Speaker 1: But the big question on everybody's living. The other chat lifts,
Speaker 1: they're chatly right. Think Phil going to come out and
Speaker 1: see a shadow? Phil hands right with Chuck Chuckers. It's
Speaker 1: road Hello and welcome to Stephanomics, the podcast that brings
Speaker 1: the global economy to you, and it is ground dog
Speaker 1: Day this week not just for punks Attorney Phil, but
Speaker 1: also possibly for Italy, where politics has long seemed to
Speaker 1: be stuck on a painful, repeated loop from crisis to salvation,
Speaker 1: to political argument and then back to crisis again. We
Speaker 1: thought Mario drug might be the one to break the
Speaker 1: cycle when he became Prime Minister just over a year ago,
Speaker 1: but he may now be heading for a cushier job
Speaker 1: as Italy's President, in which case Italy may be heading
Speaker 1: back to crisis and the whole cycle beginning again. Our
Speaker 1: economy reporter in Rome, Alessandra Amliaccio, will tell you everything
Speaker 1: that's happening and why it matters in just a few minutes.
Speaker 1: But first I wanted to talk about price gouging, inflation
Speaker 1: and the Biden Administration's plans to cut the price of
Speaker 1: a stake voters don't like. Inflation highest in forty years, now,
Speaker 1: and President Biden doesn't like to be seen to be
Speaker 1: doing nothing about it. He also came into office promising
Speaker 1: to be more active in breaking up monopolies boosting competition.
Speaker 1: In a few minutes, I'll talk to a distinguished former
Speaker 1: antitrust official, Bill beat about how these two political desires
Speaker 1: have come together in the administration's decision to pick a
Speaker 1: fight with America's meat packers, and what the president's new
Speaker 1: approach to competition might mean for the likes of Amazon
Speaker 1: and Facebook. But first, a brief introduction to the story
Speaker 1: from our U S Economy editor Molly Smith. In a
Speaker 1: butcher shop in New Jersey. Uh and I'm afraid that
Speaker 1: these you know, these inflation prices are going to stay.
Speaker 1: It seems like it's a little bit of greed on
Speaker 1: their part, knowing the whole situation, and they have a
Speaker 1: good excuse right now to keep the prices at that
Speaker 1: high market. That was Anthony Chiampa, owner of A and
Speaker 1: A Fine Foods in Lincoln Park, New Jersey, and he's
Speaker 1: dealing with runaway inflation in the price of meat in
Speaker 1: his shop, with some prices for cuts going for now
Speaker 1: nineteen or twenty dollars a pound up from just nine
Speaker 1: or ten last summer. His vendor said it was COVID related,
Speaker 1: as some plants were backlogged on production from being shut
Speaker 1: down for a long period of time. But Chiampa has
Speaker 1: another explanation. I sure feel that there's no need for it,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately it's you know, these big companies that are
Speaker 1: you know, dictating the pricing right. That's also what many
Speaker 1: in the Biden administration think, and they're vowing to take
Speaker 1: on food giants and force them to cut their prices.
Speaker 1: There's economics and politics at work here. Inflation is hurting
Speaker 1: President Biden's popularity, and the administration needs to show it's
Speaker 1: doing something to bring it down. Consumer prices in the
Speaker 1: US rose seven per cent in the fastest calendar ar
Speaker 1: increase in thirty nine years. It's not just at the
Speaker 1: grocery store. You've probably noticed it at the gas station
Speaker 1: as well, your energy bill or trying to buy a car.
Speaker 1: Economists largely agree this was brought on by supply demand
Speaker 1: and balances in the pandemic. Massive stimulus from governments and
Speaker 1: central banks fuel demand, while lockdowns and COVID outbreaks limited
Speaker 1: supplies of materials and labor. Many expect these dueling forces
Speaker 1: will ease up this year as supply chains get back
Speaker 1: in order and Americans spend down their pandemic savings, But
Speaker 1: dominant companies could contribute even more to the Consumer Price
Speaker 1: Index or cp I going forward. That's what Jeffrey Melly
Speaker 1: has to say, the Global head of Research at Barclay's,
Speaker 1: an author of a recent report on the impact of
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen on market power, generalized inflation as a starting
Speaker 1: point now because of supply chain distructions, but some companies
Speaker 1: can take advantage of that by raising their prices, and
Speaker 1: then that needs into CPI. But then that means there's
Speaker 1: more generalized inflation than so companies of market power have
Speaker 1: even more air cover and even more profits. Tyson Foods
Speaker 1: and JBS, some of the biggest meat processors in the country,
Speaker 1: each reported gross profit margins of around in the fourth quarter,
Speaker 1: some of the highest ever. In fact, the Biden administration
Speaker 1: is keeping a close eye on the meat packing industry,
Speaker 1: or just a handful of companies control the market. Then
Speaker 1: there's Coke and Pepsi, who announced price increases within days
Speaker 1: of each other in July and meet around three billion
Speaker 1: dollars in operating profits three months later at or near records.
