WEBVTT - Tariffs, Tax Rates at Stake in the 2024 Election

0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:23.440
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Chopping it Up.

0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:25.680
<v Speaker 2>I'm your host, Mike Hallen, the senior restaurant and food

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:29.240
<v Speaker 2>service analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence. Our research and that of

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:31.840
<v Speaker 2>bi's five hundred analysts around the globe can be found

0:00:31.880 --> 0:00:36.600
<v Speaker 2>exclusively on the Bloomberg terminal. Today, Nathan Dean, BI senior

0:00:36.720 --> 0:00:39.400
<v Speaker 2>US policy analyst, is here to give us a download

0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:42.440
<v Speaker 2>on the US election. Thanks for doing this, Nathan.

0:00:42.200 --> 0:00:44.080
<v Speaker 3>Oh, thanks for having me. Really appreciate it.

0:00:44.200 --> 0:00:45.880
<v Speaker 1>Nathan does great work here for BI.

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:51.159
<v Speaker 2>They put out a very very large, deep dive report

0:00:52.120 --> 0:00:54.920
<v Speaker 2>on the election, so I figured i'd have him here

0:00:55.720 --> 0:00:57.480
<v Speaker 2>to let us know how it's going to impact consumer

0:00:57.520 --> 0:00:59.360
<v Speaker 2>spending and potentially the restaurants.

0:01:00.320 --> 0:01:02.440
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, if anybody wants to copy that, you can always

0:01:02.480 --> 0:01:04.320
<v Speaker 3>just reach out to us. We'll get you a PDF

0:01:04.360 --> 0:01:07.080
<v Speaker 3>and we'll give you about sixty five pages that I

0:01:07.080 --> 0:01:10.120
<v Speaker 3>think you can read from probably Grand Central station I'm

0:01:10.160 --> 0:01:14.240
<v Speaker 3>guessing to maybe Westchester or Connecticut. I think if that's

0:01:14.280 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 3>the train station that goes to Connecticut.

0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:20.679
<v Speaker 2>So I try to avoid the trains, especially New Jersey

0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:22.360
<v Speaker 2>Trains has had a lot of trouble this summer, so

0:01:23.319 --> 0:01:25.200
<v Speaker 2>I can't help you with where the trains are going.

0:01:25.280 --> 0:01:29.520
<v Speaker 2>But yeah, how about that first debate? Man, that's two

0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:31.720
<v Speaker 2>hours of my life that I'll never get back.

0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:36.040
<v Speaker 3>So I was asked on Bloomberg Radio what my preferred

0:01:36.120 --> 0:01:39.280
<v Speaker 3>food was for the debate? What is the Dean household

0:01:39.319 --> 0:01:41.560
<v Speaker 3>going to be? And my response was I was going

0:01:41.600 --> 0:01:43.960
<v Speaker 3>to take as much Bloomberg popcorn as the pinetry as

0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:47.920
<v Speaker 3>security would allow me to. But it was a very

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:50.640
<v Speaker 3>entertaining debate. But for those of us in the policy

0:01:50.720 --> 0:01:53.480
<v Speaker 3>side where I was looking for policy statements, a I

0:01:53.560 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 3>wasn't anticipating it. This is not a policy election, you know.

0:01:56.720 --> 0:02:00.600
<v Speaker 3>This is an election between two different candidates, former President

0:02:00.600 --> 0:02:03.920
<v Speaker 3>Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, that both have

0:02:04.560 --> 0:02:08.600
<v Speaker 3>very stark differences on the view of where this country

0:02:08.600 --> 0:02:11.560
<v Speaker 3>should go. And when you have that combined with the

0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:15.079
<v Speaker 3>fact that Kamala Harris only had about one hundred and

0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:18.400
<v Speaker 3>twenty days to put a campaign together, you don't have

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:21.240
<v Speaker 3>in an equation where you're going to get into policy,

0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:24.639
<v Speaker 3>and getting into policy probably it'd even hurt you more

0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:27.320
<v Speaker 3>so than help you. For all the talk. I mean,

0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:31.040
<v Speaker 3>obviously I don't run campaigns, so I can't accurately preview

0:02:31.480 --> 0:02:34.640
<v Speaker 3>say that. But you know, going into the debate, we

0:02:34.720 --> 0:02:36.560
<v Speaker 3>did not anticipate that there was going to be much

0:02:36.560 --> 0:02:38.600
<v Speaker 3>of the way of policy. However, we got some nuggets.

0:02:39.280 --> 0:02:42.640
<v Speaker 3>President Trump talked about tariff, something very important to a

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 3>lot of the investors of the clients of Bloomberg, and

0:02:46.840 --> 0:02:49.760
<v Speaker 3>you know, just I'm guessing for people who are listening

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:52.200
<v Speaker 3>to this podcast right now, we got some on taxes,

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:55.480
<v Speaker 3>so tariff taxes, and we also got a little bit

0:02:55.600 --> 0:02:59.800
<v Speaker 3>of you know, Vice President Harris's views on price gouging

0:02:59.800 --> 0:03:01.760
<v Speaker 3>and so forth like that. But for the most part,

0:03:02.000 --> 0:03:04.120
<v Speaker 3>I don't think the debate. In fact, my post debate

0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:06.679
<v Speaker 3>note that I put on the terminal said, look, there

0:03:06.760 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 3>wasn't much. The endorsement of Taylor Swift was, you know,

0:03:09.880 --> 0:03:11.840
<v Speaker 3>certainly a big deal that could you know, that could

0:03:11.840 --> 0:03:14.720
<v Speaker 3>do stuff. But I think the race and you know,

0:03:14.760 --> 0:03:16.880
<v Speaker 3>for those of you who have a terminal, you can

0:03:16.919 --> 0:03:19.639
<v Speaker 3>look at the betting markets a WSL election go and

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:21.959
<v Speaker 3>I was watching this during the debate, and you could

0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:25.560
<v Speaker 3>see the betting markets decline for President Trump an increase

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:28.880
<v Speaker 3>for Vice President Harris. And this is both poly market

0:03:28.919 --> 0:03:32.359
<v Speaker 3>and predicted. Is on the terminal, But when I looked

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 3>at it yesterday, things are normalized a little bit. And

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:38.640
<v Speaker 3>so in the poly market space, President Trump is leading

0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:42.560
<v Speaker 3>in the predicted space, Vice President Harris is leading. To me,

0:03:43.160 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 3>that is no change from prior to the debate. So

0:03:46.400 --> 0:03:47.160
<v Speaker 3>life continues.

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So basically we spoke about this before. You know,

0:03:51.320 --> 0:03:53.880
<v Speaker 2>he looked pretty miserable. He did not have a very

0:03:53.920 --> 0:03:56.800
<v Speaker 2>good performance. But so it sounds like it doesn't really matter.

0:03:56.840 --> 0:03:58.960
<v Speaker 2>I know some people have been saying a conservative pundits

0:03:59.000 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 2>have been saying it. Say, you know, do I believe

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:04.440
<v Speaker 2>that what they're telling me that it doesn't matter? But

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:06.600
<v Speaker 2>if you're telling me it doesn't matter, maybe it really doesn't.

0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:09.800
<v Speaker 3>Well, but for all the argument that it doesn't matter,

0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:12.200
<v Speaker 3>let's also remember that there's going to be approximately one

0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:14.520
<v Speaker 3>hundred and fifty million Americans that are going to vote

0:04:14.960 --> 0:04:18.240
<v Speaker 3>in the selection. One hundred thousand of them spread across

0:04:18.279 --> 0:04:20.760
<v Speaker 3>seven swing states, are going to be the ones that

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:23.720
<v Speaker 3>ultimately decide who's going to be the next president. And

0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:26.680
<v Speaker 3>if you're listening to us right now in Philadelphia, I

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:29.200
<v Speaker 3>am sorry for all the advertisements that you're seeing. I

0:04:29.240 --> 0:04:33.159
<v Speaker 3>saw that the NBC affiliate had twenty eight advertisements between

0:04:33.240 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 3>five am and seven am earlier this week, and so

0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:41.240
<v Speaker 3>it's the folks at Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada.

0:04:42.360 --> 0:04:44.719
<v Speaker 3>You know, they're the ones that are ultimately can decide.

0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:47.200
<v Speaker 3>And what both candidates are trying to do here is

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:50.159
<v Speaker 3>get people off the couch or stay on the couch.

0:04:50.520 --> 0:04:53.200
<v Speaker 3>Because this isn't a race between Vice President Harris and

0:04:53.240 --> 0:04:56.040
<v Speaker 3>Donald Trump. This is a race between Vice President Harris,

0:04:56.360 --> 0:04:59.159
<v Speaker 3>President Trump and the couch. And if you remember in

0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:01.800
<v Speaker 3>that debate, Vice President Harris said, you know, she was

0:05:01.800 --> 0:05:04.479
<v Speaker 3>talking about NATO and Ukraine and she said, they're eight

0:05:04.560 --> 0:05:07.640
<v Speaker 3>hundred thousand Polish Americans living in the state of Pennsylvania.

0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:10.600
<v Speaker 3>That was a way of taking a statement that President

0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:14.680
<v Speaker 3>Trump had used and trying to push some of those

0:05:14.720 --> 0:05:17.120
<v Speaker 3>eight hundred thousand Polish Americans to get off the couch.

0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:19.599
<v Speaker 3>If people stay on the couch, more likely than not,

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:20.559
<v Speaker 3>President Trump wins.

0:05:20.880 --> 0:05:21.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. It's interesting, man.

0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:24.159
<v Speaker 2>They sounds like their neck and neck. So do you

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:25.840
<v Speaker 2>have any opinion on who you think is going to

0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:26.400
<v Speaker 2>pull this out?

0:05:26.720 --> 0:05:29.760
<v Speaker 3>Look, I can show you pulling. You know, I can

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:31.600
<v Speaker 3>show you polling that President Trump is going to win.

