WEBVTT - SURVpodcast_05-31-24 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:06.760 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. 0:00:11.960 --> 0:00:15.560 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene along 0:00:15.600 --> 0:00:18.960 with Paul Sweeney. Join us each day for insight from 0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:23.160 the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. You 0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.520 can also watch the show live on YouTube. Visit the 0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:31.280 Bloomberg Podcast channel on YouTube to see the show weekday 0:00:31.280 --> 0:00:34.320 mornings from seven to ten am Eastern from our global 0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:39.000 headquarters in New York City. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:42.920 or anywhere else you listen, and always I'm Bloomberg Radio, 0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:47.000 the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business App. Now joining 0:00:47.120 --> 0:00:51.680 us Neil Renaissance Macro for too short a visit Neil. 0:00:51.720 --> 0:00:55.000 Do you still keep a constructive view on the American 0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:56.400 economic experiment? 0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:02.280 Well, that's a great question, Tom. I do think the 0:01:02.320 --> 0:01:04.920 tradeoffs are getting a little bit more challenging here for 0:01:04.959 --> 0:01:09.760 the Fed. You know, my view is that inflation is 0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:13.680 likely to moderate over the next several quarters. Okay, and 0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:19.319 if the Fed is skittish about recalibrating policy given the 0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:23.520 coming slowing in inflation, then that would make me a 0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:26.679 little bit more concerned around the economic Olbum. So that's 0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:28.560 kind of where I'm at. I think the trade offs 0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:31.279 are not as obvious as they were a year ago. 0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:34.800 We look at the labor markets, Tom, if you look 0:01:34.840 --> 0:01:38.120 at average hourly earnings, I mean people talk about stubborn 0:01:38.200 --> 0:01:41.440 or sticky prices. Well, wages are a very sticky price 0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:44.759 in their own right, and wages have been slowing quite meaningfully. 0:01:46.000 --> 0:01:47.880 You know, over the last several months. If you look 0:01:47.880 --> 0:01:50.600 at the three month rate of change in average hourly earning, 0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:53.320 it's running below three percent at an annual rate. 0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:57.360 Uh Paul moments ago, Ian Lingen Bmo Capitol. Real question 0:01:57.520 --> 0:01:59.040 is real spending. 0:01:58.640 --> 0:02:02.240 Real spending that goes to that spend my spending Israel. 0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:04.640 I can tell you that Neil talk to us about 0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:07.919 this two percent inflation data point that the feder Reserve 0:02:08.000 --> 0:02:09.320 talks about is a target? 0:02:09.880 --> 0:02:12.400 How hard of a target is that? Should it be? 0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:14.680 Why can't the world live with I don't know, two 0:02:14.720 --> 0:02:17.200 and a half percent inflation? Two and three quarters percent? 