, it suggests that
Speaker 1: the February number will be point four. Now if if
Speaker 1: it is, then that will put the next meeting squarely
Speaker 1: on track. Within this is the idea of Okay, we
Speaker 1: get rising wages, and I'm getting a lot of mail
Speaker 1: from listeners on this. We get rising, rising wages, but
Speaker 1: we also get inflation with it. So my real wage,
Speaker 1: my inflation adjusted wage, is flat or diminished. Is that
Speaker 1: a tangible risk inflation getting in the way of the
Speaker 1: goods you're talking about? I don't think so at the moment,
Speaker 1: because pricing power is so difficult to come by particularly
Speaker 1: in the old economy. Like we talked about target this morning,
Speaker 1: there's no pricing power there autos all the time you
Speaker 1: shot up the term. Wait when I asked the question
Speaker 1: for you, continue and let me ask you about sentiment
Speaker 1: and optimism. We talked to Bill Dunkelberg. Every time the
Speaker 1: n f i B Survey Small business has come out,
Speaker 1: optimism seems very high. How much currency should we give
Speaker 1: that at this point in time? In other words, we
Speaker 1: see we see optimism about growth and hiring and spending
Speaker 1: money on capex. Uh what from there? In other words,
Speaker 1: we see that optimism, what does that lead to? Well? Uh?
Speaker 1: One of the things I do, I think is to
Speaker 1: connect the dots. And consumer confidence has also moved up,
Speaker 1: and unlike the or say in addition to UH dunks
Speaker 1: is affectionately called an n f i B a survey
Speaker 1: which is skyrocketed. The Conference Board does a survey of
Speaker 1: employment expectations by consumers and that has a similar hockey
Speaker 1: stick look to it. Uh. So I got three different
Speaker 1: measures of confidence and they've all moved up a fair amount.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned, Uh, animal spirits is one of the
Speaker 1: ways that you know trump Atomics can can work through
Speaker 1: the economy that precedes getting any fiscal stimulus working. We
Speaker 1: we talked to our calleing Michael McKee. He was down
Speaker 1: in Mexico City talking with the economic minister there. UH.
Speaker 1: And something he said in that interview is the moment
Speaker 1: that in those negotiations with the U S. Should they
Speaker 1: happen over uh import tariffs? Uh that they mentioned tefne cars.
Speaker 1: In his words, he said, we say bye bye. Where
Speaker 1: do you see things going from here? What's the weight
Speaker 1: of this new protection? Isn't going to be on the
Speaker 1: U S economy? So I don't. My own personal view
Speaker 1: is that it's more barked than bite. But I'll watch
Speaker 1: it every day, uh to see if the bite starts
Speaker 1: to happen. But my my guess is that Trump is
Speaker 1: trying to uh to redo trade deals that are more
Speaker 1: advantageous for the US and his opinion as opposed to
Speaker 1: tear up and after or tear up debut. Oh. But
Speaker 1: it's not clear, is it? Uh? As we sit here
Speaker 1: right now, I want to find out question to get
Speaker 1: your started on your day at time and Professor Summers
Speaker 1: talks about secular stagnation? Do you agree with Larry Summers
Speaker 1: that it's pretty moldy out there, and that we need
Speaker 1: a real jump start of policy. Boy, I don't so
Speaker 1: I think. I think, uh, Larry Summers, so I I
Speaker 1: think it's terrific. And you mentioned public service earlier. He's
Speaker 1: really given and it continues to give. But he lives
Speaker 1: in Boston. Boston is booming. You walk out and it's
Speaker 1: just booming. Has all the things I mentioned, and then
Speaker 1: he spends a lot of time in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: At Washington d C is strong too, still standing, still standing?
Speaker 1: Is that understatement? So? I think I think the U. S.
Speaker 1: Economy is slow and steady, and it's like managing money.
Speaker 1: If you can avoid to lose money, you can actually
Speaker 1: make some real progress. Thank you so much for coming
Speaker 1: by today and particularly answering our questions in the future
Speaker 1: of the FED and Kevin Warshon and all that. Greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: Edward Hyman is with ever core. I s I, David,
Speaker 1: I think it would be safe. I showed at the
Speaker 1: beginning of television the secret ed him and memo mentioned
Speaker 1: the bad news between the famous the famous. Yeah, really
Speaker 1: the red that's what they should have done. They should
Speaker 1: add at him and be in charge of the envelopes
Speaker 1: at the Oscar that would have fixed things at Himan.
Speaker 1: Whatever core I s David bringing on our next guest.
Speaker 1: All I know is the newspapers in Bloomberger Trump Trump, Trump, Trump,
Speaker 1: Trump TRUMPA Trump, and our steam next guest doesn't agree
Speaker 1: with that. She believes the House has a little bit
Speaker 1: of Republicans have a little bit to do with it. Okay,
Speaker 1: Liffy Cantell joins us now. She's executive vice president and
Speaker 1: had a public policy at Pimpco. Here with us in
Speaker 1: our eleven three oh studios in New York. Let's start
Speaker 1: with the budget. We're beginning to get some contries. What
Speaker 1: that's gonna look like? The White House budget's gonna look like.