0:05:31.680 --> 0:05:33.320
<v Speaker 3>I'm going to show you pulling. I can show you

0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:36.599
<v Speaker 3>the polling the Vice President Harris will Win. In fact,

0:05:36.640 --> 0:05:39.040
<v Speaker 3>I had to. I've been flying around the US and

0:05:39.080 --> 0:05:41.040
<v Speaker 3>one of the things that I've been saying to clients

0:05:41.080 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 3>when I go to them is like, I apologize that

0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 3>the DC expert flies all the way out here just

0:05:47.600 --> 0:05:49.479
<v Speaker 3>to tell you that he doesn't know who's going to

0:05:49.480 --> 0:05:52.360
<v Speaker 3>win the election. But it is going to be that close.

0:05:52.480 --> 0:05:55.120
<v Speaker 3>I mean, we're talking about if there is a snowstorm

0:05:55.200 --> 0:05:58.040
<v Speaker 3>in the greater Philadelphia area or in the greater Pittsburgh

0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:02.000
<v Speaker 3>area the day of election, of election day, that potentially

0:06:02.040 --> 0:06:05.440
<v Speaker 3>swing things left and right. President Trump has actually, you know,

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:10.160
<v Speaker 3>embraced the crypto community fairly aggressively to try and make

0:06:10.160 --> 0:06:13.200
<v Speaker 3>the United States the crypto capital of the world because

0:06:13.240 --> 0:06:16.880
<v Speaker 3>there are potentially, let's just call it, three thousand individuals

0:06:16.920 --> 0:06:19.640
<v Speaker 3>in the United States in those seven swing states that

0:06:19.800 --> 0:06:22.839
<v Speaker 3>crypto is their only issue that they're voting on, and

0:06:22.880 --> 0:06:26.400
<v Speaker 3>as a result, you need every single vote. So it's

0:06:26.440 --> 0:06:30.440
<v Speaker 3>going to be that close, and you know, I can

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:31.840
<v Speaker 3>still see scenarios for both.

0:06:32.640 --> 0:06:35.719
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and I'd assume the last debate is going to

0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:37.200
<v Speaker 2>be really important.

0:06:37.839 --> 0:06:38.560
<v Speaker 3>If they hold it.

0:06:39.279 --> 0:06:41.400
<v Speaker 1>If they hold it, all right, yeah, so.

0:06:41.400 --> 0:06:44.200
<v Speaker 3>Right now, the next debate is on October first, that

0:06:44.360 --> 0:06:47.080
<v Speaker 3>is between vice president of the vice presidential candidates, so

0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:49.760
<v Speaker 3>Governor Tim Wallas and Minnesota and Senator J. D. E.

0:06:49.839 --> 0:06:53.960
<v Speaker 3>Vans of Ohio. Vice president debates usually are good popcorn watching,

0:06:54.000 --> 0:06:55.840
<v Speaker 3>but they don't ultimate. I mean, how many folks can

0:06:55.880 --> 0:06:59.400
<v Speaker 3>you think that vote primarily because of the vice president.

0:06:59.520 --> 0:07:02.360
<v Speaker 3>Certainly for the folks in Ohio and Minnesota it's a

0:07:02.360 --> 0:07:04.440
<v Speaker 3>little bit more personal to them. For the rest of

0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:07.000
<v Speaker 3>the folks in the United States, the vice president debate

0:07:07.080 --> 0:07:09.560
<v Speaker 3>usually doesn't matter all that much. But then we have

0:07:09.600 --> 0:07:12.480
<v Speaker 3>the third debate, which may or may not happen, as

0:07:12.520 --> 0:07:16.040
<v Speaker 3>if we're recording this, you know, September thirteenth, you know,

0:07:16.160 --> 0:07:18.240
<v Speaker 3>President Trump said there's not going to be a third debate.

0:07:18.680 --> 0:07:21.720
<v Speaker 3>Immediately after the second debate, Vice President Harris's team came

0:07:21.760 --> 0:07:23.840
<v Speaker 3>out and said, we want a third let's do this,

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:27.800
<v Speaker 3>Let's do so forth, and President Trump said, no, I'm good,

0:07:27.840 --> 0:07:31.440
<v Speaker 3>untruth social he said something and I'm paraphrasing here. You know,

0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:34.160
<v Speaker 3>the winner, the person who's calling for the rematch isn't

0:07:34.160 --> 0:07:36.600
<v Speaker 3>the winner. I won the debate, and so forth. Therefore,

0:07:36.640 --> 0:07:39.920
<v Speaker 3>there's no need to have a third debate. What I

0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:42.320
<v Speaker 3>will say is is that there potentially could be a

0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:43.880
<v Speaker 3>third debate. I don't want to say it's not going

0:07:43.960 --> 0:07:47.880
<v Speaker 3>to happen because it is September thirteenth. We don't know

0:07:47.920 --> 0:07:50.400
<v Speaker 3>what the race is going to look like on October fifteenth,

0:07:50.560 --> 0:07:54.520
<v Speaker 3>and if Kamala Harris begins to move, you know, maybe

0:07:54.560 --> 0:07:58.600
<v Speaker 3>some additional voter enthusiasm in Pennsylvania, for example, President Trump

0:07:58.680 --> 0:08:01.480
<v Speaker 3>may want to have that debate again because you know,

0:08:01.800 --> 0:08:04.160
<v Speaker 3>he could be better prepared, and it could be a

0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:07.600
<v Speaker 3>different story because President Trump. I mean, look, anybody watched

0:08:07.600 --> 0:08:10.960
<v Speaker 3>the first debate between President Trump and President Biden. Debates matter,

0:08:11.720 --> 0:08:15.120
<v Speaker 3>and so you know, debates have real consequences, and so

0:08:15.720 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 3>let's give both candidates time. I think, you know, we'll

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:20.760
<v Speaker 3>see how it plays out. But around that October fifteenth

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:24.040
<v Speaker 3>October twentieth timeline, you certainly could have a third debate.

0:08:25.280 --> 0:08:28.040
<v Speaker 3>But you know, right now, it seems like the debate's off.

0:08:28.080 --> 0:08:30.120
<v Speaker 3>But maybe in a week or two they'll come back

0:08:30.160 --> 0:08:30.480
<v Speaker 3>to it.

0:08:31.120 --> 0:08:33.920
<v Speaker 2>Okay, interesting and remind me last four years ago the

0:08:33.960 --> 0:08:35.839
<v Speaker 2>first debate, how did that pan out?

0:08:36.600 --> 0:08:39.280
<v Speaker 3>Well? You know which which one I mean it was?

0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:43.440
<v Speaker 3>There was there were multiple debates, but I think I

0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:46.200
<v Speaker 3>was referring to the first debate. This s this cycle.

0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:50.080
<v Speaker 3>So when President Trump and President Biden had their debate,

0:08:50.480 --> 0:08:55.240
<v Speaker 3>President Biden came across, you know, you know, he came

0:08:55.280 --> 0:08:57.520
<v Speaker 3>across in a way that essentially made a lot of

0:08:57.520 --> 0:09:02.560
<v Speaker 3>people question his ability to be present. And within a

0:09:02.559 --> 0:09:05.040
<v Speaker 3>few weeks he was announcing that he's not going to

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:08.480
<v Speaker 3>run anymore. And so, you know, some debates have matter.

0:09:08.520 --> 0:09:11.480
<v Speaker 3>I mean, look, I remember watching a debate, one of

0:09:11.480 --> 0:09:15.960
<v Speaker 3>the debates between President Obama and current Utah Senator Mitt Romney.

0:09:16.400 --> 0:09:19.600
<v Speaker 3>And Senator Romney I think handily won that debate, but

0:09:19.679 --> 0:09:22.920
<v Speaker 3>as we all know, President Obama won the election. And so,

0:09:23.160 --> 0:09:27.160
<v Speaker 3>you know, debates have real consequences. But so do policy statements.

0:09:27.200 --> 0:09:30.920
<v Speaker 3>So does the economy, So does the FED either cutting

0:09:31.000 --> 0:09:33.680
<v Speaker 3>or not cutting interest rates, and so there's all these

0:09:33.720 --> 0:09:37.959
<v Speaker 3>different factors. And when you're talking about one hundred thousand

0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:43.320
<v Speaker 3>voters over some swing states, you know, it's that how

0:09:43.720 --> 0:09:47.040
<v Speaker 3>how I mean the amount of regression analyzes you have

0:09:47.080 --> 0:09:50.760
<v Speaker 3>to run to try and figure out how those factors

0:09:50.800 --> 0:09:52.880
<v Speaker 3>are going to impact those one hundred thousand votes is

0:09:52.920 --> 0:09:56.480
<v Speaker 3>extremely difficult. And that's why polling in particular is very

0:09:56.480 --> 0:09:58.600
<v Speaker 3>difficult to get.

0:09:58.520 --> 0:09:59.960
<v Speaker 1>Right, gotcha.

0:10:00.080 --> 0:10:02.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And you know, I was curious because I thought

0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:05.520
<v Speaker 2>I saw something on Twitter. Some pundit was saying how

0:10:05.559 --> 0:10:09.679
<v Speaker 2>in the last cycle four years ago, Trump performed poorly

0:10:09.720 --> 0:10:12.240
<v Speaker 2>on the first debate, but then had a nice rebound

0:10:12.280 --> 0:10:13.120
<v Speaker 2>in the second one.

0:10:13.200 --> 0:10:14.719
<v Speaker 1>That was kind of what I oh.

0:10:14.720 --> 0:10:18.200
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, yeah, okay, yeah, I mean, look, you know, President

0:10:18.240 --> 0:10:21.000
<v Speaker 3>Trump had a great first debate against President Biden. The

0:10:21.040 --> 0:10:24.720
<v Speaker 3>second debate not so well. You know, if they have

0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:27.880
<v Speaker 3>a third debate, you know, there are real risk and

0:10:27.920 --> 0:10:30.880
<v Speaker 3>opportunities for both candidates. If it's a replay of the

0:10:30.880 --> 0:10:34.040
<v Speaker 3>second debate, Kamala Harris certainly would do well if President

0:10:34.080 --> 0:10:37.720
<v Speaker 3>Trump shows up and you know, begins to put the

0:10:37.720 --> 0:10:41.040
<v Speaker 3>onus back on her. You know, essentially, the way it

0:10:41.080 --> 0:10:43.640
<v Speaker 3>works is that whoever we're talking about at the end

0:10:43.679 --> 0:10:46.719
<v Speaker 3>of the debate is the one that loses. And if

0:10:46.720 --> 0:10:50.000
<v Speaker 3>we're talking about President Trump and President Trump's policies and

0:10:50.040 --> 0:10:53.520
<v Speaker 3>statements and things like cats and dogs, you know, that

0:10:53.640 --> 0:10:56.160
<v Speaker 3>means the chances are you lost the debate. If we're

0:10:56.200 --> 0:10:59.440
<v Speaker 3>talking about things like Kamala Harris's policies or maybe the

0:10:59.520 --> 0:11:02.680
<v Speaker 3>lack there of of policies, then she's lost the debate.