Speaker 1: Some economists and the Biden Emit illustration argue that if
Speaker 1: companies were raising prices just enough to cover costs, those
Speaker 1: profit margins would be flat. In response, the meat packers
Speaker 1: say that labor shortages and strong demand are to plaim
Speaker 1: for higher costs, while a Coke representative said the company
Speaker 1: adjust its pricing to balance quote premiumization and affordability. But
Speaker 1: if you listen to recent calls that executives have had
Speaker 1: with investors, you'll find quite a few talking about their
Speaker 1: newfound pricing power. Here's Norwegian Cruise Line CEO Frank del
Speaker 1: Rio on an earnings call in November. Yes, we have
Speaker 1: inflation pressures on some online on in fuel, commodities, food,
Speaker 1: but we've got that pricing power that is translating into
Speaker 1: high yield. So we we believe that in late twenty
Speaker 1: two three forward our margins should improve. And here's Mark Klaus,
Speaker 1: CEO of Campbell's Soup at an investor or day last month.
Speaker 1: And it's really about the full impact of our pricing,
Speaker 1: which we do very much believe we have the pricing
Speaker 1: power to address inflation. The Federal Reserve hopes to check
Speaker 1: these price increases by raising interest rates this year. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Biden has staffed antitrust agencies with regulators who are committed
Speaker 1: to cracking down on big business. Lena Khan, who chairs
Speaker 1: the Federal Trade Commission, said last week that she intends
Speaker 1: to act with a quote fierce sense of urgency to
Speaker 1: police competition in the economy. She'll have to balance that
Speaker 1: with all the good things that come from big businesses,
Speaker 1: namely the efficiencies and economies of scale that actually keep
Speaker 1: prices down. In the end, both approaches present challenges, according
Speaker 1: to Yanda Loger, a professor at ku love In in Belgium,
Speaker 1: and it's it's not that by sort of breaking up
Speaker 1: these companies or or suddenly regulating them that you're going
Speaker 1: to solve things as well, right, because that may actually
Speaker 1: create harm for consumers down the road as well. Chiamba,
Speaker 1: the butcher shop owner, isn't holding his breath for prices
Speaker 1: to come down. His vendors are saying it will be
Speaker 1: another six to eight months before they can hopefully catch
Speaker 1: up with production, and then if they have a lot
Speaker 1: of product that's not selling due to the price that's
Speaker 1: so high to the consumer, then they'll back off and
Speaker 1: then I'll have more products and then I'll have to
Speaker 1: bring that prices down, So that eventually will happen, I hope,
Speaker 1: but I don't see it for the near future. For
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News, I'm Molly Smith. Well, Molly has set us
Speaker 1: up nicely, I think, for a conversation about pricing power
Speaker 1: and what the administration could or should do about it
Speaker 1: with Bill Bear, now a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution,
Speaker 1: but previously I think the only person to have led
Speaker 1: antitrust enforcement at both of the U S antitrust agencies.