Speaker 1: We have this fifty four billion dollar figure when it
Speaker 1: comes to defense spending, increasing defense spending. Help us understand
Speaker 1: what we should make of that. We haven't had regular order,
Speaker 1: we haven't had reconciliation uttered on Capitol Hill for many
Speaker 1: years now. Are things changing? Are you optimistic that we're
Speaker 1: going to see a normal budget process here? And what
Speaker 1: should we make of this document that's going to be
Speaker 1: released by the White House here presumably in these next
Speaker 1: few days. Yeah, I mean It's a great question. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that just from as a starting point, everyone
Speaker 1: sort of needs to qualify kind of what the president's
Speaker 1: budget is. I mean, it's much more of a political
Speaker 1: document than it is UM in terms of actually having
Speaker 1: sort of the force of law. So it has to
Speaker 1: go through the normal kind of congressional machinations. It's really
Speaker 1: the Congress that actually sets the budget, and then also
Speaker 1: UM does the implementing, like the implementing bills, like the
Speaker 1: appropriations bills. So what this is though, and what it
Speaker 1: should sort of be viewed as, is where Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: priorities are. So we knew that he was going to
Speaker 1: be supportive of defense spending. I think some people didn't
Speaker 1: know how much he was going to be, you know,
Speaker 1: supportive of that. UM. So this is I think sort
Speaker 1: of a living testament to that. But again it should
Speaker 1: be caveated that this does not have the force of law.
Speaker 1: This has to go through the congressional machinations and actually
Speaker 1: in order to get enacted. Yesterday the White House, the
Speaker 1: President sat down with the House Speaker Paul Ryan and
Speaker 1: the Senate Majority leader as well. Presumably they talked about
Speaker 1: the budget, talked about this speech, that the President is
Speaker 1: going to deliver tonight. What's your sense of the relationship
Speaker 1: there between the White House and Congress. Tom mentions the
Speaker 1: the disarray even among the House. Uh, you know, what's
Speaker 1: your sense of how well the machine is operating and
Speaker 1: Washington right now? Well, you know, it's it's interesting because
Speaker 1: I think you know, certainly what markets will be looking
Speaker 1: at for the speech tonight will be some specifics around
Speaker 1: President Trump's pro growth agenda, tax, your format, infrastructure exactly.
Speaker 1: But I also think that congressional Republicans want those specifics
Speaker 1: because while sort of campaign slogans and sort of generalities
Speaker 1: and platitudes are certainly helpful, um, at this point, the
Speaker 1: rubber really needs to to meet the road, and Congress
Speaker 1: has set out on an incredibly ambitious legislative agenda. They
Speaker 1: need the president to provide some directions. Tell us about
Speaker 1: the power metric right now, I mean, we're gonna see
Speaker 1: all these He's like the oscars. They're gonna be all
Speaker 1: these egos in the room, all focused on the president.
Speaker 1: I get, what is the power of the Republican leadership,
Speaker 1: What is the power of the chairman and chairwoman, What
Speaker 1: are the power of the tea party in the run
Speaker 1: of the mill conservative, austere Republicans give us a power
Speaker 1: template right now? Well, it's it's a good question because
Speaker 1: I think if you just simply look at the fact
Speaker 1: that Republicans have majorities in the House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: and they dominate the White House, you would sort of think, Okay,
Speaker 1: well they're gonna be it's gonna be very easy for
Speaker 1: them to enact the their agenda. But within the Republicans
Speaker 1: there's quite a number there's quite a lot of divide.
Speaker 1: There's a divide between the House and the Senate. Say,
Speaker 1: on tax reform, the House supports this border adjustment tax,
Speaker 1: some of the Republican senators have come out against it.
Speaker 1: Um there within House Republicans there's some divide, right there's
Speaker 1: the sort of the deficit hawks or the people who
Speaker 1: actually want to see some increase in spending, especially on defense.
Speaker 1: So there is not this is not a cohesive Republican
Speaker 1: party necessarily. I think they can be brought together, and
Speaker 1: President Trump really, I think has an opportunity to do
Speaker 1: that tonight. It's just a question whether he's actually gonna
Speaker 1: be able to do that or not. If I'm your client,
Speaker 1: I want to know what we're talking about when we
Speaker 1: talk about a tax reform with a pologies to Raymond
Speaker 1: Carver there, but you get the Paul Ryan Brady plan,
Speaker 1: you have Gary Cone working on a tax plan of
Speaker 1: his own. How do I make sense of what's most
Speaker 1: likely to be the blueprint for a tax reform and
Speaker 1: watched in right now? Do you have a sense of
Speaker 1: what it is? It's a great question, and honestly, this
Speaker 1: is the number one question that we're getting from our
Speaker 1: clients is what will tax reform look like? You know?
Speaker 1: I think the conventional wisdom was right after the election
Speaker 1: that since Speaker Ryan had done so much work on
Speaker 1: tax reform as the head of Ways and means um
Speaker 1: in House leadership, that that President Trump would be more
Speaker 1: inclined just to defer to him, and that the Senate
Speaker 1: would likely to defer to him as well. I think
Speaker 1: that plan has been upended, um partly because of this
Speaker 1: border adjustment tax, which is at the center of the
Speaker 1: House tax reform plan. We think that it is unlikely
Speaker 1: that at the end of the day that stays in
Speaker 1: and because it's a big revenue raisor and it allows,
Speaker 1: you know, the corporate tax rate to be cut even more. Um,
Speaker 1: you'll probably see a smaller plan and it will probably
Speaker 1: take longer going with the market, I believe it's billion
Speaker 1: is a delta on defense spending. How much does a
Speaker 1: border tax bring in? Have you seen a good so?
Speaker 1: The Tax Foundation has its scored at one point one
Speaker 1: trillion over ten years. The Tax Policy Center has it
Speaker 1: about one trillion, So it is a huge revenue raisor
Speaker 1: so without that by definition and the tax reform, I believe,
Speaker 1: like what Tip O'Neill would say is, Okay, what's the number,
Speaker 1: what's what's a border tax propos So what if we
Speaker 1: see a two percent or four percent border tax? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, and you might see some some sort of
Speaker 1: iteration around that. You Also, what I think is actually
Speaker 1: even more likely if it is included, is that you
Speaker 1: would see a very long phase in time, So it
Speaker 1: would be at the rate, but it would be phasing
Speaker 1: it maybe something like commodities twenty seconds left. And it's
Speaker 1: not about the Denver broncos. Are we going back to
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six, nineteen seventy eight where there's actually the
Speaker 1: strange thing called legislation? Are we actually going to see that?