0:02:17.680 --> 0:02:18.480 How do you think about that? 0:02:20.280 --> 0:02:20.440 Well? 0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:23.400 I think the Fed can live with that. I mean, 0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:26.960 they've signaled that they're willing to cut with inflation rates 0:02:27.000 --> 0:02:30.680 above that, So you know, I do think that the 0:02:30.680 --> 0:02:35.080 two percent number, you know, that's a A not necessarily 0:02:35.200 --> 0:02:38.040 a right here right now target. It's just you know, 0:02:38.200 --> 0:02:40.200 kind of a point in time. You know, we want 0:02:40.200 --> 0:02:43.000 to be moving towards that, you know, in that direction 0:02:43.200 --> 0:02:46.799 sort of thing. You know that we've litigated whether that's 0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:48.560 the right number or not. It is what it is. 0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:50.440 I think for the SAD it just needs to be 0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:52.800 moving in that direction in order for them to feel 0:02:52.800 --> 0:02:54.720 comfortable with easing. 0:02:55.280 --> 0:02:58.920 Why is this eight thir dy PCE deflator important just 0:02:59.520 --> 0:03:02.160 except for the you know, the Fed cares. Why is 0:03:02.200 --> 0:03:05.480 this inflation series more important than fourteen others? 0:03:05.520 --> 0:03:09.480 Neil Dotta, Well, remember Tom and we have you know, 0:03:09.480 --> 0:03:12.800 in economics, you have often different ways of measuring the 0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:15.720 same kind of concept. You have cp and GDI, you 0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:19.160 have PC and CPI and the PCE number it just 0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:22.519 covers them. It has a much wider scope, right. That's 0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:28.040 why unlike CPI, forty percent is not shelter, right, I mean, 0:03:28.040 --> 0:03:30.040 because they have it has a much wider scope. But 0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:34.080 also it looks at things covering payments made on behalf 0:03:34.120 --> 0:03:36.600 of an individual. I mean CPI only looks at out 0:03:36.640 --> 0:03:38.760 of pocket expenses. So I think one way I'm thinking 0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:42.840 about it is CPI kind of reflects what people think 0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:45.920 they spend their money on, and the PC data reflects 0:03:45.920 --> 0:03:48.960 what people aggravate their money on. And I think that's 0:03:48.960 --> 0:03:51.560 one of the reasons why that looking at PCEE. 0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:57.279 Neil Dutta does a negative statistic for inflation adjusted personal spending. 0:03:58.080 --> 0:04:04.320 Is that a precursor for inflation adjusted negative wages out 0:04:04.360 --> 0:04:06.400 into the rest of twenty twenty four. 0:04:07.400 --> 0:04:10.640 Well, I mean, it just it just I mean to me, 0:04:10.920 --> 0:04:14.880 the data on real consumption is a reminder that growth 0:04:15.080 --> 0:04:18.240 is not getting away from the Fed. You know, going 0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:20.360 into the year Tom, I mean, there was a lot 0:04:20.400 --> 0:04:25.760 of enthusiasm for economic strength. I think the consensus has 0:04:25.839 --> 0:04:28.400 largely adjusted to that, right, I mean, we went into 0:04:28.440 --> 0:04:31.880 the year very downbeat on growth as a consensus, and 0:04:31.920 --> 0:04:34.359 now people have adjusted, I think, to where they should be, 0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:36.680 and you're going to likely see a mix, a more 0:04:36.760 --> 0:04:41.440 mixed data flow now because people are in the generally speaking, 0:04:41.480 --> 0:04:43.320 I have adjusted. I mean, growth was never going to 0:04:43.320 --> 0:04:45.680 be as weak as it was people thought it would 0:04:45.680 --> 0:04:47.160 be at the end of last year. Now we're kind 0:04:47.160 --> 0:04:48.280 of more in the two to two and a half 0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:50.839 percent camp, so you should expect to see a more 0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:55.360 mixed kind of data flow. Relative to consensus now. But yeah, 0:04:55.400 --> 0:04:57.719 I mean, it just demonstrates that growth isn't getting away 0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:00.040 from the FED. And when you think about consumption, and 0:05:01.040 --> 0:05:03.520 you know, remember that in recent months we had seen 0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:05.760 a bit I think before the revisions, I mean, we 0:05:05.800 --> 0:05:07.880 did see a meaningful decline in the savings rate. So 0:05:07.880 --> 0:05:09.680 there's a limit to how