Speaker 1: So he was Assistant Attorney General in charge of antitrust
Speaker 1: for the Department of Justice sixteen. But he also served
Speaker 1: as a director at the Bureau of Competition at the
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission in the late nineties. So Bill, thank
Speaker 1: you very much for joining us. We should start with
Speaker 1: the subject of the day, meat packing. Is there a
Speaker 1: serious competition problem that for the administration to fix? Definitely,
Speaker 1: no doubt there is a serious problem here. We have
Speaker 1: in beef and pork and poultry processing unprecedented concentration. In
Speaker 1: beef they're just four players, and poultry there five. In
Speaker 1: pork there are just four, and that gives the meat
Speaker 1: packers enormous power both in dealing with the producers of
Speaker 1: the livestock but also downstream in terms of setting prices
Speaker 1: for the average consumer. There is a problem. Okay, there's
Speaker 1: a problem, but how might be trickier? How should the
Speaker 1: administration go about addressing this? There are a couple of
Speaker 1: things that can be done, and the administration is working
Speaker 1: with them under the packers and stockyards and the Department
Speaker 1: of Agriculture has regulatory authority and have some ability to
Speaker 1: force the packers too and the stockyards to uh deal
Speaker 1: more fairly with the livestock producers. And in addition, what
Speaker 1: the Biden administration is doing is providing funding to the
Speaker 1: farm agri culture for alternatives packers to develop alternative methods
Speaker 1: for livestock producers, the people who produced the cattle of
Speaker 1: the chicken that go through these stock cared alternative sources
Speaker 1: more competition, so there is more opportunity for the producer
Speaker 1: to get a fair share, and then more competition in
Speaker 1: terms of setting price downstream. They are devoting uh some
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars two funding alternative middlemen and
Speaker 1: provide more competition in a sector that I think most
Speaker 1: people believe is way too concentrate. If if these companies
Speaker 1: are just making meat too expensive, especially now when we
Speaker 1: have a lot of people are being encouraged to eat
Speaker 1: less meat anyway, and there are plenty of alternatives to meet,
Speaker 1: why is this not something that will get resolved on
Speaker 1: its own in the sense of prices go too high,
Speaker 1: consumers are just not going to buy. Well, it's there
Speaker 1: is some ability, I suppose for consumer demand to move
Speaker 1: away from meat, but at the same time, a lot
Speaker 1: of consumers, um, that's what they want, that's what they're
Speaker 1: going to buy, that's what they're used to. The demand
Speaker 1: is somewhat anelastic for these products, which gives a concentrated
Speaker 1: market with very few sellers the ability to extort prices
Speaker 1: that are higher than its competitive market would provide. In
Speaker 1: a way, the complaint about the meat packing is quite
Speaker 1: a traditional approach to antitrust that you judge by whether
Speaker 1: or not you think prices are too expensive and consumers
Speaker 1: are not being served because prices are expensive. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that seems to have changed in this
Speaker 1: administration is that we're not just thinking about the price
Speaker 1: for consumers. We might be worried about a company being
Speaker 1: really big even if it's offering all its things for free, Facebook,
Speaker 1: for example, which often comes up in these conversations, would
Speaker 1: you welcome the idea that the administration is now quite
Speaker 1: focused on size, actually is caring about the size of
Speaker 1: a company even if all its consumers seem to love
Speaker 1: its products and use it a great deal, and that's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why it's so big. I guess
Speaker 1: Amazon is another classic example. Yeah, I think it is
Speaker 1: a legitimate focus. You have any trust lawsuits depending right
Speaker 1: now involving Facebook and involving Amazon. There are rumors of
Speaker 1: possible lawsuits against against Apple, UH and UM and others,
Speaker 1: and I think those lawsuits are focused on the fact
Speaker 1: that once you get to a certain size, you have
Speaker 1: tremendous market power, tremendous ability to limit the opportunity of
Speaker 1: rivals to grow up to compete with a Facebook or
Speaker 1: to compete with the Amazon. The case the FTC brought
Speaker 1: against Facebook involves Facebook's tact man strategy where they gobble
Speaker 1: up at anybody who looks like they could be a
Speaker 1: competitive threat. And the documents that have come out in
Speaker 1: that litigation and congressional hearings, so that was a very
Speaker 1: deliberate strategy from from the top. Let's not let Instagram
Speaker 1: or what's app go any further. Let's catch them and
Speaker 1: they can then catch them and make them part of
Speaker 1: their off ing where they can catch them and kill them.