Speaker 1: I think that as more time goes by, and it's
Speaker 1: more time that goes by that President Trump doesn't endorse
Speaker 1: a specific plan. I think it becomes increasingly harder to
Speaker 1: a tax reform as we get close to the intern.
Speaker 1: John Tucker, do you see how I said nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: six and nineteen seventy eight, and Libby Cantrill equated that
Speaker 1: with Jefferson. I wasn't actually born yet. I'm just killing
Speaker 1: it here. I'm just thinking, oh, go away, let me
Speaker 1: control with Pimco. Thank you so much. I think this
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg brought you by Bank of America Mary Lynch,
Speaker 1: dedicated to bringing our clients insights and solutions to meet
Speaker 1: the challenges of a transforming world. That's the power of
Speaker 1: global connections. Mary Lynch, Pierce feederin Smith Incorporated, Member s
Speaker 1: I PC. What we're trying to do here today within
Speaker 1: the quiet markets is really recalibrate into a new month,
Speaker 1: the last month of the first quarter that I believe
Speaker 1: that begins tomorrow. Today is too there's no leap here
Speaker 1: this year. He's the last day. Martin Haggerty where this
Speaker 1: black rock and what's great about him as he synthesizes
Speaker 1: in the fixed income that, excuse me, gas, Kate Moore
Speaker 1: and Jeff Rosenberg do, and everyone else but Martin, Howardy
Speaker 1: filters in the inflation dynamics is described by UH the
Speaker 1: fixed income market, he joins us. Now, Martin, what does
Speaker 1: like the five year five year forward tell you right
Speaker 1: now that inside baseball idea of looking out five years
Speaker 1: at the view out five years from there? Well, Tom,
Speaker 1: I think it's worth while looking at that from two aspects. Basically,
Speaker 1: what is it telling us now and what was it
Speaker 1: telling us roughly a year ago? Um, right now, it's
Speaker 1: telling us that headline CPI, as priced by the US
Speaker 1: Chips market is priced to be in the vicinity of
Speaker 1: two percent between two thousand and twenty two and two
Speaker 1: thousand and twenty seven. Now, if we compare that to
Speaker 1: the FITS inflation target, the FIT has an inflation target
Speaker 1: that is driven by PC inflation, and that is a
Speaker 1: slightly different metric that tends to run about thirty to
Speaker 1: forty basis points below CPI. So are we basically pricing
Speaker 1: in a run rate of PC inflation into the future
Speaker 1: of about one point six to one point seven percent,
Speaker 1: which implies that despite the significant improvement in that metric,
Speaker 1: that we've seen over the last twelve months that the
Speaker 1: FED is still never going to hit its inflation target
Speaker 1: in that time period that I specified. I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean this folds right into FED policy in the ancient
Speaker 1: thing that all of our listeners know is simply a
Speaker 1: fear of inflation. Do you wake up in the morning
Speaker 1: at Black Rock with a fear of inflation? You know,
Speaker 1: I was born and brought up in Zimbabwe, so that's
Speaker 1: somewhat genetic for me. Yeah, that's true. I guess it's
Speaker 1: it's yeah, I'll say. But I mean, I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: we get this, David, and I get this in the
Speaker 1: mail where we receive we're gonna have runaway inflation, sixties inflation,
Speaker 1: oh my, oh mg, four percent inflation, eight percent nominal GDP,
Speaker 1: and yet none of the evidence shows that, does it? No?
Speaker 1: And I think you know, a lot of the the
Speaker 1: views in that regard have been misfounded. And I particularly
Speaker 1: recall to the immediate aftermath of the crisis, where any
Speaker 1: sort of pundit you had on on on various platforms
Speaker 1: was talking about a Zimbabwe style inflation with the FED
Speaker 1: expanding the balance sheet and Kewi Operation twists and the
Speaker 1: various iterations of policy that we had, and I think
Speaker 1: that that was completely unfounded and continues to be so.
Speaker 1: But when we look at the macro backdrop, the economy
Speaker 1: continues to heal in the aftermath. And I do think
Speaker 1: there are some dictionary disinflationary impacts from technology that are
Speaker 1: obviously pushing some UH some components of CPI down, as
Speaker 1: well as some of the international factors with respect to globalization.
Speaker 1: But if if we sort of mark to market where
Speaker 1: we are today and look at core CPI at two
Speaker 1: point three, do I see runaway inflation? Does that number
Speaker 1: get up to four or five? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I I can see that the labor market in the
Speaker 1: US continues to improve. We're at levels of unemployment consistent
Speaker 1: with nehru Um. We have had a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: stability in the currency markets more recently on the back
Speaker 1: of significant dollar strength we saw from two thousand and
Speaker 1: fourteen into two thousand and sixteen. That is allowing some
Speaker 1: of the UH internationally set drivers of disinflation. Now we
Speaker 1: have seen UH start to stabilize, and I'm of the
Speaker 1: opinion that course c p I as long as the
Speaker 1: US labor market continues to improve UM and and stay
Speaker 1: at a relatively healthy run rate in line or below NEHRU.
Speaker 1: Then we're in a in a path where core CPI
Speaker 1: by the end of two thousand and eighteen is probably
Speaker 1: going to be somewhere in the vicinity of two point
Speaker 1: seven percent. Alright, So tom asks is the zimbabweb barn
Speaker 1: Martin Hagerty is worried about inflation? How about Fed? Sheer
Speaker 1: Janna Yellen? Is this something that she is still concerned about?