much you can draw down 0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:12.880 savings to finance consumption. So you know, you'd expect to 0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:17.240 see consumer spending follow the growth in incomes more so. 0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:20.479 And you know, as I mentioned, you know, wage growth 0:05:20.560 --> 0:05:24.360 has been moderating, so it's not all that surprising to 0:05:24.400 --> 0:05:27.360 see consumption, you know, slonging a little bit. 0:05:27.240 --> 0:05:30.360 Here key economic data. We're commercial for you for this hour, Paul, 0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:32.239 Why don't you continue with mister Duddo. 0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:35.080 So, Neil, I guess if you look at this data, 0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:36.920 I mean, there's certainly a camp out there that I 0:05:36.960 --> 0:05:38.840 think would look at this data and kind of what 0:05:38.839 --> 0:05:41.039 we've seen over the last several months and say, my 0:05:41.080 --> 0:05:44.039 federal reserve can stay right where they are. They don't 0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:47.479 need to do anything here. Let's let these higher rates 0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:50.520 for longer do their job and pulling inflation down. How 0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:51.320 do you think about that? 0:05:53.680 --> 0:05:55.200 I mean, I think you want to put that argument 0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:57.160 on as short of valicio as possible. 0:05:57.279 --> 0:05:57.520 Okay. 0:05:57.520 --> 0:06:01.640 I think frankly, you never have as much time as 0:06:01.640 --> 0:06:04.640 you think. The risks with the economy are always nonlinear 0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:07.159 in nature. I'll just leave it at that. I think 0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:10.560 it's me it's frankly dangerous. You know, I mean, as 0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:13.799 a policymaker, your job, I mean, you're not a business economist. 0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:16.560 My job is to try to position clients for upside. 0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:19.040 Their job is to try to protect things from the downside. 0:06:19.040 --> 0:06:23.040 It's a risk management job. Okay. And what we know, 0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:26.320 I mean core inflation came in on the nose point two. 0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:28.080 I think it was point twenty five if you round 0:06:28.120 --> 0:06:32.880 it out to the two decimal points. And you know, 0:06:32.960 --> 0:06:36.599 I remember Waller in a recent speech talking about, you know, 0:06:36.640 --> 0:06:38.520 I look forward to the day when I don't have to, 0:06:38.640 --> 0:06:41.080 you know, look at it like out to three decimal places, 0:06:41.120 --> 0:06:42.920 that that that might actually happen soon. 0:06:43.000 --> 0:06:46.440 Okay, But it's a final question, Neil Dota, this is 0:06:46.520 --> 0:06:49.599 really really important. As you say, we've gotten out to 0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:52.120 three decimal points. I'm as guilty as this. The only 0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:54.200 one I know doesn't go to three decimal points is 0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:54.919 Lisa Mateo. 0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:56.479 Right, she's the only one I know. 0:06:57.000 --> 0:07:00.160 Neil data is just simply the great, great call. All 0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:04.240 here of my economist of twenty twenty three is you said, 0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:08.039 I'm sorry, productivity is the are animal spirits there and 0:07:08.120 --> 0:07:11.240 we will clear markets to continue to prosper. Have you 0:07:11.360 --> 0:07:12.520 changed your tune at all? 0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:17.760 Well, the only thing I have a real bone to 0:07:17.800 --> 0:07:21.000 pick with is on inflation. I think there's not as 0:07:21.080 --> 0:07:23.960 much upside to