Speaker 1: And that is a legitimate anti trust worry, and it
Speaker 1: has a significant effect on our abilities consumers to move
Speaker 1: from one platform to another. There's only one one platform
Speaker 1: that serves our needs, whether it's shopping or communication. We
Speaker 1: are subject to those platforms rules on privacy, on sharing
Speaker 1: of our information, as well as giving them enormous pricing
Speaker 1: power in terms of what we pay for the goods
Speaker 1: we buy through an Amazon platform. And to the extent
Speaker 1: we're not paying dollars and cents or or pounds sterling
Speaker 1: for the right to be on the platform, we are
Speaker 1: paying with our personal data, which is of great value
Speaker 1: not just the platform, but the people who sell products
Speaker 1: on those platform as the line I always sell my
Speaker 1: my teenage son. If you're not paying for the product,
Speaker 1: you're the product your data. And lots of people tend
Speaker 1: to be worried about the size, the sheer size of
Speaker 1: these companies, but then you see things like the testimony
Speaker 1: that and that Mark Zuckerberg gave in his appearance on
Speaker 1: the in Congress a few years ago, where it became
Speaker 1: completely obvious that the senators really didn't know anything about
Speaker 1: Facebook and didn't know anything about social media. Do we
Speaker 1: have any sense that government really is going to be
Speaker 1: able to do this better than the companies themselves? I
Speaker 1: think the any trust and worsers um at the Federal
Speaker 1: Trade Commission, the Justice Department no a lot more than
Speaker 1: than perhaps some people give them credit for knowing. You
Speaker 1: look at the Hill hearing that have been conducted NOAD
Speaker 1: eighteen months. There are a lot of people sophisticated in technology.
Speaker 1: And you see that frankly in the UK at the
Speaker 1: Central Markets Authority. You see it in in Brussels with
Speaker 1: the European Commission. These are people who they have hired,
Speaker 1: people who know a lot about technology, who know how
Speaker 1: to hire installtance that will inform them where they may
Speaker 1: lack the knowledge. I think they're up to the task.
Speaker 1: I really do. Is it fair to say that Facebook
Speaker 1: is the standard oil of our time, that great massive
Speaker 1: monopoly that Roosevelt broke up in the in the antitrust,
Speaker 1: the trust busting era of the early nineteen hundreds, well,
Speaker 1: no analogy is perfect, but I do think, uh, Facebook, Google, Amazon,
Speaker 1: Apple in their particular space, our tech platform that have
Speaker 1: enormous power, and that was what was that issue in
Speaker 1: the Standard oil case. How you address misuse of that power,
Speaker 1: how you promote competition. Maybe somewhat different in technology than
Speaker 1: it was with Standard Oil or back thirty years ago
Speaker 1: when the government broke up the A, T and T monopoly,
Speaker 1: but they are comparable in the sense that they are
Speaker 1: very powerful companies that appear to be using that power
Speaker 1: to suppress competition, and that's bad for the American economy,
Speaker 1: it's bad for consumer. The conversations I've had with people
Speaker 1: in motions about this have said that actually, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of talk about it, and the administration has kind
Speaker 1: of talked to big game, but ultimately it's going to
Speaker 1: be too hard and certainly very difficult to pass anything
Speaker 1: through Congress, and we're not going to see that kind
Speaker 1: of dramatic action against Facebook or other companies. Do you agree.
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going to happen in Congress. You know,
Speaker 1: betting on Congress, which is so divided and so many
Speaker 1: issues right now, is not money well spent. At the
Speaker 1: same time, there are these anti trust enforcement actions which
Speaker 1: are pending, are moving on and have the ability to
Speaker 1: achieve that the courts agree that there's a problem there
Speaker 1: to achieve some of the results that that Congress is
Speaker 1: considering right now, and Congress may or may not pass.