Speaker 1: Is the shifted almost entirely at the FED here too
Speaker 1: to the labor market? Well, I think it's it's one
Speaker 1: can never quite pin down what the focus at the
Speaker 1: FED currently is UM. But if you look at the
Speaker 1: two pillars of their mandate, full employment and price stability UM,
Speaker 1: one could argue that we're at full employment and one
Speaker 1: could argue that we're at or very close to price stability.
Speaker 1: So it appears that the FED is looking at a
Speaker 1: host of of other metrics as well. And when you
Speaker 1: look at the real policy path priced into the front
Speaker 1: end of rate markets, i e. Where are FED funds
Speaker 1: priced to be less inflation, you still have real policy
Speaker 1: rates that are negative out to two thousand and eighteen,
Speaker 1: and I would argue that that that is not necessarily
Speaker 1: consistent with an economy at full employment and and basically
Speaker 1: at price stability. So, you know, trying to to sort
Speaker 1: of reference that back to the question you asked, um,
Speaker 1: you know what we have seen in the aftermath of
Speaker 1: the of the Trump election. We've we've seen sort of
Speaker 1: economic surprise. Data indices moved sharply to the highside. But
Speaker 1: when we break down those economic data surprises, a lot
Speaker 1: of the strength seems to be coming from survey based measures.
Speaker 1: So we have not yet seen that translate into hard
Speaker 1: macroeconomic data, apart from the labor market and the pricing
Speaker 1: components that that I mentioned. So perhaps the FED are
Speaker 1: being a little more patient and waiting to see if
Speaker 1: the improved psychology prevalent in a lot of these survey
Speaker 1: based measures actually begins to show up into the hard
Speaker 1: data you mentioned Fed funds futures. I've got w ARAP
Speaker 1: go up here on the Bloomberg now looking at the
Speaker 1: probability of a hike at that March meeting. Now at
Speaker 1: cent we saw it move yesterday. Help an amateur like
Speaker 1: me here, How predictive is w ARAP? What? What? What?
Speaker 1: Credence do you give to here? Well, I think that
Speaker 1: stems back to the FEDS reaction function, where we know
Speaker 1: that this fit is not or has not been one
Speaker 1: to surprise markets. So the greater the probability that that
Speaker 1: March pricing of a March hike goes, I e. The
Speaker 1: the if it if it continues to mention north, I
Speaker 1: think the March becomes more and more into play. And
Speaker 1: actually I have been perplexed why March has been priced
Speaker 1: at such a low probability given the data evolution that
Speaker 1: I alluded to. Okay, I get that, and I take
Speaker 1: great note of your two point seven corps UH inflation
Speaker 1: rate out a bit and that's quite a lift. What
Speaker 1: we're waiting for, I would suggest, respectfully, sir, what you're
Speaker 1: waiting for, and more importantly, what chair yellings waiting for
Speaker 1: is decent economic growth? Help me here with a horse
Speaker 1: and the cart. What's the horse and what's the cart?
Speaker 1: For chair yelling? Is it age growth as a horse?
Speaker 1: Is it just g DPS the horse? Or is it
Speaker 1: inflation expectations? I in this odd financial repression that we're in,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I know what the horse looks like.
Speaker 1: I think that is a constant pursuit UM where obviously
Speaker 1: the I think all of them you mentioned Tom, to
Speaker 1: tell the truth, are are very important horses. Where you
Speaker 1: have had the the healthy labor market data, the average
Speaker 1: hourly earnings has not necessarily correlated with the improvement in
Speaker 1: the labor market we've seen UM and at the same time,
Speaker 1: there appears to be a an inherent mismatch between UH
Speaker 1: the unemployment rate and GDP growth, implying some sort of
Speaker 1: collapse in productivity. Now we can talk about, obviously the
Speaker 1: the mismeasurement of of g d P and how it
Speaker 1: may not necessarily be the mist of the best measure
Speaker 1: for for economic growth today. And I think a lot
Speaker 1: of those discussions are are well entrenched within the f
Speaker 1: O m c UM. But I think that one cannot
Speaker 1: necessarily hop on on one data point where if we
Speaker 1: got a soft average hourly earnings for January, we need
Speaker 1: to look at it in in a in a greater context,
Speaker 1: I look at other labor market data with respective wages
Speaker 1: and reassess um that sort of three months run rate
Speaker 1: and average hourly earning right that we may see, well,
Speaker 1: this is really important. I haven't looked at the h
Speaker 1: chart and well, folks, I'm going to put it out
Speaker 1: on Twitter. It's a great Bloomberg chart that shows the
Speaker 1: pullback that we've seen recently. But nevertheless, I'm gonna say,
Speaker 1: making back two thirds of the way to the lift
Speaker 1: of average early earnings seen in two thousand seven. In
Speaker 1: two thousand what did joy to speak to you about
Speaker 1: our miss our fictions of inflation, the gap between service
Speaker 1: sector and goods producing inflation. I went back and looked
Speaker 1: in the reality as we've seen this before, this great
Speaker 1: divide between a three percent service sector and zero to
Speaker 1: sub percent goods. When does that end? That is a
Speaker 1: very very good question. And you know when when we
Speaker 1: look at cp I, we look at it in much
Speaker 1: the same way, and we break down the the components
Speaker 1: into high volatility and low volatility, and the low voll
Speaker 1: components tend to be those service based measures, obviously with
Speaker 1: a significant contribution from shelter Um that continues to run
Speaker 1: basically very close to three. Now, looking at the goods component,
Speaker 1: or the the sort of more international components of CPI,
Speaker 1: they're driven by by global demand and supply and and
Speaker 1: the value of the dollar. Now, if you go back
Speaker 1: to basically since when tips were first introduced and at
Speaker 1: the time when China was about to enter the trade
Speaker 1: the World Trade Organization. Subsequent from that point on, goods
Speaker 1: inflation has basically been zero so on average for for
Speaker 1: the prior twenty odd years. And if one can look
Speaker 1: at the pace of globalization that has occurred, one can
Speaker 1: can understand that and rationalize that where if you were
Speaker 1: an owner of capital, you were incentivized to go and
Speaker 1: find cheap labor, and you did that either going to
Speaker 1: South America or to Asia. And at the same time
Speaker 1: that those parts of the world received a tremendous demographic dividend.