0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:07.560
<v Speaker 3>So you know, it's really just I think a challenge,

0:11:07.600 --> 0:11:10.840
<v Speaker 3>and I think that both candidates will go back and

0:11:10.880 --> 0:11:13.600
<v Speaker 3>they'll conduct their analysis and so forth, and I think

0:11:13.679 --> 0:11:17.200
<v Speaker 3>that if they decide, if they both decide that a

0:11:17.240 --> 0:11:20.840
<v Speaker 3>third debate is you know, advantageous to them, we'll see

0:11:20.840 --> 0:11:23.280
<v Speaker 3>one around that October fifteenth, October twentieth time frame.

0:11:23.520 --> 0:11:26.080
<v Speaker 2>Okay, Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it unfalls, right,

0:11:26.080 --> 0:11:27.640
<v Speaker 2>because I thought the Democrats did a good job of

0:11:27.679 --> 0:11:31.040
<v Speaker 2>setting the bar very low for Kamala, right, and she

0:11:31.480 --> 0:11:35.680
<v Speaker 2>clearly outperformed those expectations. But you're always curious to see

0:11:35.679 --> 0:11:38.079
<v Speaker 2>how that would change if she's expected to win the

0:11:38.440 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 2>third debate or you know, actually outline some policies.

0:11:44.320 --> 0:11:45.800
<v Speaker 1>So it's going to be interesting to watch.

0:11:45.880 --> 0:11:48.160
<v Speaker 3>Well, just remember that's politics, one on one. You never

0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:51.560
<v Speaker 3>set the debate or the bar high, you know. So,

0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:54.960
<v Speaker 3>I mean that's they could you know, a candidate could

0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:57.640
<v Speaker 3>be up by thirty points and they still are going

0:11:57.679 --> 0:11:59.640
<v Speaker 3>to go in there saying that they're the underdog. They're

0:11:59.679 --> 0:12:01.120
<v Speaker 3>going to you know, they're going to try and do

0:12:01.160 --> 0:12:02.960
<v Speaker 3>their best and so forth, but they don't have great

0:12:03.000 --> 0:12:05.800
<v Speaker 3>expectations because then they overperform.

0:12:05.280 --> 0:12:08.520
<v Speaker 2>If they do all right, so I you know, almost

0:12:08.520 --> 0:12:10.720
<v Speaker 2>as important. How do you expect the Senate in the

0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 2>House to pan out?

0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah? So this is this is where Poland gets a

0:12:15.040 --> 0:12:18.160
<v Speaker 3>little bit more difficult because if everybody thinks of the

0:12:18.200 --> 0:12:20.520
<v Speaker 3>text messages or you're getting on your phone at the moment,

0:12:20.840 --> 0:12:22.440
<v Speaker 3>it's always how are you going to vote? For the

0:12:22.440 --> 0:12:26.120
<v Speaker 3>presidential race. Nobody's texting you to say, how are you

0:12:26.120 --> 0:12:28.280
<v Speaker 3>going to vote in the third district of Colorado. I

0:12:28.360 --> 0:12:30.360
<v Speaker 3>mean maybe the folks that live in the third District

0:12:30.400 --> 0:12:32.360
<v Speaker 3>of Colorado are getting that text, but I'm certainly not

0:12:32.400 --> 0:12:35.120
<v Speaker 3>getting that text about the House and Senate. So it's

0:12:35.160 --> 0:12:38.080
<v Speaker 3>a little bit more difficult. So when it comes to

0:12:38.120 --> 0:12:40.960
<v Speaker 3>the House, I rely on our friends over at Bloomberg

0:12:40.960 --> 0:12:44.360
<v Speaker 3>Government and they rely on the Cook Political Report and

0:12:44.400 --> 0:12:47.640
<v Speaker 3>so forth like that. And the Cook Political Report is

0:12:47.640 --> 0:12:49.960
<v Speaker 3>showing that there's about forty four seats that are either

0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:53.360
<v Speaker 3>leaning or toss up. Now, if you're listening and you're

0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:55.679
<v Speaker 3>not in the United States, just remember four hundred and

0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:58.520
<v Speaker 3>thirty five members of the House Representatives. Every single one

0:12:58.559 --> 0:13:00.600
<v Speaker 3>of them is up for reelection this sight. They serve

0:13:00.679 --> 0:13:03.920
<v Speaker 3>two year terms. Currently, the Republicans have the House two

0:13:04.000 --> 0:13:06.400
<v Speaker 3>hundred and twenty to two hundred and eleven. You need

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:08.959
<v Speaker 3>two hundred and eighteen for majority, So the Republicans can

0:13:09.000 --> 0:13:11.880
<v Speaker 3>only afford to lose three. And this is why Speaker

0:13:11.920 --> 0:13:14.000
<v Speaker 3>Mike Johnson has struggled in a lot of times, and

0:13:14.160 --> 0:13:16.120
<v Speaker 3>current you know, the current spending bill is a perfect

0:13:16.200 --> 0:13:19.560
<v Speaker 3>example of that of why the Republicans have struggled to

0:13:19.679 --> 0:13:23.280
<v Speaker 3>get the certain bills across the line. Now when it

0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:25.520
<v Speaker 3>comes to the House with you know, because I said

0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:28.400
<v Speaker 3>forty four are leaning or toss ups, that means eighty

0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:30.280
<v Speaker 3>eight percent of the House are going to go to

0:13:30.280 --> 0:13:33.160
<v Speaker 3>bed on election night knowing that they've won their race. Well,

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:35.120
<v Speaker 3>what happens for the other twelve, Well a couple things

0:13:35.120 --> 0:13:38.079
<v Speaker 3>to note. One, it's not the swing states that matter.

0:13:38.240 --> 0:13:41.520
<v Speaker 3>It's more so swing districts in states like New York

0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:46.080
<v Speaker 3>and California that matter. And it's going to be certainly

0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:48.800
<v Speaker 3>interesting that's going to be tying out to turnout. So

0:13:48.880 --> 0:13:52.040
<v Speaker 3>if Vice President Harris has great turnout, chances are that

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:54.240
<v Speaker 3>could then go down into the House races as well.

0:13:54.960 --> 0:13:57.640
<v Speaker 3>Taking my Bloomberg hat off and putting my own personal

0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:00.680
<v Speaker 3>hat on, my view on the House is whoever wins

0:14:00.720 --> 0:14:04.120
<v Speaker 3>the presidency will ultimately win the House. And the reason

0:14:04.120 --> 0:14:07.800
<v Speaker 3>why that's important is because twenty twenty five is going

0:14:07.840 --> 0:14:10.120
<v Speaker 3>to be a year about tax debate and tax reform,

0:14:10.800 --> 0:14:14.040
<v Speaker 3>and generally tax policy starts in the House of Representatives

0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:16.680
<v Speaker 3>and then goes to the Senate. So whoever controls the

0:14:16.720 --> 0:14:19.400
<v Speaker 3>House controls the committees, and then whoever is the chairman

0:14:19.480 --> 0:14:22.160
<v Speaker 3>or the chairwoman of the House Ways and Means Committee

0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:25.080
<v Speaker 3>will be the one that offers the opening salvo, the

0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:29.440
<v Speaker 3>base case negotiation, if you will, of tax reform. But again,

0:14:29.600 --> 0:14:33.040
<v Speaker 3>I think whoever wins the presidency will probably win the House. Now,

0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:35.160
<v Speaker 3>on the Senate, this is a much better picture for

0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:38.880
<v Speaker 3>the Republicans, much more difficult picture for the Democrats because

0:14:38.960 --> 0:14:41.640
<v Speaker 3>thirty three, roughly one third of the Senate, goes up

0:14:41.640 --> 0:14:44.560
<v Speaker 3>every two years one hundred senators, two from every state

0:14:44.600 --> 0:14:47.360
<v Speaker 3>they serve six year terms. This year we have thirty

0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:49.840
<v Speaker 3>four because Nebraska has a special election, so there's two

0:14:49.920 --> 0:14:53.560
<v Speaker 3>senator votes upctually going on in Nebraska right now. But

0:14:53.640 --> 0:14:57.560
<v Speaker 3>this is an extremely difficult election for the Democrats. The

0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:00.160
<v Speaker 3>reason being is of those thirty four seats, f three

0:15:00.160 --> 0:15:02.400
<v Speaker 3>of them are held by Democrats and a lot of

0:15:02.440 --> 0:15:05.080
<v Speaker 3>them are held in Trump states or in swing states.