growth estimates. There's plenty of downside to 0:07:24.080 --> 0:07:27.040 inflation estimates relative to the consensus. So the consensus has 0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:29.120 come closer to me on the economy, but I think 0:07:29.200 --> 0:07:32.400 move further away on inflation. And so for me, I 0:07:32.960 --> 0:07:36.400 think the momentum under inflation is lower. I think core 0:07:36.480 --> 0:07:39.840 inflation will. I mean, you can't rule out a point 0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:42.440 one a couple of times here and there between now 0:07:42.480 --> 0:07:45.800 and meeting, you can't rule that out. And once that 0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:48.960 starts to happen, look for the bond markets to rally. 0:07:49.000 --> 0:07:51.040 So I think if I had to pick, I mean, 0:07:51.080 --> 0:07:54.280 as a market economist, stocks or bonds, I would pick 0:07:54.360 --> 0:07:57.480 bonds because either growth is steady and inflation slows, in 0:07:57.520 --> 0:08:00.920 which case bond markets rally or growth start slowing and 0:08:01.000 --> 0:08:03.679 inflation will continue to slow, in which case bond's rally alt. 0:08:03.880 --> 0:08:05.920 So there's an asymmetry here in the market I think 0:08:06.200 --> 0:08:07.119 in favor of fixing. 0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:10.040 Neil Dotta, thank you so much. Really treasure the view 0:08:10.080 --> 0:08:12.120 here at eight thirty on Fair of course with Renaissance 0:08:12.200 --> 0:08:15.600 Macro look for mister data and Jeff to Graf's good literature. 0:08:15.600 --> 0:08:29.400 You'll see that on Twitter and LinkedIn as well. Francis 0:08:29.440 --> 0:08:33.160 Donald joins us out for Manual Life Investment Management. Just wondering. 0:08:33.160 --> 0:08:35.640 We did a great panel in Toronto. It was out 0:08:35.679 --> 0:08:39.320 real fire. Nice Francis Donald from that panel in Toronto 0:08:39.800 --> 0:08:41.840 when I went and saw the new Jersey Devils play 0:08:41.880 --> 0:08:44.120 the Toronto maple LEAs. Thank you Redo keeper of the 0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:47.320 MX for that. Francis from that panel you and I 0:08:47.360 --> 0:08:50.760 did with David Rosenberg two months ago. How has your 0:08:50.840 --> 0:08:51.560 view changed? 0:08:52.200 --> 0:08:55.880 It hasn't. Actually, I just looked up on chat GPT 0:08:56.160 --> 0:09:00.080 give me examples of words for periods without any action 0:09:00.200 --> 0:09:01.960 that is temporary, because I was trying to come up 0:09:01.960 --> 0:09:04.240 with a clever way to say we're in a holding pattern, tom, 0:09:05.200 --> 0:09:09.080 especially in the United States, we are waiting for more information. 0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:14.160 Was Q one inflation temporary. Where will jobs go? The 0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:18.040 balance of risks is that jobs deteriorate from this moment forward. 0:09:18.080 --> 0:09:21.080 But we got to get that June July, August data. 0:09:21.400 --> 0:09:24.200 The FED is not going to be cutting before September, 0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:28.000 but we need more information, and so week to week 0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:31.160 it's bits and bobs on the US economy. Now that's 0:09:31.160 --> 0:09:33.640 true for the US, it's not true elsewhere. We had 0:09:33.679 --> 0:09:35.960 big PCE number this morning in the US. We're not 0:09:36.040 --> 0:09:38.840 talking about that on our team over at Many Life, 0:09:38.960 --> 0:09:43.120 we're talking about intervention in Japan. Might seem small, huge 0:09:43.160 --> 0:09:48.319 downward revision on Canadian GDP. Canada escaped a recession by 0:09:48.360 --> 0:09:52.760 this decibel point in Q three Q four. We have 0:09:53.440 --> 0:09:56.559 the ECB cutting next week, the BOC cutting next week. 0:09:56.600 --> 0:09:58.600 There's a lot of movement in the world, but not 0:09:58.720 --> 0:10:00.719 so much in the US. I think that's the more 0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:01.960 interesting macro picture right now. 0:10:02.000 --> 0:10:04.640 I'm getting on to a late jobs report June seven. 