Speaker 1: By UM Eastern Europe you had a couple or a
Speaker 1: hundred odd million workers enter the global labor supply, and
Speaker 1: in China you you had the same dynamic. And I'm
Speaker 1: of the opinion that we have reached the end of
Speaker 1: that demographic dividend to per se, and now we have
Speaker 1: a global labor market that is a lot tighter than
Speaker 1: it was twenty years ago. UM. So the disinflationary impact
Speaker 1: from globalization that has been in place, I think is
Speaker 1: on the verge of of going the other way now
Speaker 1: ahead young um. Obviously there are some currency influences that
Speaker 1: that play a pronounced role on a more short term basis,
Speaker 1: And as I said in the segment before the break,
Speaker 1: that the US dollar appreciated meaningfully in in fourteen to
Speaker 1: two thousand and sixteen, obviously having a significant disinflationary impact
Speaker 1: on import prices. So if we look at the trajectory
Speaker 1: of the dollar going forward, UM, my expectation is unless
Speaker 1: we get some significant border tax adjustment UM that could
Speaker 1: potentially move the Z dollar significantly stronger. I'm of the
Speaker 1: opinion that the run rate of good disinflation or lack
Speaker 1: of inflation now we have seen in the past couple
Speaker 1: of years is definitely behind us. You talk about global developments,
Speaker 1: let's let's talk in specific about China here and the
Speaker 1: role it's playing and how that's going to affect this
Speaker 1: market here in two thousand seventeen. Well, China is the
Speaker 1: second biggest economy in the world, UM, outside of of
Speaker 1: the U S and and ultimately the largest consumer of commodities,
Speaker 1: and the market is paying very close attention to Chinese
Speaker 1: p p I and the developments that ensue from that.
Speaker 1: We're looking more at sub components of that consumer goods
Speaker 1: prices within PPI to try and extract the the the
Speaker 1: significant influence of commodities, but they are obviously central to
Speaker 1: the global reflationary theme, and I think from a couple
Speaker 1: of perspectives. Obviously we can look at the macroeconomic variables
Speaker 1: and and and analyze them. However, I think the role
Speaker 1: of global reserve managers in particular China have had a
Speaker 1: significant impact on asset prices globally over the last uh
Speaker 1: In fact, going back over the last fifteen to twenty years,
Speaker 1: where we've seen reserves accumulate meaningfully and then be drawn
Speaker 1: down in the last twenty four months, and that draw
Speaker 1: down of reserves I think had significant implications for global
Speaker 1: asset prices, particularly in Q one of two thousands sixteen,
Speaker 1: where as reserve pressure began to accumulate due to uncertainty
Speaker 1: regarding Chinese effects policy, they were or they basically were
Speaker 1: forced to liquidate assets that that they held in an
Speaker 1: attempt to stem currency outflows, and that had As Tom
Speaker 1: said earlier, we live in a very in a world
Speaker 1: very sensitive to financial conditions, and ultimately that instability had
Speaker 1: had a significant impact on global financial conditions. Fascinating, never
Speaker 1: have young enough for the inflation dynamics and the myths
Speaker 1: that are out there in Martin agaty is with black
Speaker 1: Rock your discussion today on inflation dynamics in this hour
Speaker 1: the Senator, and if you're from Montana, there's trust me,
Speaker 1: there's only one senator. I think they have two. Based
Speaker 1: on civics. We'll go to President Trump for a civics
Speaker 1: lesson on that. But Max bauchus Uh with us here.
Speaker 1: We hope you have a great conversation. Of course, recently
Speaker 1: a minted ambassador to China, he's looking for a job
Speaker 1: in New York City. No, when he's gonna here, you
Speaker 1: got one here. We'll get to the Senator in a moment.
Speaker 1: David Gurrow, an exciting day. You've got an important duty
Speaker 1: tonight at nine pm. Yes, we'll be We'll be helming
Speaker 1: the coverage here on Bloomberg Television Bloomberg Radio of that
Speaker 1: speech tonight before it joined session of Congress kicking off
Speaker 1: at nine o'clock Eastern time, and we will go through
Speaker 1: the address to have some analysis afterward and carry the
Speaker 1: Democratic responses as well as will be here til can
Speaker 1: I go third two miles south of Missoula. Can we
Speaker 1: do that down the bitter Root Mountains there Lifeline Artisanal Butter.
Speaker 1: Tonight's discussion is about guns in butter, and Senator Bacchus
Speaker 1: knows in Montana, if you want good butter, you go
Speaker 1: to Lifeline Farm Creamery, Scenic Victor, Montana. You do that, David,
Speaker 1: It's great. It's it's great stuff, and it's what you know.
Speaker 1: It's a story here. We're all New York, New York.