0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:08.360
<v Speaker 3>So currently the Democrats control the Senate fifty one to

0:15:08.360 --> 0:15:11.440
<v Speaker 3>forty nine. There are four independents. They give Senator Joe

0:15:11.520 --> 0:15:16.320
<v Speaker 3>Manchin Senator Bernie Sanders independence that caucus with the Democrats,

0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:19.840
<v Speaker 3>and immediately they're going to go down to fifty to

0:15:19.840 --> 0:15:23.720
<v Speaker 3>fifty because Senator Joe Manchin is retiring. Now again, I'm

0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:25.840
<v Speaker 3>not a polster, I'm not a political expert, but you

0:15:25.880 --> 0:15:28.480
<v Speaker 3>don't need to be one to know that more likely

0:15:28.520 --> 0:15:30.400
<v Speaker 3>than not, West Virginia is going to turn to a

0:15:30.440 --> 0:15:33.400
<v Speaker 3>Republican and the former governor, Jim Justice is going to

0:15:33.440 --> 0:15:36.000
<v Speaker 3>take that seat. So now the Democrats are down to

0:15:36.040 --> 0:15:39.480
<v Speaker 3>fifty to fifty. And if you have fifty to fifty,

0:15:39.520 --> 0:15:42.000
<v Speaker 3>remember the vice president is the one that ultimately controls

0:15:42.040 --> 0:15:46.080
<v Speaker 3>fifty to fifty votes. But in order for the Democrats

0:15:46.160 --> 0:15:48.560
<v Speaker 3>even to get to fifty to fifty, they have to

0:15:48.640 --> 0:15:51.200
<v Speaker 3>run the gauntlet and they have to defend a seat

0:15:51.280 --> 0:15:54.160
<v Speaker 3>like Senator Sherit Brown, the chairman of Senate Banking Committee

0:15:54.200 --> 0:15:57.800
<v Speaker 3>in Ohio. Senator John Tester in Montana, Montana is a

0:15:57.840 --> 0:16:01.600
<v Speaker 3>Republican state Senator. Tester on his last two elections just

0:16:01.640 --> 0:16:05.880
<v Speaker 3>by Finn Margins, Senator Jackie Rosen in Michigan, the retiring

0:16:05.960 --> 0:16:09.800
<v Speaker 3>seat of Senator Dabbie Stabenow in Michigan. The Democrats have

0:16:09.840 --> 0:16:13.720
<v Speaker 3>to run the gauntlet of those seats to potentially even

0:16:13.800 --> 0:16:16.240
<v Speaker 3>just get back to fifty to fifty. So the general

0:16:16.280 --> 0:16:18.720
<v Speaker 3>thought here is is that the Republicans have a very

0:16:18.720 --> 0:16:21.280
<v Speaker 3>good shot of taking the Senate. And the reason why

0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:26.760
<v Speaker 3>that's important is because the Senate filibuster exists for legislation.

0:16:27.320 --> 0:16:31.480
<v Speaker 3>It does not exist for regulatory appointments, judges, and nominations.

0:16:31.720 --> 0:16:33.960
<v Speaker 3>And for those of you who aren't familiar with the philibuster,

0:16:34.440 --> 0:16:36.760
<v Speaker 3>it is two hundred and fifty years of best practice.

0:16:36.800 --> 0:16:39.800
<v Speaker 3>It's not written down in the Constitution anywhere, but essentially

0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:41.760
<v Speaker 3>it's just two hundred and fifty years of best practice

0:16:41.840 --> 0:16:44.640
<v Speaker 3>which allows one Senator to stand up and say I

0:16:44.760 --> 0:16:48.920
<v Speaker 3>blocked this legislation and sixty senators need to overturn it. Now,

0:16:48.960 --> 0:16:52.119
<v Speaker 3>there used to be a filibuster for nominations and appointments,

0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:55.160
<v Speaker 3>and that went away under the Obama administration. And as

0:16:55.200 --> 0:16:58.040
<v Speaker 3>a result, if the Republicans take the Senate and President

0:16:58.080 --> 0:17:02.600
<v Speaker 3>Trump wins, are appointments in the the appointments of his

0:17:02.680 --> 0:17:05.880
<v Speaker 3>cabinet and so forth will move much quicker. In the

0:17:05.920 --> 0:17:08.760
<v Speaker 3>flip scenario, if the Republicans take the Senate and Vice

0:17:08.840 --> 0:17:12.560
<v Speaker 3>President Harris wins, the Republicans could jam up a good

0:17:12.560 --> 0:17:14.719
<v Speaker 3>portion of the first one hundred days of her presidency

0:17:15.760 --> 0:17:17.960
<v Speaker 3>by you know, blocking a lot of her appointments.

0:17:18.040 --> 0:17:19.600
<v Speaker 1>They have thrown some sand in the gears.

0:17:20.200 --> 0:17:22.960
<v Speaker 2>All right, let's figure out what's going on with consumer

0:17:23.040 --> 0:17:28.760
<v Speaker 2>spending under each potential administration. You know, talk to us

0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:32.320
<v Speaker 2>a little bit about the policies on regulation, taxes, and

0:17:32.359 --> 0:17:33.000
<v Speaker 2>stuff like that.

0:17:33.480 --> 0:17:35.800
<v Speaker 3>So it's important to remember. And this is if there's

0:17:35.840 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 3>ever a debate. If you're watching a campaign speech, it's

0:17:39.240 --> 0:17:42.080
<v Speaker 3>like it's like the Hamilton Musical when Aaron Burr says

0:17:42.080 --> 0:17:43.560
<v Speaker 3>to Hamilton, how are you going to get your debt

0:17:43.600 --> 0:17:46.639
<v Speaker 3>plan through? Hamilton responds and says, by listening to you,

0:17:46.680 --> 0:17:50.399
<v Speaker 3>aka negotiate. So any single time a candidate says I

0:17:50.520 --> 0:17:52.719
<v Speaker 3>want to do this tax, or I want to do

0:17:52.800 --> 0:17:55.119
<v Speaker 3>this policy, or I want to do that, the question

0:17:55.240 --> 0:17:57.200
<v Speaker 3>is how you going to do it? And there's three

0:17:57.240 --> 0:17:59.960
<v Speaker 3>ways of I would argue three ways of how things

0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:03.000
<v Speaker 3>get done in Washington. The first is legislation. You don't

0:18:03.000 --> 0:18:04.960
<v Speaker 3>need to be me to know that. Legislation is hard

0:18:04.960 --> 0:18:08.920
<v Speaker 3>to come by. The second is regulation. Regulation takes time.

0:18:08.960 --> 0:18:11.200
<v Speaker 3>You have to get those leaders in place. It has

0:18:11.240 --> 0:18:14.600
<v Speaker 3>to go through a rulemaking process. Probably usually takes you know,

0:18:14.720 --> 0:18:16.480
<v Speaker 3>usually takes the quickest ever ever seen it done is

0:18:16.480 --> 0:18:19.200
<v Speaker 3>about a year. More likely not it's two to three years.

0:18:19.800 --> 0:18:23.320
<v Speaker 3>And the third is executive orders eighty five percent. My

0:18:23.520 --> 0:18:26.760
<v Speaker 3>estimation of executive orders are a headline risk. You'll see

0:18:26.760 --> 0:18:30.040
<v Speaker 3>a red line on the terminal, it'll be flashing, you'll

0:18:30.080 --> 0:18:32.320
<v Speaker 3>look into it, but more likely than not, it's a

0:18:32.359 --> 0:18:34.359
<v Speaker 3>fancy way of the president picking up the phone and

0:18:34.400 --> 0:18:36.639
<v Speaker 3>saying to his staff, I want you to do something,

0:18:36.680 --> 0:18:40.399
<v Speaker 3>either the legislative route or the regulatory route. Now, the

0:18:40.440 --> 0:18:42.719
<v Speaker 3>other fifteen percent, though, is a little bit different. The

0:18:42.760 --> 0:18:45.680
<v Speaker 3>power of the presidency is a lot more powerful when

0:18:45.680 --> 0:18:51.040
<v Speaker 3>it comes to things like trade, tariffs, foreign relations, national security,

0:18:51.119 --> 0:18:53.680
<v Speaker 3>because Congress over the last fifty to one hundred years

0:18:54.040 --> 0:18:57.440
<v Speaker 3>has delegated a lot of that to the president. If

0:18:57.480 --> 0:18:59.600
<v Speaker 3>you're investing right now in US steel and you've been

0:18:59.600 --> 0:19:02.880
<v Speaker 3>watching Sifius review, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

0:19:02.920 --> 0:19:05.679
<v Speaker 3>Ciphius is most likely going to make a recommendation that

0:19:05.760 --> 0:19:10.000
<v Speaker 3>President Biden blocks the Nippon Steel US Steel and that

0:19:10.160 --> 0:19:12.119
<v Speaker 3>he can do that, and there's very little recourse that

0:19:12.160 --> 0:19:16.200
<v Speaker 3>Congress or the judges could do in response. So let's

0:19:16.240 --> 0:19:20.800
<v Speaker 3>talk about consumer facing in various in both the Harris

0:19:20.840 --> 0:19:24.760
<v Speaker 3>presidents and a Trump president's. Let's start with Vice President Harris. Now,

0:19:24.840 --> 0:19:27.520
<v Speaker 3>Vice President Harris wins. She has already come out and

0:19:27.560 --> 0:19:32.520
<v Speaker 3>said price gouging food inflation, if you will, is one

0:19:32.560 --> 0:19:34.639
<v Speaker 3>of her big you know, this is something that she

0:19:34.760 --> 0:19:40.240
<v Speaker 3>has talked about. So our initial assessment is the risk

0:19:40.480 --> 0:19:43.679
<v Speaker 3>of any bad things happening. And I say risk and

0:19:43.760 --> 0:19:47.399
<v Speaker 3>opportunity because remember for every risk there's an opportunity. But

0:19:47.560 --> 0:19:50.320
<v Speaker 3>for the risk to these grocery stores that they then

0:19:50.400 --> 0:19:53.680
<v Speaker 3>could be targeted by price caps and so forth like that,

0:19:54.359 --> 0:19:58.120
<v Speaker 3>or to food who's wholesalers or anything, it's actually quite low.