0:10:04.760 --> 0:10:08.600 The survey is still one hundred and eighty thousand. I'm sorry, France, 0:10:08.600 --> 0:10:11.560 there's one hundred and eighty thousand. Non farm payrolls is 0:10:11.640 --> 0:10:15.160 still not maybe not robust. But I'm gonna borrow from 0:10:15.160 --> 0:10:18.160 Bob sinch A solid American economy. 0:10:19.040 --> 0:10:21.880 Yeah, it's not a problem. It's not a problem. And 0:10:22.120 --> 0:10:23.960 this is the big issue facing the FED is that 0:10:24.440 --> 0:10:28.440 the balance of risks is tilting towards an acceleration of 0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:32.120 weakness in the US, but inflation is still above target 0:10:32.280 --> 0:10:34.920 and the job market had not deteriorated. We like to 0:10:34.960 --> 0:10:37.160 say in our team, when the FED starts cutting rates, 0:10:37.200 --> 0:10:40.080 you won't be asking why, right the FED cut weight 0:10:40.160 --> 0:10:41.920 in the next two months, we'd all be shaking our 0:10:41.960 --> 0:10:45.640 heads saying why. So they just don't have the data now. 0:10:45.679 --> 0:10:47.880 That said, when we forecast what's ahead, we think they 0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:50.520 will have enough data by September. But they don't have 0:10:50.559 --> 0:10:53.560 it now, which is why they can't cut in June July, 0:10:53.720 --> 0:10:54.840 and they have to wait. 0:10:55.000 --> 0:10:57.640 Thank god, we're commercial free this hour with key economic 0:10:57.720 --> 0:11:01.000 data and the Marcus lifting off at SPA accept seventeen 0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:04.360 points now first green in days in days. The live 0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:07.320 chat on YouTube is lit up there that I can't Paul, 0:11:07.400 --> 0:11:10.520 this is too much, Brent, Thank you so much. Alcohol 0:11:10.600 --> 0:11:15.720 free Corona is sprite. There you go, Brent, thank you 0:11:15.760 --> 0:11:16.520 for that wisdom. 0:11:17.000 --> 0:11:20.720 So Francis here you talked about the bav cutting rates. 0:11:20.840 --> 0:11:23.920 The European Central bank cutting rates soon. I mean a 0:11:23.920 --> 0:11:26.840 lot of folks out there Francis would say, my Federal 0:11:26.880 --> 0:11:29.120 Reserve is behind the curve here, they should be cutting. 0:11:29.480 --> 0:11:31.000 Now. What do you say to those. 0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:34.839 Folks, Well, I say this is actually very atypical, and 0:11:34.880 --> 0:11:38.600 I think that's what's causing problems. Historically, the FED goes first, 0:11:38.760 --> 0:11:42.440 everybody else follows. EM's go last. The cycle has been 0:11:42.520 --> 0:11:46.600 so fundamentally different. Ems are almost done their cutting cycle. 0:11:46.679 --> 0:11:49.480 We have several developed markets who are cutting ahead of 0:11:49.520 --> 0:11:52.079 the FED. I think this is actually creating some problems. 0:11:52.080 --> 0:11:53.960 And I was talking to my team today. We're so 0:11:54.200 --> 0:11:57.760 used to saying the FED only cares about what's happening domestically, 0:11:58.040 --> 0:12:00.840 and the FED is the ruler of all others central banks. 0:12:01.120 --> 0:12:02.800 But the FED is also going to care about some 0:12:02.840 --> 0:12:05.440 of the global disruptions that is coming from them being 0:12:05.559 --> 0:12:07.920 last or near last. We've got the RBA and the 0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:11.040 BOJ of course, that are still on or still on 0:12:11.080 --> 0:12:13.680 the hawkish glance. And so the number one question that 0:12:13.720 --> 0:12:15.720 I get is what are we doing with currency risk 0:12:15.800 --> 0:12:18.760 and countries that need to cut rates because their economy 0:12:18.840 --> 0:12:22.520 is weakening but can't diverge to substantially from the FED. 0:12:23.160 --> 0:12:25.680 So I think we might see some subtle or I'd 0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:27.640 like to see some subtle references from the FED of 0:12:27.800 --> 0:12:30.360 some of the chaos that's being created by the FED 0:12:30.520 --> 0:12:32.760 going later the end of the day. Though these central 0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:35.400 banks have their own domestic bandates, the FED doesn't have 0:12:35.559 --> 0:12:37.960 justification to be cut. These other central banks that are 0:12:38.000 --> 0:12:40.439 cutting absolutely have to get on the ball or else 0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:44.200 they're going to risk bigger recessions and potentially larger rate divert. 