Speaker 1: Our vision, Senator is about six blocks from Lexington and
Speaker 1: fifty ninth Street. We're not very good at it, but
Speaker 1: it's wonderful to have you here today, and it's about
Speaker 1: the effect of all that we talked about, David, every day,
Speaker 1: I'm Montana. You've you've sat through a few of these
Speaker 1: speeches before, and there's some expectation on our our audience
Speaker 1: in particular, that we're gonna get more detail here out
Speaker 1: of the speech that we have in the past. Are
Speaker 1: you at all optimistic we're gonna get that? Or? Is
Speaker 1: a State of the Union is a joint speech before
Speaker 1: a joint session of Congress, often just focused on soaring
Speaker 1: rhetoric and that's it. Well, it's a circus as going
Speaker 1: to be greater circus. Tonight I'm a new president, new Congress,
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump was very controversial and publicans are going
Speaker 1: to be shouting, jumping up and down. Democrats are gonna
Speaker 1: be sitting on their hands. I was gonna ask you
Speaker 1: how you think Democrats will respond to this some Republicans
Speaker 1: as well. I mean, it's a it's a crowd that
Speaker 1: is a mixed minds. I think it makes a half
Speaker 1: jumping up, half not jumping up. And the big question
Speaker 1: for me is what Trump says. But the second question is, well,
Speaker 1: how will able will be to resist the Republican shouting
Speaker 1: and screaming? That is, will he say something and it's
Speaker 1: not on the teleprompter because he's just reacting to what
Speaker 1: that's going on to the circus. On the campaign trail,
Speaker 1: we heard from him, we heard from others that he
Speaker 1: was going to be different if he were elected, that
Speaker 1: he was going to carry himself differently, he was going
Speaker 1: to act differently. We've now seen him in a variety
Speaker 1: of settings as president. I detected, most notably when he
Speaker 1: doesn't joint press conference with the world leader. The tenor
Speaker 1: of that press conference seems to be different than when
Speaker 1: he does it alone in the Eastern with with reporters
Speaker 1: just speaking before Congress in this way have an effect
Speaker 1: on the speaker to see all of those folks that
Speaker 1: are gathering to have the import of the moment itself. Well,
Speaker 1: he's not going to White House correspondence dinner. He's got
Speaker 1: a captive audience there. You may even hold up business
Speaker 1: is is iPhone and tweet something during the middle of it.
Speaker 1: Who knows, But it is a captive audience, and it's
Speaker 1: it's all sorry, we'll see what's go ahead. And well, Senator,
Speaker 1: you come out of Stanford in economics and law, and
Speaker 1: we think of the passing of Kenneth Arrow here, the
Speaker 1: giant of Stanford economics at here in the last week,
Speaker 1: we need to get back to core principles. We've all
Speaker 1: been distracted, either Republicans or Democrats, we've been distracted, to
Speaker 1: say the least. How do we get back on track.
Speaker 1: What is the thing you're watching in the cacophony of
Speaker 1: Washington that will signal an administration it's getting on track
Speaker 1: to dispose and to make legislation. What's the process that
Speaker 1: we're going to go through. I think the town meetings
Speaker 1: are part of it. I think that the outrage people
Speaker 1: are expressing it. A lot of these meanings around the
Speaker 1: country are sobering. Did you really have to face that anger?
Speaker 1: I faced anger. I faced a lot of questions, but
Speaker 1: nothing quite like that. What you were so instrumental, integraty
Speaker 1: involved with with crafting financial reform with the Affordable Care
Speaker 1: Act as well? What do you make of what's happening
Speaker 1: right now as you listen to Tonight's speech, as you
Speaker 1: listen to what's coming out of Washington. How optimistic are
Speaker 1: you here that those two pieces of legislation are going
Speaker 1: to be preserved at least in good part. Uh? And
Speaker 1: how difficult and undertaking is it to tweak those two
Speaker 1: pieces of legislation? Well? I care. I worry a bit
Speaker 1: about our country, Frankly. Um. In my last job over
Speaker 1: in China, I'm watching the Chinese think they can get
Speaker 1: an advantage of the United States, UM by seeing Washington
Speaker 1: protectionist inward dysfunctional, and it gives them China a bit
Speaker 1: of an advantage. Frankly, that's so. I I have very
Speaker 1: much hope that we in America can start showing that
Speaker 1: we're adults, we can take care our destiny. Um. We
Speaker 1: want to make sure that people do have adequate healthcare
Speaker 1: a reasonable price. We want to make sure that the
Speaker 1: tax code is fair and efficient, and it means we're
Speaker 1: just gonna have to sit down and really work together.
Speaker 1: There really is no other approach to all of this.
Speaker 1: And I'm hoping that the President Trump tonight indicates that
Speaker 1: he's turned the corner bit, turned the page a bit.
Speaker 1: He says he's listening to lots of people, business groups, etcetera.
Speaker 1: And and certainly he eats about the town meetings, and
Speaker 1: I hope that he starts to signal um that he
Speaker 1: wants to work with with the rest of us. I'm
Speaker 1: making jokes about Victor Montana and artisanal butter you started
Speaker 1: in the politics record out of Missoula Montien did years ago.
Speaker 1: Would you please explain to our global audience and our
Speaker 1: national audience how a guy that lives on Fifth Avenue
Speaker 1: at fifty six is supposed to represent the sprawl of
Speaker 1: agricult cultural, rural Midwest America. I mean, you're one of
Speaker 1: the voices, you and grass Lely of Iowa that they
Speaker 1: can answer that question. How do we get to this
Speaker 1: point where a plutocrat is representing the Montana ethos. I
Speaker 1: just don't buy it for a minute. Well, he is
Speaker 1: the president. He did get elected irrespective where he lives
Speaker 1: and where he grew up. He is the president. And
Speaker 1: it's you know, you know, we are in charge. But
Speaker 1: that I mean the people are the employers. People still
Speaker 1: are in charge, and members of Congress and the president
Speaker 1: really are the employees. And it means we the people,
Speaker 1: as has have the town meetings, have to stand up
Speaker 1: more and make it very clear what we want. How
Speaker 1: should the Democrats respond tonight, Senator Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, there
Speaker 1: there there has to be a method to their madness tonight.