0:19:58.560 --> 0:20:00.879
<v Speaker 3>The reason being is that price gouging we'll have to

0:20:00.920 --> 0:20:04.840
<v Speaker 3>go via the legislative route. The filibuster will still exist

0:20:04.920 --> 0:20:07.480
<v Speaker 3>even if the Democrats have the Senate, and we don't

0:20:07.480 --> 0:20:10.880
<v Speaker 3>see the filibuster going away, and as a result, there's

0:20:10.920 --> 0:20:13.320
<v Speaker 3>going to be a block there. Okay, So if there's

0:20:13.359 --> 0:20:16.280
<v Speaker 3>a block there let's go to the executive order route. Well,

0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:18.720
<v Speaker 3>if we go to the executive order route and she

0:20:18.800 --> 0:20:21.520
<v Speaker 3>can only do things within the that she has the

0:20:21.560 --> 0:20:25.320
<v Speaker 3>authority of the executive order or the executive branch, it

0:20:25.359 --> 0:20:27.720
<v Speaker 3>may turn up very similar to how President Biden had

0:20:27.720 --> 0:20:30.560
<v Speaker 3>with his student debt relief reforms, where they ran into

0:20:30.600 --> 0:20:33.840
<v Speaker 3>the courts and then you know, sort of so you know,

0:20:34.400 --> 0:20:37.359
<v Speaker 3>I think that you know, again a risk or an

0:20:37.400 --> 0:20:41.000
<v Speaker 3>opportunity for the price gouging argument, it's somewhat quite low

0:20:41.760 --> 0:20:45.439
<v Speaker 3>because a states already have price gouging laws and b

0:20:45.600 --> 0:20:48.119
<v Speaker 3>we just don't see one actually being implemented at the

0:20:48.160 --> 0:20:52.880
<v Speaker 3>federal level. Now, she will certainly go after consumer facing

0:20:52.920 --> 0:20:55.920
<v Speaker 3>sectors for bad actors. And this is where it's important

0:20:55.920 --> 0:20:58.200
<v Speaker 3>to go back to her time as the Attorney General

0:20:58.200 --> 0:21:02.200
<v Speaker 3>of California, because as Vice president, remember she's supporting President Biden,

0:21:02.240 --> 0:21:05.080
<v Speaker 3>she's supporting the White House line. And then it's as Senator,

0:21:05.119 --> 0:21:07.000
<v Speaker 3>she was just one of one hundred. You know, Senator,

0:21:07.040 --> 0:21:11.840
<v Speaker 3>it's difficult to actually create a policy that you're you know,

0:21:11.880 --> 0:21:14.600
<v Speaker 3>specifically geared on because a lot of times you're negotiating

0:21:14.640 --> 0:21:18.119
<v Speaker 3>and working. But as Attorney General of California, she was

0:21:18.160 --> 0:21:21.960
<v Speaker 3>one of the attorney generals that led and received a

0:21:22.040 --> 0:21:24.720
<v Speaker 3>twenty five billion dollars settlement against the big banks for

0:21:24.840 --> 0:21:28.800
<v Speaker 3>home foreclosures. And so we think that if as president,

0:21:28.920 --> 0:21:33.199
<v Speaker 3>she will certainly institute a policy amongst the staffers and

0:21:33.280 --> 0:21:36.680
<v Speaker 3>the agencies like the Department of Justice and maybe even

0:21:36.680 --> 0:21:39.119
<v Speaker 3>the SEC or the Federal Trade Commission and so forth

0:21:39.320 --> 0:21:42.239
<v Speaker 3>to go after bad actors. So if you're looking at

0:21:42.280 --> 0:21:45.760
<v Speaker 3>a company, and let's just say, look, we can't say

0:21:45.760 --> 0:21:47.840
<v Speaker 3>that there are certain companies are going to be targeted

0:21:48.240 --> 0:21:50.520
<v Speaker 3>because we don't know who bad actors are and so

0:21:50.600 --> 0:21:54.720
<v Speaker 3>forth like that, but it's certainly something that compliance and

0:21:54.800 --> 0:21:58.320
<v Speaker 3>risk individuals that these companies should keep in mind, and

0:21:58.440 --> 0:22:01.240
<v Speaker 3>it's something that they probably keep the chief compliance officer

0:22:01.359 --> 0:22:04.240
<v Speaker 3>up at night. Probably won't make up the CEO unless

0:22:04.240 --> 0:22:08.159
<v Speaker 3>there's something that there's there, but certainly is going to

0:22:08.200 --> 0:22:10.600
<v Speaker 3>be because if you can go after the examination side

0:22:10.680 --> 0:22:13.520
<v Speaker 3>or the enforcement side, a lot more investigations and a

0:22:13.520 --> 0:22:15.840
<v Speaker 3>lot more so forth like that. Now when it comes

0:22:15.880 --> 0:22:20.280
<v Speaker 3>to President Trump, you know, we think that these tariffs

0:22:20.520 --> 0:22:25.119
<v Speaker 3>are certainly a real threat slash opportunity here because, like

0:22:25.160 --> 0:22:27.119
<v Speaker 3>I said before, the powers of presidency is a lot

0:22:27.160 --> 0:22:30.040
<v Speaker 3>more powerful. I would call that a phase one argument,

0:22:30.480 --> 0:22:33.320
<v Speaker 3>because that's something they will probably do in the first say,

0:22:33.640 --> 0:22:36.959
<v Speaker 3>six months of his presidency. Now again, if the tariffs

0:22:37.000 --> 0:22:39.360
<v Speaker 3>come out, I think he'll have an executive order, he'll

0:22:39.400 --> 0:22:41.879
<v Speaker 3>hind out, we'll hold it up, he'll have a ceremony,

0:22:42.320 --> 0:22:44.520
<v Speaker 3>but there will be language in that executive order saying

0:22:44.560 --> 0:22:47.120
<v Speaker 3>these tariffs don't take you in place until a certain dates,

0:22:47.119 --> 0:22:50.720
<v Speaker 3>say six, nine, twelve months down the line, because presidencies

0:22:51.240 --> 0:22:54.879
<v Speaker 3>always want to give themselves flexibility. But Phase two is

0:22:54.920 --> 0:22:58.679
<v Speaker 3>this tax reform debate. And the reason why I'm bringing

0:22:58.680 --> 0:23:03.000
<v Speaker 3>this up in the consumer sector's discussion is because one

0:23:03.040 --> 0:23:06.080
<v Speaker 3>of the questions we get often is what is the

0:23:06.119 --> 0:23:11.880
<v Speaker 3>probability for a deficit increasing policy to come out over

0:23:12.000 --> 0:23:17.200
<v Speaker 3>the next administration? And the if the Republicans take the House,

0:23:17.359 --> 0:23:20.600
<v Speaker 3>the Senate, and the presidency, then there is a real

0:23:20.720 --> 0:23:24.800
<v Speaker 3>risk slash opportunity for massive tax cuts coming at the

0:23:24.800 --> 0:23:28.520
<v Speaker 3>tail into twenty twenty five because the tax cuts, the

0:23:28.560 --> 0:23:32.160
<v Speaker 3>Trump era tax cuts for individuals expires at the tail

0:23:32.160 --> 0:23:35.560
<v Speaker 3>into twenty twenty five, and neither president wants to see

0:23:35.600 --> 0:23:38.240
<v Speaker 3>those individual tax cuts go up. Now, they have differences.

0:23:38.320 --> 0:23:40.320
<v Speaker 3>You know, if you're Kamala Harris, you want to see

0:23:40.320 --> 0:23:42.479
<v Speaker 3>them go up for four hundred thousand individuals that make

0:23:42.520 --> 0:23:45.080
<v Speaker 3>more than four hundred thousand dollars. But if you're looking

0:23:45.080 --> 0:23:50.880
<v Speaker 3>at this from a deficit inducing, grandiose, multi trillion dollar bill,

0:23:50.920 --> 0:23:54.639
<v Speaker 3>this reconciliation process, if the House is the Republicans, the Senate,

0:23:54.960 --> 0:23:57.320
<v Speaker 3>if the Republicans take the House, the Senate, and the presidency,

0:23:57.640 --> 0:24:01.280
<v Speaker 3>the probability of that there is much more. Because I

0:24:01.320 --> 0:24:02.920
<v Speaker 3>don't want to get too wonky. I'm happy to do

0:24:02.960 --> 0:24:06.240
<v Speaker 3>it if you like. But there's this process called reconciliation.

0:24:06.359 --> 0:24:08.800
<v Speaker 3>This is how President Obama got Obamacare through, this is

0:24:08.800 --> 0:24:11.359
<v Speaker 3>how President Trump got his tax cuts through, and this

0:24:11.400 --> 0:24:13.680
<v Speaker 3>is how President Biden got the Inflation Reduction Act through.

0:24:14.280 --> 0:24:17.760
<v Speaker 3>What reconciliation is is that it is a budgetary maneuver.

0:24:18.000 --> 0:24:23.439
<v Speaker 3>It's not actually a it's not actually a legislation, but

0:24:23.480 --> 0:24:27.679
<v Speaker 3>it's a budgetary maneuver that would allow the House, the

0:24:27.720 --> 0:24:31.000
<v Speaker 3>Senate to avoid the filibuster and said something to the

0:24:31.040 --> 0:24:34.600
<v Speaker 3>president desk. You can only do it by a you

0:24:34.600 --> 0:24:37.840
<v Speaker 3>can only do it once per fiscal year. And now

0:24:37.960 --> 0:24:39.840
<v Speaker 3>the Democrats have been tried in the past as part

0:24:39.880 --> 0:24:44.240
<v Speaker 3>of the inflation Reduction Act debate, they tried to raise

0:24:44.280 --> 0:24:48.879
<v Speaker 3>the national wage to fifteen dollars. Now, the Senate parliamentarian

0:24:49.000 --> 0:24:52.560
<v Speaker 3>came in and said that doesn't it actually break what

0:24:52.600 --> 0:24:55.560
<v Speaker 3>breaks what's called the Bird rule. Senate parliamentarian says, that

0:24:55.600 --> 0:24:58.520
<v Speaker 3>doesn't adhere to the Bird rule. You can't do it. Now. Look,

0:24:58.920 --> 0:25:01.119
<v Speaker 3>the Senate could then just fire the Senate parliamentarian and

0:25:01.160 --> 0:25:03.560
<v Speaker 3>get a new Senate parliamentarian, and it's certainly feasible they

0:25:03.560 --> 0:25:06.080
<v Speaker 3>could do that, but more likely than not they wouldn't.

0:25:06.560 --> 0:25:08.760
<v Speaker 3>And so you know, keep that in mind. If you

0:25:08.840 --> 0:25:12.960
<v Speaker 3>hear anybody talking about reconciliation, just remember it's got to

0:25:13.000 --> 0:25:16.280
<v Speaker 3>impact the budget. And so in a republican administration it's

0:25:16.320 --> 0:25:20.119
<v Speaker 3>mostly going to be tax cuts. In a democratic administration,

0:25:20.320 --> 0:25:22.440
<v Speaker 3>it will probably be some form of tax cuts or

0:25:22.480 --> 0:25:27.359
<v Speaker 3>at least tax extenders, combined with some potentially additional inflation

0:25:27.440 --> 0:25:29.040
<v Speaker 3>reduction at two point on language.