0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:46.000 Well, that's kind of where I want to go. For instance. 0:12:46.040 --> 0:12:47.839 I mean, there are a lot of folks out there 0:12:47.840 --> 0:12:51.480 that are saying, boy, the more this FED r weights 0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:53.520 here in terms of cutting rates, the more we raised 0:12:53.520 --> 0:12:56.480 the risk of a I don't know, an accident happening. 0:12:56.080 --> 0:12:59.720 In the marketplace or something worse. What's that risk to you? Yeah, 0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:05.360 I'm post with Dell an accident, oh those guys. Yeah, 0:13:05.559 --> 0:13:05.800 you know. 0:13:06.080 --> 0:13:07.840 There are a lot of things that are different in 0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:11.439 this post COVID economy. But I am still a traditionalist 0:13:11.640 --> 0:13:14.880 in the sense that I think basic economic relationships hold 0:13:15.240 --> 0:13:19.240 higher rates exist to bring down demand, and we have 0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:22.760 seen already a few small accidents that occur. But I 0:13:22.760 --> 0:13:24.520 think we bury the lead a little bit when we 0:13:24.559 --> 0:13:26.480 hear economists talk about, oh, it's going to be a 0:13:26.480 --> 0:13:29.040 soft landing and the Fed's only going to cut three times. 0:13:29.360 --> 0:13:32.920 Well A, the question is if they don't cut pretty significantly, 0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:35.600 what does the next recession look like. Maybe it's not 0:13:35.640 --> 0:13:37.679 a twenty twenty four, maybe it's not even a twenty 0:13:37.720 --> 0:13:40.880 twenty five, but that recession is likely to be much worse. 0:13:41.240 --> 0:13:44.160 Thank you, Francis Don. What's great? I mean our bookers, 0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:50.920 they have it nailed. So I say it on my 0:13:51.040 --> 0:13:54.040 cell phone in shock over these announcements. The speed of 0:13:54.080 --> 0:13:57.360 the verdict for me as an amateur, all thirty four 0:13:57.440 --> 0:14:00.640 counts for me as an amateur. And I turned to 0:14:00.679 --> 0:14:03.000 the team. You know, we're texting back and forth like 0:14:03.040 --> 0:14:05.880 everybody does today, and there's only one person I wanted 0:14:05.880 --> 0:14:09.600 to talk to, simply put, is a ute out of 0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:13.800 amherst UMass Amherst in Harvard. He worked with Leon Jowarski. 0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:17.000 That's all you have to know. Nick Ackerman joins US 0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:23.520 now with decades of experience in the American judicial system. Nick, 0:14:23.600 --> 0:14:26.960 my first question is simple, how will this moment? How 0:14:27.000 --> 0:14:31.560 will this verdict effect the other matters of litigation that 0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:33.240 Donald Trump faces? 0:14:34.240 --> 0:14:36.640 I don't know as if it will affect it directly. 0:14:36.720 --> 0:14:40.560 It really right now, those other matters I've been delayed 0:14:40.600 --> 0:14:44.880 for various reasons. The big item is in Washington, D C. 0:14:45.320 --> 0:14:49.400 And Atlanta, where they're waiting to see what the Supreme 0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:55.160 Court does with the immunity argument that Trump's set forth. 0:14:55.960 --> 0:14:59.680 So I think that that one really hinges on the immunity. 0:15:00.600 --> 0:15:03.880 But I think it does cast a whole different pail 0:15:04.040 --> 0:15:09.040 on these other cases, which most people have said are 0:15:09.320 --> 0:15:12.560 probably more serious in some ways, although I would agree 0:15:12.560 --> 0:15:16.120 with that, but it certainly puts the pressure to get 0:15:16.160 --> 0:15:19.520 those cases moving and get them into court and tried. 