Speaker 1: Should they do it with grace or would you suggest
Speaker 1: they do protest? They've got to be firm, very firm.
Speaker 1: Can't roll over employed head about all this. I would
Speaker 1: air a little on the side of protest um. Democrats
Speaker 1: have to show to people in the country, especially Democrats,
Speaker 1: that they care to Chuck Schulbar asked to show it
Speaker 1: to Democrats around that country that he cares to British
Speaker 1: Sanders a bunch and so forth. Then after a while,
Speaker 1: we Democrats have to come up, I would hope, with
Speaker 1: an alternative and solids and and shop that around the country.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be difficult, but that's what I think we
Speaker 1: should do. I'm reminded of a piece that was in
Speaker 1: the New York I think in two thousand ten. George Packer,
Speaker 1: the great staff writer, goes down to Washington to cover
Speaker 1: the Senate and stays there for a couple of months,
Speaker 1: and the advice he gets going into it is, you've
Speaker 1: got to cover this like a foreign capital in such
Speaker 1: a strange place. You brought up dysfunction. This has been
Speaker 1: an institution, a place that's been dysfunctional for a long while.
Speaker 1: Imagine on some of those fifteen hour flights to Beijing,
Speaker 1: you had some time to think about the state of
Speaker 1: the Senate today. What's caused it to be as messy,
Speaker 1: as device ive, as dysfunctional as it is right now?
Speaker 1: And what's the hope for getting out of that? Sometimes
Speaker 1: I think it has to get worse for it gets better, Um,
Speaker 1: and it can you think it can still and and
Speaker 1: but if it gets worse, as soon as we can
Speaker 1: bounce back up, um, I can get worse. I hope
Speaker 1: that's not where we had I hope that doesn't happen.
Speaker 1: But we Americans have to get realized in a sober way. Hey,
Speaker 1: we can't keep going on like this. We can't keep
Speaker 1: fighting each other. We just can't be locked in our
Speaker 1: little worlds as much as we have. We gotta democracy.
Speaker 1: I guess it is tough after all. I guess it
Speaker 1: does take some responsibility. After all. Then if it gets
Speaker 1: bad enough, then I think people start to Is it
Speaker 1: a problem with collegiality in the body? Is it a
Speaker 1: problem with some of the rules we heard about the
Speaker 1: nuclear option? All of this stuff is is that what's
Speaker 1: led to it? Or is it something greater? I guess greater,
Speaker 1: no question. You know, the rules are the rules. It's
Speaker 1: the old thing life. You know. Sometimes people talk about
Speaker 1: float charts in the box. I think that's all all
Speaker 1: of it. It's the people. It's the people really make
Speaker 1: the decisions. When we're gonna have you back for another
Speaker 1: black hair, Senator, if we could what Senator Schumer's approach
Speaker 1: me to galvanize a minority? Protest you're gonna be a minority.
Speaker 1: Do you go out and try to find Republicans that
Speaker 1: have had it? Do you just try to get to
Speaker 1: the mid term elections? What does a minority do? You
Speaker 1: faced this before, Chuck Um, far be it from me
Speaker 1: any advice to use such a character. He's quite a guy,
Speaker 1: but I would my advice would be, it's it's all
Speaker 1: if they'd be very stand up for people. People don't
Speaker 1: want to be disenfranchised, they don't want to have bad healthcare,
Speaker 1: they want to be respect to stand up for people,
Speaker 1: and and and surely really care about people that he
Speaker 1: has to he has to convey that in a measured way.
Speaker 1: David gurin Tom Keene. Of course Mr Gurrow heavily involved
Speaker 1: in our coverage of the Trump speech tonight, the President's
Speaker 1: speech at nine pm. We are the great honor speaking
Speaker 1: with a senator from Montana, Mr bachus Uh and of
Speaker 1: course the former ambassador to China. David, why don't you
Speaker 1: pick it up because you're a lot more in Washington.
Speaker 1: A few months back, I was in Beijing staying at
Speaker 1: that West and overlooking the massive US embassy complex there
Speaker 1: that you're very familiar with, the of course, and I
Speaker 1: was struck by the size of it. Wonder how it
Speaker 1: fits into the whole apparatus in China. You've got your
Speaker 1: successor head of their now, Terry Brandstad, to be the
Speaker 1: new ambassador to China. What advice do you give him?
Speaker 1: About carrying the flag over there, talking with government officials,
Speaker 1: making the case for UM American economic raighttness in concert
Speaker 1: with the with the Chinese economy. Well, I fluted to
Speaker 1: mone about a month ago to C Terry A given advice,
Speaker 1: and my basic point to him was, you just gotta
Speaker 1: show very very strongly how much you care about this relationship,
Speaker 1: and you just gotta worked very hard to get access
Speaker 1: and talk to people and explained that you are carrying
Speaker 1: and do you want to make sure this relationship works.
Speaker 1: What We've asked a number of guests who have a
Speaker 1: lot of State Department experience, who drives this relationship? Is
Speaker 1: it driven out of the State Department in DC? Is
Speaker 1: it driven out of the Treasury Department. I was in
Speaker 1: Beijing for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue and saw that firsthand.
Speaker 1: What person or what persons within the government drive this relationship.
Speaker 1: Is it the Ambassador to China? Well, it's it's there
Speaker 1: are a lot of players, and Ambassador is certainly as one,
Speaker 1: and it's really sets the tone. And the master is
Speaker 1: the highest ranking American official UM in them in in
Speaker 1: the country, but obviously the White House, State Department, Defense Department,
Speaker 1: they're all part of this. It's it's somewhat coordinated out
Speaker 1: of the White House with the National Security Council, but
Speaker 1: a lot of these other agencies they've got their own agenda.