Speaker 1: Just going back to where we started, do you think
Speaker 1: they're trying to put too much onto antitrust? That it
Speaker 1: can be a policy for improving consumer outcomes in certain sectors,
Speaker 1: or helping workers get paid more in other sectors in
Speaker 1: fast food, for example, or it can be a way
Speaker 1: of tackling some of the things we don't like about
Speaker 1: Facebook or other social media platforms. But can it really
Speaker 1: do all of those things and reduce inflation? Are we
Speaker 1: just asking too much? I think we need to be
Speaker 1: careful about what we have competition policy who accomplished. I
Speaker 1: think that is a fair caution. For example, um uh,
Speaker 1: unfettered competition can produce bad outcomes externalities in the environment,
Speaker 1: in terms of social outcomes, two big companies merge, they
Speaker 1: declare redundancies and workers are out of work. Is any
Speaker 1: trust the best way to address that problem? Or do
Speaker 1: you take it on as a public policy question where
Speaker 1: companies who are emerging are required to have an extended
Speaker 1: severance period continue to in the US to cover the
Speaker 1: health benefits of workers declared redundant. So I I do
Speaker 1: think it is wrong to think of competition as the
Speaker 1: magic pill that will solve all problems. At the same time,
Speaker 1: there clearly our ways in which we can make competition
Speaker 1: policy a part of the solution to higher price is
Speaker 1: too overly concentrated industries to problems in terms of not
Speaker 1: just price, but also product quality and innovation. Nary Sumas,
Speaker 1: for example, has has talked about scarcity denial. He says
Speaker 1: that some of the administrations sort of blaming of inflation
Speaker 1: on greed and price price gouging by companies is actually
Speaker 1: just in denial that there's a shortage of some key
Speaker 1: stuff at the moment because of the pandemic. And as
Speaker 1: long as you deny that, as long as you blame
Speaker 1: it on greed, you're kind of not being serious about inflation. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone in this administration that I've heard
Speaker 1: speak or who's written something, has suggested that concentration is
Speaker 1: the soul or principle factor contributing to this recent inflationary trend.
Speaker 1: You know, fiscal policy, monetary policy, COVID shortages, the whole
Speaker 1: supply chain disruption clearly is having a driving effect on
Speaker 1: price increases. At the same time, in concentrated industries you
Speaker 1: see the dominant firms doing more than just passing on
Speaker 1: price increases. They are actually adding a expl level of
Speaker 1: profit margin to their price increases. In truly competitive markets,
Speaker 1: that would be very hard to do, but in many industries,
Speaker 1: including UH agriculture, concentration makes it possible for that to happen. Bilbert,
Speaker 1: thank you, You're welcome. It's been a pleasure. And now
Speaker 1: to road in a byzantine process to select the next
Speaker 1: Italian president, which may yet put Italy back at the
Speaker 1: top of the list of European countries most likely to
Speaker 1: have a crisis. You'll remember, last time we checked the
Speaker 1: great technocrats and savior of the euro the former head
Speaker 1: of the European Center Bank, President Mario drag was putting
Speaker 1: Italy on the road to reform and in the process
Speaker 1: putting it in line to receive billions of euros from
Speaker 1: the European Recovery Fund set up in response to COVID. Well,
Speaker 1: now it seems drug is ready for a change. But
Speaker 1: what about the rest of Italy's government. Here's Alessandra Meliaccio.
Speaker 1: Mario Drag has been touted as Italy's savior from an
Speaker 1: endless political groundhog day loop, which is seen about seventy
Speaker 1: governments taking turns in as many years. The plot is
Speaker 1: a familiar one Italy in crisis, enter savior, reforms, exit savior,
Speaker 1: enter squabbling politicians, and again Italy in crisis and repeat.
Speaker 1: But the presidential vote this week and the political frenzy
Speaker 1: around it has raised concerns about who will lead Italy
Speaker 1: if Drug leaves his post as Prime Minister, an executive role,
Speaker 1: to become the country's next president, a prestigious but less
Speaker 1: hands on role elected by the parliament. Will his legacy
Speaker 1: of changes be enough to make sure that Italy keeps
Speaker 1: up with the regular schedule of reforms promised to the
Speaker 1: European Union. If not, it could put in jeopardy more
Speaker 1: than two hundred billion euros worth of recovery fund cash
Speaker 1: coming the country's way in the next few years. Enzovans,
Speaker 1: a politician and professor at Lewis University in Rome, is
Speaker 1: familiar with what he calls Italy's recurring loop of technocratic
Speaker 1: and then political governments, considering the present European recovery plans constrained,
Speaker 1: you need an expert and respected driver to lead the
Speaker 1: Italian government. It is undoubtedly part of Mario Drugs positive
Speaker 1: legacy to have established a situation requiring the leadership figure
Speaker 1: of very high spending, whatever it happens means, served as
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs and European Affairs Minister in three different administrations
Speaker 1: led by technocratic Premier Mario Monty and by political premiers
Speaker 1: Enrico Leta and grew Zeppe. Content He thinks Druggi has
Speaker 1: raised the bar for whoever will come next. If he
Speaker 1: becomes President of the Republic, his replacement must have the
Speaker 1: strength and the specific competence to govern Italy through struck
Speaker 1: from reform strictly monitored by the EU authorities and institution.