0:15:19.880 --> 0:15:22.520 What does an appeal court look like? I think we 0:15:22.600 --> 0:15:24.560 even if we didn't have TV cameras there, we had 0:15:24.560 --> 0:15:26.960 the great art of sketches, and I think we know 0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:31.000 what Nick, Paul Drake, Perry Mason, I got it done cold. 0:15:31.480 --> 0:15:34.320 But Nick, what does an appeal court actually look like? 0:15:35.520 --> 0:15:39.000 Well, you're saying in appeals court to appeal this conviction, Yes. 0:15:38.920 --> 0:15:41.640 What does the actual physical What do you do with 0:15:41.760 --> 0:15:43.120 an appeals court? 0:15:43.440 --> 0:15:45.200 Well, what you do is you go up to there's 0:15:45.200 --> 0:15:48.960 two podiums, one for the person who's appealing and the 0:15:49.000 --> 0:15:52.880 other for the person who's opposing the appeal. In this case, 0:15:52.920 --> 0:15:56.640 it'll be on the prosecution opposing the appeal, and it'll 0:15:56.640 --> 0:16:00.120 be Trump making the appeal. And you've got in this 0:16:00.160 --> 0:16:02.800 case in the first department, there'll be five judges that 0:16:02.840 --> 0:16:06.360 will hear that appeal, And so the only argument they 0:16:06.360 --> 0:16:10.440 really have is to try and somehow dredge out arguments 0:16:10.560 --> 0:16:15.520 based on the law to appeal this conviction, because essentially, 0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:18.760 once you have a jury verdict and they've decided on 0:16:18.800 --> 0:16:22.560 the credibility of the witnesses and the facts, there's not 0:16:22.680 --> 0:16:25.120 much to appeal after that. And I don't think there's 0:16:25.200 --> 0:16:28.360 much to appeal either on the legal portion of this. 0:16:28.920 --> 0:16:31.240 So I don't think this appeal is going to go 0:16:31.400 --> 0:16:32.680 very far for Donald Trump. 0:16:33.080 --> 0:16:35.600 All right, Nick, then let's turn to the sentencing aspect 0:16:35.640 --> 0:16:39.240 of this case. July eleventh. What are the scenarios? What 0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:41.640 are the most likely sentencing scenarios? 0:16:41.720 --> 0:16:45.000 Nick, Well, before January eleventh, there's going to be a 0:16:45.000 --> 0:16:47.440 couple of reports that you're going to see. I guess 0:16:47.440 --> 0:16:49.600 we won't see him until the time of sentencing, but 0:16:50.320 --> 0:16:54.480 probation does a report that's provided to the court. Both 0:16:54.560 --> 0:16:59.680 sides provide sentencing memoranda to the court. The question, of course, 0:16:59.760 --> 0:17:03.400 is what they're not the DA's office asked for jail time, 0:17:04.400 --> 0:17:07.240 and if they do, whether or not the judge Merchant 0:17:07.440 --> 0:17:12.560 will provide jail time. My opinion is that, based on 0:17:13.520 --> 0:17:17.000 at least the fact that Michael Cohen served three years 0:17:17.040 --> 0:17:23.480 for these violations, and that Alan Weiselberg, the CFO of 0:17:23.760 --> 0:17:28.560 Trump Org, who is instrumental in setting up the phony 0:17:30.359 --> 0:17:33.280 corporate records on this and the payments that went out 0:17:33.280 --> 0:17:38.159 to reimburse Michael Cohen, He's already served three months in 0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:42.480 Rikers Island for you know, unrelated matters, and now he's 0:17:42.520 --> 0:17:45.359 serving three months, another three months in Rikers Island for 0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:49.720 line and it's pretty clear that he is not cooperated 0:17:49.760 --> 0:17:52.719 against Donald Trump. And I think the judge is going 0:17:52.760 --> 0:17:55.800 to have to consider that here are two people that 0:17:55.880 --> 0:17:59.960 were instrumental in this crime that did serve jail time, 0:18:00.520 --> 0:18:02.919 and I find it hard to believe that he is 0:18:02.960 --> 0:18:06.400 not going to feel compelled to give Donald Trump at 0:18:06.480 --> 0:18:08.080 least some jail time. 0:18:08.680 --> 0:18:09.880 Wow, in what way? 0:18:09.960 --> 0:18:10.200 I mean? 0:18:10.600 --> 0:18:12.400 You know, I wish I could stop the clock here 0:18:12.400 --> 0:18:14.919 in the show, Nick Akerman, I can't. I mean, what 0:18:15.040 --> 0:18:18.040 is it? Weekend jail time. I mean, is it something 0:18:18.160 --> 0:18:21.239 creative and different or is it Are you telling me 0:18:21.280 --> 0:18:24.359 the former president of the United States could enjoy a 0:18:24.440 --> 0:18:27.440 month at Rikers Island? Yeah? 0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:30.080 Absolutely, I mean I think what they'd have to do 0:18:30.119 --> 0:18:34.000 is create a presidential suite at Rikers Island because the 0:18:34.040 --> 0:18:37.560 Secret Service has to be there with him, obviously, But 0:18:38.080 --> 0:18:42.480 I think there is a very strong likelihood that he 0:18:42.600 --> 0:18:44.720 is going to be sentenced to in prison. 