Speaker 1: They're pushing hard. So it's it's it's my job back
Speaker 1: there trying to keep everybody working together and on the
Speaker 1: same page. My perspective the other day was to hearken
Speaker 1: back to Mike Mansfield and what he did with our
Speaker 1: relationship with Japan at a crucial time or even time
Speaker 1: fully I believe was over there on the watch at
Speaker 1: one point. We have a president who doesn't have that vision.
Speaker 1: Whether the president's right or wrong is not the issue.
Speaker 1: We have a zero sum. Neil merc Until is inward
Speaker 1: tone that we'll hear in that speech, you make America,
Speaker 1: make Montana great again. I get all that. How do
Speaker 1: we get back to what Mike Mansfield represented and what
Speaker 1: you represented with your service. How do we get there?
Speaker 1: First to the president. You need a president who has
Speaker 1: those points of view, who looks at the world the
Speaker 1: way Mike Mansfield did and and Tom Foley did and
Speaker 1: so forth. That's number one. Number two. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I did my very best to explain to the Chinese,
Speaker 1: how important this relationship is, and all the things I'm doing,
Speaker 1: things they should do China should do to show that
Speaker 1: we really want to work together. That's my view, frankly,
Speaker 1: is that it's the old rising power and established power question,
Speaker 1: so called vicidities trap. And I say this over and
Speaker 1: over again, the Chinese, you gotta show to us, not
Speaker 1: just tell us, but show it to us. You when
Speaker 1: I work with us, David, you again your more informed
Speaker 1: on this, advise us. And David jumping here with a
Speaker 1: better question than me on what we should look for
Speaker 1: from the Senate intelligence community, but this up river Russia,
Speaker 1: David rephrase that, yeah, we we hear about these investigations.
Speaker 1: We hear calls for an independent investigation. You've experienced with
Speaker 1: with that as well. I mean, how important is that?
Speaker 1: Do you think to have an independent investigation into what
Speaker 1: we saw during the election and and uh, indeed afterwards,
Speaker 1: we do whatever it taste to get the facts. Um,
Speaker 1: if it requires an independent prosecutor, and so be it.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, if the Trump administration wants to
Speaker 1: reveal everything that happened telephone records and so forth, logs
Speaker 1: and so forth, that's fine too. But we just need
Speaker 1: to get the facts and it's gotta past the smell test.
Speaker 1: With the U. S. China relationship, there has been so
Speaker 1: much focus on the national security side of things. Help
Speaker 1: us with the balance here, uh, national security in the
Speaker 1: one hand, economic on the other. I think back to
Speaker 1: the Trans Pacific Partnership now dead in the water, at
Speaker 1: least from a U. S perspective. A lot of the
Speaker 1: argument that Maastaard Mike Froman made was about the security
Speaker 1: reasons for doing it and giving power to the Chinese.
Speaker 1: They would have more power if this, if this fell apart,
Speaker 1: did we focus too little on the economic side of
Speaker 1: things and too much on national scured when it came
Speaker 1: to right In particular, I think failure to pass t
Speaker 1: PP is a major mistake. It's we are hurting ourselves
Speaker 1: a big time UM from security perspective and also from
Speaker 1: a geopolitical perspective UM and frankly from a trade perspective
Speaker 1: to it it create smart jobs in the loses jobs,
Speaker 1: and it's I wish there were some way to go
Speaker 1: back and resurrect and bring back t p P. I
Speaker 1: don't care. Maybe Trump could bring it back a little bit.
Speaker 1: And then he called Trump PP I don't care. I
Speaker 1: just gotta find some way to get the thing passed. Senator,
Speaker 1: What the Democratic Party need to do to get Trump
Speaker 1: supporters in your Montana back into the full They lost Michigan,
Speaker 1: the lost Wisconsin, etcetera. How does the Democratic Party the
Speaker 1: coastal progresses, how do they re engage with the Max Bokas,
Speaker 1: Scoop Jackson Democrats of another time in place? Well, I
Speaker 1: can only to say what I did, which is it
Speaker 1: just tons of town meetings. I gave my personal telephone
Speaker 1: number to everybody. I get my personal private email to
Speaker 1: everybody in Montana, and it got to meet people and
Speaker 1: talk to people, reach out politics and with respect. You'll listen.
Speaker 1: You'll listen, and you're listen to their assumptions with they're
Speaker 1: worries or fears, and you show that you're really trying
Speaker 1: to find some common cause to solve it. Well, very good,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for attendant. I would love to
Speaker 1: see your Washington. Do we have Montanas? Do we need
Speaker 1: to get them? I'll follow up. I'll open it up.
Speaker 1: We'll get you David. We'll get your David from Brooklyn, Senator,
Speaker 1: you know from Brooklyn. The okay, I did not know yes, Senator,
Speaker 1: thank you so much to look at your career. David,
Speaker 1: the Senator will be listening, no doubt tonight at nine
Speaker 1: pm to the President and we'll have coverage. David Girl,
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Television, Bloomberg Radio worldwide at nine pm. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: Subscribe and listen to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud, or whichever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. I'm out on Twitter at Tom Keene.
Speaker 1: David Gura is at David Gura. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio. Brought you
Speaker 1: by Bank of America. Mary Lynch. Dedicated to bringing our
Speaker 1: clients insights and solutions to meet the challenges of a
Speaker 1: transforming world. That's the power of global connections. Mary Lynch,
Speaker 1: Pierce Feerin Smith Incorporated, Member s I p C.