Speaker 1: Not that Italy isn't able to pull itself together when needed.
Speaker 1: It did so to become part of the Euro Single
Speaker 1: Currency Club, It did so to avoid catastrophe in two
Speaker 1: thousand eleven when it's financing caused sword to dangerous levels,
Speaker 1: and it did so last year when it met all
Speaker 1: of the EU criteria to unlock the first twenty four
Speaker 1: billion euro installment of EU Recovery Fund cash and in fact,
Speaker 1: meeting all the use requirements for its pandemic relief money
Speaker 1: has been a heavy burden. There were fifty one targets
Speaker 1: to me from drafting laws to setting up of tender
Speaker 1: and selecting projects, and there will be more than a
Speaker 1: hundred goals this year, including proof of actual investments, always
Speaker 1: a challenge for Italy with its red tape in a
Speaker 1: history of not using YOU funds in time, and not
Speaker 1: using the funds would mean missing out on investments that
Speaker 1: are the only way to fund growth and escape economic stagnation. Now,
Speaker 1: given Italy's ability to cram for exams but tendency to
Speaker 1: stray in between obligations, what Druggy tried working with you
Speaker 1: is to leave his country with a system that will
Speaker 1: force it to stay on track, regardless of the political squabbling.
Speaker 1: As Druggie himself put it during his end of year
Speaker 1: press conference, his presence is no longer indispensable. Hell, we
Speaker 1: have done three important things. We have turned Italy into
Speaker 1: one of the most flaccinated countries in the world. We
Speaker 1: have delivered our National Recovery and Resilient Investment plan on time,
Speaker 1: and we have achieved to use fifty one targets, and
Speaker 1: so we have created the conditions that can allow and
Speaker 1: work on the recovery plan and its targets to continue.
Speaker 1: The government has created these conditions independently from whom will
Speaker 1: be in power. Yet a luck could still go wrong,
Speaker 1: particularly with Italy notoriously querulous politicians training at the leash
Speaker 1: to take power once again. Inability to use funds and
Speaker 1: put in place long term growth could be fatal to
Speaker 1: Italy's future. And then there's always the chance of unleashing
Speaker 1: a sell off of Italian debt if markets don't trust
Speaker 1: the country's leadership. Druggy isn't stepping out of public life altogether.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister and former head of the European Central
Speaker 1: Bank is now eyeing the presidential palace once a papal
Speaker 1: residents perched atop ROMs queerin Ali Hill. Druggy biographer Marco
Speaker 1: Cecchini thinks it's really been his plan all along. One
Speaker 1: Druggy left MTB, he uh thought that Quirinale was his
Speaker 1: natural destination, and in fact the seven Moni of Farewell
Speaker 1: in Frankfort at the end of October twenty nineteen was
Speaker 1: a sort of crowning of him as leader, an European leader,
Speaker 1: and so that UH is another another contriguration to to
Speaker 1: justify his destination UH in the Quirinale. After all, if
Speaker 1: he remains Prime Minister, drugging might get tracked down into
Speaker 1: the mire of political squabbling, has happened to Italy's previous
Speaker 1: technocratic savior, Mario Munty. If he manages to become president, however,
Speaker 1: he removes himself from the fray and becomes italy Is
Speaker 1: guaranteer and moral authority for the next seven years, possibly
Speaker 1: another way to break the ground home day cycle. And
Speaker 1: that is it for this season of Stephanomics. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to kick off again in April, but if I talk
Speaker 1: to anyone really interesting in the meantime, we'll put it
Speaker 1: on this feed. And with Stephanomics gone, you should have
Speaker 1: that much more time to learn about the global economy
Speaker 1: by following at Economics on Twitter. This episode, all our
Speaker 1: episodes are produced by Magnus Henderson, with special thanks to
Speaker 1: Molly Smith, Alessandra Miliaccio, and Bill Bear. Mike Sasso is
Speaker 1: executive producer of Stephanomics and the head of Bloomberg Podcast
Speaker 1: of Francesco mus