0:25:29.600 --> 0:25:31.199
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, from where I sit, you know, as a guy

0:25:31.240 --> 0:25:33.600
<v Speaker 2>who's a student of the Austrian School economics, it's like,

0:25:34.440 --> 0:25:36.359
<v Speaker 2>you know, they're both leading us down the path of

0:25:36.400 --> 0:25:39.000
<v Speaker 2>financial ruin. To be honest, it's nice to hear that

0:25:39.080 --> 0:25:42.040
<v Speaker 2>price gouging is low risk, but the fact that you

0:25:42.080 --> 0:25:44.800
<v Speaker 2>know tariffs are still on the table. It's like, come on,

0:25:45.000 --> 0:25:49.800
<v Speaker 2>haven't haven't we experienced enough inflation over the last four years?

0:25:50.240 --> 0:25:53.639
<v Speaker 3>Well, I mean, but also remember tariffs are popular, you know.

0:25:53.760 --> 0:25:56.560
<v Speaker 3>I say that knowing that that's a lot of consensus statement.

0:25:56.600 --> 0:26:00.240
<v Speaker 3>Because look, if I've gone to my local, I have

0:26:00.280 --> 0:26:02.960
<v Speaker 3>Harris I sit in Washington, d C. I'm in Northern Virginia.

0:26:03.320 --> 0:26:06.120
<v Speaker 3>I've got Harris Teeter, I've got Giant, I've got Whole Foods,

0:26:06.160 --> 0:26:09.080
<v Speaker 3>got Trader Joe's fresh Market. I've got a whole host

0:26:09.080 --> 0:26:11.280
<v Speaker 3>of grocery stores that I can choose from. When I

0:26:11.320 --> 0:26:13.240
<v Speaker 3>go to it, I see the price of chicken going up.

0:26:13.760 --> 0:26:17.720
<v Speaker 3>So food inflation is real, but when it comes to tariffs,

0:26:19.040 --> 0:26:23.160
<v Speaker 3>they are still somewhat popular. Because let's start with China.

0:26:23.560 --> 0:26:26.000
<v Speaker 3>Being tough on China is good politics no matter who

0:26:26.040 --> 0:26:29.560
<v Speaker 3>you are. It's easy, though, for a policymaker in the

0:26:29.600 --> 0:26:32.399
<v Speaker 3>House and the Senate to be seen being tough on

0:26:32.520 --> 0:26:35.120
<v Speaker 3>China because they are not the one that looks Jiji

0:26:35.200 --> 0:26:37.639
<v Speaker 3>opinion in the face, and they're not the one that

0:26:37.680 --> 0:26:42.399
<v Speaker 3>actually has this by letteral negotiation with the Chinese government.

0:26:42.920 --> 0:26:45.760
<v Speaker 3>That is up to the President and so you know,

0:26:45.960 --> 0:26:49.159
<v Speaker 3>if President Trump wins, I certainly think there is a

0:26:49.200 --> 0:26:53.600
<v Speaker 3>real risk slash opportunity for very broad tariffs to be

0:26:53.600 --> 0:26:56.560
<v Speaker 3>placed onto the Chinese the government. President Trump has said

0:26:56.600 --> 0:26:59.800
<v Speaker 3>sixty percent tariffs on all goods coming in from China,

0:27:00.080 --> 0:27:02.720
<v Speaker 3>one hundred percent tariffs on any country that moves away from.

0:27:02.560 --> 0:27:04.800
<v Speaker 1>The dollar and buys Amazon bills are going to go

0:27:04.800 --> 0:27:05.400
<v Speaker 1>through the roof.

0:27:05.680 --> 0:27:08.760
<v Speaker 3>Well, and you know, you know it's We've had discussions

0:27:08.760 --> 0:27:11.800
<v Speaker 3>with clients and they've said, especially non US clients, they've said,

0:27:12.119 --> 0:27:14.560
<v Speaker 3>we're not playing in China anymore. You know, let's look

0:27:14.560 --> 0:27:16.880
<v Speaker 3>at Vietnam and Thailand and see what's going on there,

0:27:16.960 --> 0:27:20.280
<v Speaker 3>because potentially they again to the opportunity side of the equation.

0:27:20.880 --> 0:27:23.920
<v Speaker 3>You know, Vietnam and Thailand could be certainly a place

0:27:24.000 --> 0:27:27.320
<v Speaker 3>for opportunities there. But let's talk about Kamala Harrison tariffs.

0:27:27.680 --> 0:27:32.160
<v Speaker 3>President Biden put tariffs on several industries earlier this year

0:27:32.840 --> 0:27:36.560
<v Speaker 3>to protect you know, certain industries in the rust belt

0:27:36.560 --> 0:27:40.879
<v Speaker 3>Ohio and Pennsylvania, in Michigan, and my colleague Holley from

0:27:41.000 --> 0:27:43.560
<v Speaker 3>put out a piece just yesterday talking about how we

0:27:43.640 --> 0:27:46.200
<v Speaker 3>think there's a seventy percent chance of tariffs no matter

0:27:46.240 --> 0:27:49.600
<v Speaker 3>who wins. It's just is it broad or is it targeted?

0:27:50.520 --> 0:27:53.560
<v Speaker 3>And so you know, the tariff argument is a tool

0:27:53.680 --> 0:27:56.720
<v Speaker 3>the presidents love because a it helps them politically, be

0:27:56.880 --> 0:28:00.760
<v Speaker 3>it also helps them with certain industries and so forth.

0:28:00.800 --> 0:28:04.879
<v Speaker 3>But see, they can also be easily reversed because the

0:28:04.920 --> 0:28:07.080
<v Speaker 3>power of the presidency is a lot more powerful there

0:28:07.440 --> 0:28:09.159
<v Speaker 3>and so you don't need to go through Congress. This

0:28:09.280 --> 0:28:12.119
<v Speaker 3>is essentially just a tool. And so again I go

0:28:12.240 --> 0:28:17.360
<v Speaker 3>back to my at my piece where if the if

0:28:17.400 --> 0:28:20.639
<v Speaker 3>the president, whether it being former President Donald Trump or

0:28:20.720 --> 0:28:25.600
<v Speaker 3>Vice President Harris, if the president institute tariffs, you'll see

0:28:25.600 --> 0:28:29.320
<v Speaker 3>an executive order. Chances are you will have heard this

0:28:29.480 --> 0:28:32.280
<v Speaker 3>six months before they do it. But again, in that

0:28:32.400 --> 0:28:35.000
<v Speaker 3>executive order, there will probably be language that allows them

0:28:35.000 --> 0:28:38.640
<v Speaker 3>opt out cards because it is a tool. It's a

0:28:38.680 --> 0:28:43.040
<v Speaker 3>negotiation tool, and you know they will certainly want not

0:28:43.080 --> 0:28:45.080
<v Speaker 3>want to go there unless they think they have a

0:28:45.080 --> 0:28:45.640
<v Speaker 3>winning hand.

0:28:46.120 --> 0:28:48.400
<v Speaker 2>Okay, so talk to me about tariffs and how they

0:28:48.400 --> 0:28:50.080
<v Speaker 2>can impact food costs.

0:28:50.920 --> 0:28:54.560
<v Speaker 3>So obviously, you know, if you come from the side

0:28:54.600 --> 0:28:58.640
<v Speaker 3>of the school where tariffs are attacks, you know it's

0:28:58.680 --> 0:29:01.080
<v Speaker 3>like okay, So, but the best way of doing this

0:29:01.320 --> 0:29:05.360
<v Speaker 3>is I'm gonna go back to my financial regulation days,

0:29:05.560 --> 0:29:09.680
<v Speaker 3>and there was something called the Durbin Amendment. So during

0:29:09.720 --> 0:29:12.360
<v Speaker 3>Dodd Frank in twenty eleven, there was a proposal and

0:29:12.360 --> 0:29:14.240
<v Speaker 3>then a final rule called the Durbin Amendment. And what

0:29:14.280 --> 0:29:17.600
<v Speaker 3>the Derbin Amendment did is it it capped the amount

0:29:17.680 --> 0:29:21.520
<v Speaker 3>that banks could charge for using debit cards. So every

0:29:21.520 --> 0:29:22.800
<v Speaker 3>time you go to a debit card and you go

0:29:22.800 --> 0:29:25.840
<v Speaker 3>to Chipotle or you go to you know, I'm gonna

0:29:25.840 --> 0:29:28.680
<v Speaker 3>call it Portillo's, my favorite place in Chicago. So if

0:29:28.720 --> 0:29:30.600
<v Speaker 3>I go to Portillos and I get an Italian beef,

0:29:30.640 --> 0:29:33.520
<v Speaker 3>and if there's anybody from Portillos listening to this, please

0:29:33.560 --> 0:29:35.880
<v Speaker 3>put up one in the Washington, DC area. I know,

0:29:35.960 --> 0:29:38.960
<v Speaker 3>I see you expanding down to Florida and Arizona and

0:29:39.040 --> 0:29:43.000
<v Speaker 3>so forth. You can come to DC. But if I

0:29:43.040 --> 0:29:46.440
<v Speaker 3>go to Portillo's and use my debit card, how much

0:29:46.440 --> 0:29:49.720
<v Speaker 3>the banks get is capped. Okay. Now, the argument here

0:29:50.040 --> 0:29:54.080
<v Speaker 3>was is that then the companies that the big retailers,

0:29:54.080 --> 0:29:56.560
<v Speaker 3>for example, when you use these debit cards, they would

0:29:56.560 --> 0:29:59.200
<v Speaker 3>pass it on to consumers. Now I can show you

0:29:59.200 --> 0:30:01.400
<v Speaker 3>studies that they pass to consumers. I can show you

0:30:01.480 --> 0:30:05.200
<v Speaker 3>studies they didn't pass it onto consumers. But more often

0:30:05.240 --> 0:30:08.280
<v Speaker 3>than not, anytime that there's a tariff, I view it

0:30:08.320 --> 0:30:12.120
<v Speaker 3>as sort of like a tax, because the tariff comes in,

0:30:13.160 --> 0:30:16.320
<v Speaker 3>and if the tariff, if I'm sitting at the company,

0:30:16.400 --> 0:30:19.400
<v Speaker 3>I'm gonna say, Okay, well, we've got a huge amount

0:30:19.440 --> 0:30:21.479
<v Speaker 3>of tariffs now coming in. We have to pay for this,

0:30:21.600 --> 0:30:23.880
<v Speaker 3>for the imports and so forth. It's going to take

0:30:23.960 --> 0:30:26.040
<v Speaker 3>us two to three years to move our supply chain.