0:18:44.880 --> 0:18:47.960 Will he be protected from other prisoners? I'll just be 0:18:48.000 --> 0:18:50.800 as direct about it as I can. Absolutely. 0:18:50.920 --> 0:18:53.520 I don't see how in any way he can be 0:18:53.600 --> 0:18:55.280 put into the general population. 0:18:55.440 --> 0:18:57.240 I just don't see that happened. What does he need 0:18:57.280 --> 0:18:59.159 to say at eleven am, Nick Akerman, we got it. 0:18:59.160 --> 0:19:01.879 We're running out of time. Unfortunately. What does the former 0:19:01.920 --> 0:19:04.639 president of the United States have to say at eleven 0:19:04.680 --> 0:19:08.280 am to keep himself on a Rikers Island, a Rikers prison. 0:19:09.000 --> 0:19:11.440 At eleven am. I don't think there's anything he can 0:19:11.480 --> 0:19:13.600 say that's going to help him on that score. This 0:19:13.760 --> 0:19:16.040 is all going to be decided in the courts. Just 0:19:16.160 --> 0:19:19.280 like the jury decided guilt or innocence. The judge is 0:19:19.320 --> 0:19:22.800 going to decide the punishment, and it's totally apart from 0:19:22.840 --> 0:19:26.920 anything that Donald Trump says at eleven am. Nick captains 0:19:27.320 --> 0:19:30.479 something that violates that gag order, he could wind up 0:19:30.480 --> 0:19:33.320 in jail a lot quicker because now that he's been 0:19:33.359 --> 0:19:36.200 convicted by a jury of his peers, I think Judge 0:19:36.240 --> 0:19:39.720 Merchant is going to feel a lot more comfortable enforcing 0:19:39.760 --> 0:19:41.680 that gag order through imprisonment. 0:19:41.760 --> 0:19:44.800 Now, thank you for your service to Bloomberg with Bloomberg Law, 0:19:44.840 --> 0:19:48.200 with June Grasso in Balance of Power is well. Nick 0:19:48.200 --> 0:19:52.440 Ackerman working with Leon Jowarski a few years ago as well, 0:20:03.280 --> 0:20:06.720 Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers out in ann Arbor have 0:20:06.800 --> 0:20:11.080 a textbook out which melds public policy into economics like 0:20:11.160 --> 0:20:14.960 nobody about fifteen to fifteen years ago, Rick Michigan over 0:20:15.000 --> 0:20:19.280 at Columbia did the same thing. Living that reality is 0:20:19.400 --> 0:20:23.040 Jason Furman of Harvard University. And all I can say, folks, 0:20:23.080 --> 0:20:25.800 you sit there and go jeez. I wish I had 0:20:25.840 --> 0:20:28.320 a briefing like they have at the White House, or 0:20:29.119 --> 0:20:30.919 I wish I could just for ten minutes sit in 0:20:30.960 --> 0:20:33.680 the back row of X ten. I won't ask any questions, 0:20:33.720 --> 0:20:36.600 but I just want to know what's going on. No 0:20:36.640 --> 0:20:41.840 one is out on Twitter conveying information about this post 0:20:41.880 --> 0:20:45.440 pandemic time. Like Professor Furman. He joins us now from 0:20:45.560 --> 0:20:48.920 X ten and Harvard at University. Jason, first of all, 0:20:48.960 --> 0:20:52.439 congratulations on your Twitter feed. Are you doing this or 0:20:52.480 --> 0:20:55.520 is this a host of young freshmen at Harvard. 0:20:56.680 --> 0:20:58.359 I'm doing it. I have somebody that helps me with 0:20:58.400 --> 0:20:59.080 the charts. 0:20:59.400 --> 0:21:03.359 There we go. It's like liz Ane Saunders at SWOP. Yeah, 0:21:03.400 --> 0:21:05.399 I mean the kid from Pepperdine's doing it. I mean, 0:21:05.440 --> 0:21:08.399 not Lizan. Someone helps you with the charts. What's the 0:21:08.440 --> 0:21:11.200 most important chart right now? I'm going to go course 0:21:11.240 --> 0:21:14.439 services X something. What's your most important chart? Jason? 0:21:15.320 --> 0:21:21.760 I think probably core PCE market based. I haven't liked 0:21:21.760 --> 0:21:24.760 the imputed stuff being in there for a while. Back 0:21:24.760 --> 0:21:27.399 in twenty twenty two, it was lowering inflation because the 0:21:27.440 --> 0:21:30.320 stock market was falling. Now it's raising inflation because the 0:21:30.359 --> 0:21:33.720 stock market is rising. So I think more of a 0:21:33.760 --> 0:21:37.240