0:30:26.440 --> 0:30:29.240
<v Speaker 3>How do we protect ourselves in the interim? More likely

0:30:29.280 --> 0:30:32.080
<v Speaker 3>than not price increases And might correct me if for' wrong.

0:30:32.480 --> 0:30:34.720
<v Speaker 3>Every single time my restaurant has a new menu, it

0:30:34.800 --> 0:30:38.840
<v Speaker 3>means that they've increased prices, right, So you know, I

0:30:38.880 --> 0:30:40.480
<v Speaker 3>think that if you have a lot of tariffs, and

0:30:40.480 --> 0:30:42.280
<v Speaker 3>then again this is my own personal opinion, there could

0:30:42.280 --> 0:30:45.360
<v Speaker 3>be a lot of menus being changed over the next uh,

0:30:45.440 --> 0:30:47.280
<v Speaker 3>you know, the next one to two years.

0:30:48.840 --> 0:30:51.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and that's put some of my restaurants in a

0:30:51.120 --> 0:30:57.360
<v Speaker 2>tough spot because traffic's been declining pretty consistently for three years, right,

0:30:57.400 --> 0:31:00.240
<v Speaker 2>and so we've got to that tipping point where people

0:31:00.240 --> 0:31:04.240
<v Speaker 2>are pushing back hard against price increases. So restaurants have

0:31:04.280 --> 0:31:07.040
<v Speaker 2>been squeezed, the consumer has been squeezed it's been a

0:31:07.080 --> 0:31:11.320
<v Speaker 2>difficult a year or so, especially, trends have definitely gotten

0:31:11.320 --> 0:31:12.520
<v Speaker 2>worse over last year or so.

0:31:13.040 --> 0:31:17.040
<v Speaker 3>But I'll also say that before they do tariffs, there

0:31:17.080 --> 0:31:21.280
<v Speaker 3>will be an analysis done. And you know, I think

0:31:21.280 --> 0:31:25.440
<v Speaker 3>a lot of people just presume that candidate says something

0:31:25.440 --> 0:31:28.680
<v Speaker 3>and then they put it out there. That's not usually

0:31:28.680 --> 0:31:30.640
<v Speaker 3>how it happens in Washington. Every once in a while

0:31:30.800 --> 0:31:32.840
<v Speaker 3>it does. The President will say something and then it

0:31:32.920 --> 0:31:35.760
<v Speaker 3>just immediately happens and so forth like that. But President

0:31:35.760 --> 0:31:38.920
<v Speaker 3>Biden's tariffs from earlier this year, I think the working

0:31:38.920 --> 0:31:40.880
<v Speaker 3>group that was working on this was working on it

0:31:40.920 --> 0:31:43.840
<v Speaker 3>for like at least twelve months, if not longer. And so,

0:31:44.360 --> 0:31:47.240
<v Speaker 3>you know, I think politicians of both sides of the

0:31:47.240 --> 0:31:51.840
<v Speaker 3>aisle are very sensitive to price increases and they know

0:31:52.040 --> 0:31:54.200
<v Speaker 3>that this is one of the biggest issues that Americans

0:31:54.200 --> 0:31:56.680
<v Speaker 3>are facing today. And look, it's not just America. I

0:31:56.680 --> 0:31:58.400
<v Speaker 3>mean we've seen this in the UK, We've seen this

0:31:58.440 --> 0:32:00.400
<v Speaker 3>in Canada, we've seen this in France, and for length,

0:32:00.480 --> 0:32:03.960
<v Speaker 3>this is something that we've seen across the globe. And

0:32:04.080 --> 0:32:06.520
<v Speaker 3>so I'm going to be the optimist here and I'm

0:32:06.520 --> 0:32:09.440
<v Speaker 3>going to say that I think no matter which candidate wins,

0:32:10.920 --> 0:32:14.320
<v Speaker 3>there will be analysis done. Now the candidate may ignore

0:32:14.360 --> 0:32:16.720
<v Speaker 3>that analysis, but there will be analysis done on what

0:32:16.760 --> 0:32:18.560
<v Speaker 3>that ultimately does to the end consumer.

0:32:19.440 --> 0:32:23.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I appreciate that. I appreciate your optimism. Uh, I

0:32:23.320 --> 0:32:26.640
<v Speaker 2>myself have more cynical I wish we had more. We

0:32:26.720 --> 0:32:31.360
<v Speaker 2>had more politicians that understood that they're spending and the

0:32:31.400 --> 0:32:36.800
<v Speaker 2>FEDS printing of money actually contributes greatly to inflation. All right,

0:32:36.840 --> 0:32:40.240
<v Speaker 2>let's keep it moving. Making tips non tax deductible should

0:32:40.280 --> 0:32:44.000
<v Speaker 2>boosts low and middle income consumer spending. Will that get

0:32:44.000 --> 0:32:44.680
<v Speaker 2>through Congress?

0:32:45.480 --> 0:32:47.200
<v Speaker 3>I don't think so. I mean, I was talking to

0:32:47.240 --> 0:32:49.880
<v Speaker 3>Andrew Silverman, who is our tax guru. So if anybody

0:32:49.880 --> 0:32:52.200
<v Speaker 3>does have a terminal and they want to like really

0:32:52.200 --> 0:32:55.160
<v Speaker 3>get into the weeds with tax, contact Andrew because he

0:32:55.280 --> 0:32:59.360
<v Speaker 3>loves tax. I mean, and so I was talking to

0:32:59.400 --> 0:33:03.520
<v Speaker 3>Andrew Silverman about this. And the thing is is that

0:33:04.120 --> 0:33:08.520
<v Speaker 3>when they do this tax reform debate next year, the

0:33:08.600 --> 0:33:12.800
<v Speaker 3>number one goal is do no harm. Because you go

0:33:12.840 --> 0:33:15.640
<v Speaker 3>back to George H. W. Bush read my lips, no

0:33:15.760 --> 0:33:19.520
<v Speaker 3>new taxes. He paid a political price for that, and

0:33:19.600 --> 0:33:24.360
<v Speaker 3>so raising taxes is not good policy no matter who

0:33:24.440 --> 0:33:27.680
<v Speaker 3>you are. And so you know when Kamala Harris is

0:33:27.720 --> 0:33:31.560
<v Speaker 3>approaching this tax debate. You'll hear her say, I don't

0:33:31.560 --> 0:33:34.200
<v Speaker 3>want to increase taxes. I want to extend the tax

0:33:34.240 --> 0:33:36.600
<v Speaker 3>cuts from the Trump era. Now I want to increase

0:33:36.640 --> 0:33:39.960
<v Speaker 3>taxes unwealthy. That's a different argument. There's a different political

0:33:40.400 --> 0:33:43.640
<v Speaker 3>aspect to that. But so going back to this idea

0:33:43.680 --> 0:33:47.440
<v Speaker 3>of no taxes on tips or President Trump just last

0:33:47.560 --> 0:33:51.840
<v Speaker 3>night proposed no taxes on overtime pay. You know, going

0:33:51.880 --> 0:33:55.680
<v Speaker 3>back to that, how are you going to pay for that? Now? Look,

0:33:55.960 --> 0:33:59.920
<v Speaker 3>Washingtonians can certainly say that economic growth will pay for it.

0:34:00.320 --> 0:34:03.120
<v Speaker 3>There's always and whenever you look at certain analyzes of

0:34:03.160 --> 0:34:04.960
<v Speaker 3>how they're going to pay for certain things, there's always

0:34:04.960 --> 0:34:09.520
<v Speaker 3>this line of economic growth. For any bankers that are

0:34:09.520 --> 0:34:12.000
<v Speaker 3>listening right now, you'd probably be very upset with your

0:34:12.000 --> 0:34:14.960
<v Speaker 3>first year associate if you did something like this, But

0:34:15.680 --> 0:34:18.200
<v Speaker 3>you know, they have this economic growth and certainly economic

0:34:18.200 --> 0:34:20.000
<v Speaker 3>growth is a way you can pay for certain things,

0:34:20.040 --> 0:34:22.080
<v Speaker 3>but it has to be more concrete than just that.

0:34:22.880 --> 0:34:26.000
<v Speaker 3>And so when these proposals come out and you'll say, look,

0:34:26.080 --> 0:34:28.640
<v Speaker 3>it's going to be X billions of dollars that it's

0:34:28.680 --> 0:34:30.279
<v Speaker 3>going to cost us for this, how are you going

0:34:30.320 --> 0:34:32.560
<v Speaker 3>to pay for it. That's where the salt deduction comes in.

0:34:32.600 --> 0:34:34.080
<v Speaker 3>So for folks that are living in New York and

0:34:34.080 --> 0:34:37.520
<v Speaker 3>New Jersey right now, the salt deduction, it's supposed to

0:34:37.520 --> 0:34:39.600
<v Speaker 3>come back, But the salt deduction is also an easy

0:34:39.600 --> 0:34:42.400
<v Speaker 3>way to pay for something. So how are you going

0:34:42.480 --> 0:34:44.200
<v Speaker 3>to pay for it? How does it come in? So

0:34:44.360 --> 0:34:47.239
<v Speaker 3>I think, you know, let's let's let's run the odds.

0:34:47.280 --> 0:34:50.799
<v Speaker 3>If Vice President wins. If Vice President Harris wins, the

0:34:50.840 --> 0:34:53.520
<v Speaker 3>tax reform debate next year is going to be very constrained,

0:34:53.640 --> 0:34:56.880
<v Speaker 3>very small, very negotiated, because she's more likely not going

0:34:56.960 --> 0:34:59.600
<v Speaker 3>to have to work with a Republican Senate. If President

0:34:59.640 --> 0:35:02.359
<v Speaker 3>Trump wins, you know he's going to have to work

0:35:02.400 --> 0:35:04.840
<v Speaker 3>with Republicans, but it'll have a little bit more leeway.

0:35:05.239 --> 0:35:07.520
<v Speaker 3>Going to the corporate tax debate, corporate tax rate right

0:35:07.520 --> 0:35:10.320
<v Speaker 3>now was twenty one percent. That's a permanent fixture. President

0:35:10.360 --> 0:35:12.080
<v Speaker 3>Trump has said I want to go down to fifteen percent.

0:35:12.239 --> 0:35:13.839
<v Speaker 3>Vice President Harris said, I want to go to twenty

0:35:13.840 --> 0:35:17.399
<v Speaker 3>eight percent. I doubt, in talking with Andrew, I doubt

0:35:17.480 --> 0:35:20.080
<v Speaker 3>either scenario is going to play out because I've seen

0:35:20.160 --> 0:35:22.440
<v Speaker 3>I can give you Democrats that say, yeah, maybe I'll

0:35:22.440 --> 0:35:24.560
<v Speaker 3>give you twenty two to twenty three percent, but I'm

0:35:24.560 --> 0:35:26.360
<v Speaker 3>not going to twenty eight. And I can give you

0:35:26.440 --> 0:35:29.240
<v Speaker 3>Republicans saying, man, maybe i'll give you twenty or nineteen percent,

0:35:29.239 --> 0:35:31.799
<v Speaker 3>but we're not going to fifteen just because you gotta

0:35:31.840 --> 0:35:32.319
<v Speaker 3>pay for it.

0:35:33.239 --> 0:35:36.759
<v Speaker 1>That's great color. How will each candidate impact M and A.

0:35:37.400 --> 0:35:40.439
<v Speaker 3>If there's anybody here that loves restaurants and big tech,

0:35:41.239 --> 0:35:43.000
<v Speaker 3>you know, this is where I'm going to go for

0:35:43.080 --> 0:35:46.600
<v Speaker 3>this because right now, I think if you if I

0:35:46.640 --> 0:35:48.560
<v Speaker 3>were to give if I were to bring big tech

0:35:48.640 --> 0:35:51.040
<v Speaker 3>CEOs in their given truth serum, they would probably say

0:35:51.880 --> 0:35:54.480
<v Speaker 3>that the Biden era regime has been very tough on

0:35:54.560 --> 0:35:57.040
<v Speaker 3>big tech and very tough on M and A, and

0:35:57.120 --> 0:36:01.359
<v Speaker 3>I agree. You know, our anti trust analyst Jenriy would

0:36:01.400 --> 0:36:04.320
<v Speaker 3>certainly agree with you. There's a lot of tough scrutiny

0:36:04.320 --> 0:36:07.480
<v Speaker 3>on big tech that's led by Lena Khan, the chairwoman

0:36:07.520 --> 0:36:10.680
<v Speaker 3>over the Federal Trade Commission. Now, in a Harris presidency,

0:36:11.120 --> 0:36:14.480
<v Speaker 3>that will probably continue, maybe a little bit of moderation

0:36:14.640 --> 0:36:20.120
<v Speaker 3>in certain areas, but they'll probably continue tough scrutiny on

0:36:20.200 --> 0:36:23.360
<v Speaker 3>big tech. Now when it comes to a Trump presidency,

0:36:23.680 --> 0:36:25.520
<v Speaker 3>this is where it gets a little bit more interesting

0:36:25.640 --> 0:36:28.960
<v Speaker 3>because you have this perception out there, I'll call it

0:36:28.960 --> 0:36:32.200
<v Speaker 3>the US Chamber of Commerce perception that Republicans equal good

0:36:32.200 --> 0:36:35.200
<v Speaker 3>for big business. And if that's the type of thinking

0:36:35.239 --> 0:36:37.839
<v Speaker 3>that comes into the White House, then M and A

0:36:37.840 --> 0:36:41.520
<v Speaker 3>activity will get a little bit easier. Notwithstanding the court argument.

0:36:41.520 --> 0:36:43.799
<v Speaker 3>I'll talk about the court argument in a minute. But

0:36:43.920 --> 0:36:48.000
<v Speaker 3>then you have the JD. Vance economic populism side of

0:36:48.000 --> 0:36:50.080
<v Speaker 3>the Republican Party. And what I mean by that is

0:36:50.120 --> 0:36:53.440
<v Speaker 3>Senator Vance came to the Bloomberg office in DC about

0:36:53.480 --> 0:36:57.120
<v Speaker 3>five months ago and he called Lena Khan, the chairwoman

0:36:57.239 --> 0:37:00.800
<v Speaker 3>of the FTC, one of the best things President Biden

0:37:00.840 --> 0:37:04.440
<v Speaker 3>has ever done, and even insinuated that President Trump should

0:37:04.520 --> 0:37:07.799
<v Speaker 3>keep her on to continue the crusade against big tech.

0:37:08.560 --> 0:37:11.440
<v Speaker 3>That is not the type of thinking that a typical

0:37:11.480 --> 0:37:16.160
<v Speaker 3>Republican big business thinking. And so if that is going

0:37:16.200 --> 0:37:18.719
<v Speaker 3>to get into the White House, then big tech could

0:37:18.719 --> 0:37:20.640
<v Speaker 3>have much different M and A may have a very

0:37:20.719 --> 0:37:25.560
<v Speaker 3>much different of antitrust may be very different. We don't

0:37:25.600 --> 0:37:27.680
<v Speaker 3>know which side of the thinking would get into the

0:37:27.680 --> 0:37:31.600
<v Speaker 3>White House if President Trump wins. And so you know

0:37:31.800 --> 0:37:33.600
<v Speaker 3>what we have to do right now, Let's just play

0:37:33.600 --> 0:37:37.520
<v Speaker 3>what if scenarios. I think overall, because of the way

0:37:37.680 --> 0:37:41.480
<v Speaker 3>certain courts, the courts are acting these days, I think overall,

0:37:41.640 --> 0:37:44.319
<v Speaker 3>if President Trump wins m and a activity, at least

0:37:44.320 --> 0:37:46.360
<v Speaker 3>the scrutiny of it will get a little bit easier.

0:37:47.600 --> 0:37:49.400
<v Speaker 3>But how much we just really don't know.

0:37:50.200 --> 0:37:51.479
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I'll be interesting to watch.

0:37:51.480 --> 0:37:53.760
<v Speaker 2>In A lot of the libertarian pundits that I follow

0:37:53.760 --> 0:37:59.080
<v Speaker 2>are not happy with Vanci's commentary that you at referring.

0:37:59.480 --> 0:38:02.040
<v Speaker 3>You know, but the economic populism side of the Republican

0:38:02.040 --> 0:38:04.600
<v Speaker 3>Party is validing out there, and you know, it's certainly

0:38:04.680 --> 0:38:07.520
<v Speaker 3>something that you need to take into a consideration because

0:38:08.200 --> 0:38:10.839
<v Speaker 3>if President Trump wins and that type of thinking gets

0:38:10.880 --> 0:38:15.040
<v Speaker 3>into his fear of influence, you know, it's certainly a

0:38:15.160 --> 0:38:16.320
<v Speaker 3>it will be an interesting time.

0:38:17.000 --> 0:38:20.880
<v Speaker 2>Okay, And so let's wrap it up with marijuana. It's Friday,

0:38:21.520 --> 0:38:25.640
<v Speaker 2>so legalization. So is Kamala gonna you know, I'd assume

0:38:25.680 --> 0:38:28.400
<v Speaker 2>Trump would probably continue to leave it to the states.

0:38:29.960 --> 0:38:32.040
<v Speaker 2>You know, Is Kamala going to make a good push

0:38:32.120 --> 0:38:34.920
<v Speaker 2>for federal marijuana legalization?

0:38:35.239 --> 0:38:37.520
<v Speaker 3>No, So there's really three issues here. You have full

0:38:37.560 --> 0:38:40.600
<v Speaker 3>federal legalization, which I personally don't think is going to happen.

0:38:40.600 --> 0:38:43.120
<v Speaker 3>For at least another four to five years there. And

0:38:43.280 --> 0:38:46.239
<v Speaker 3>forget the candidates at the White House, there's just enough

0:38:46.280 --> 0:38:47.880
<v Speaker 3>folks in the Senate that I don't think are on

0:38:47.920 --> 0:38:51.560
<v Speaker 3>board with this at the federal level, especially when the

0:38:51.600 --> 0:38:54.960
<v Speaker 3>states are either legalizing it or decriminalizing it. So I

0:38:54.960 --> 0:38:56.839
<v Speaker 3>don't think I don't think there's gonna be a ton

0:38:56.840 --> 0:39:01.440
<v Speaker 3>of political capital at the federal legalization side, which you

0:39:01.440 --> 0:39:03.760
<v Speaker 3>know is interesting because like in the District of Columbia,

0:39:03.800 --> 0:39:06.719
<v Speaker 3>we have district land where it is decriminalized and then

0:39:06.719 --> 0:39:09.400
<v Speaker 3>federal land where it is not. And so there's like

0:39:09.480 --> 0:39:11.680
<v Speaker 3>hot pockets of the District of Columbia and that's where

0:39:11.719 --> 0:39:13.920
<v Speaker 3>it'd be really interesting to see it play out. But

0:39:13.960 --> 0:39:17.120
<v Speaker 3>then you have this idea of reschedulization. Currently, marijuana is

0:39:17.120 --> 0:39:20.440
<v Speaker 3>a Schedule one drug. It's on there with cocaine. The

0:39:20.520 --> 0:39:23.520
<v Speaker 3>FDA has proposed moving into Schedule three. Think tiling all

0:39:23.560 --> 0:39:26.520
<v Speaker 3>with codeine. You need a doctor's prescription. Now the prescription

0:39:26.560 --> 0:39:28.960
<v Speaker 3>thing doesn't apply, but what applies here is that if

0:39:29.000 --> 0:39:32.520
<v Speaker 3>you move it too Schedule three, you get something that's

0:39:32.560 --> 0:39:34.600
<v Speaker 3>known as two to eighty tax relief. So for a

0:39:34.640 --> 0:39:37.919
<v Speaker 3>lot of these marijuana firms out there, your effective tax

0:39:37.960 --> 0:39:40.279
<v Speaker 3>rate goes from about forty percent to five percent. That's

0:39:40.320 --> 0:39:43.239
<v Speaker 3>a lot of cash back. And so you know, if

0:39:43.320 --> 0:39:46.919
<v Speaker 3>reschedulization happens, and I do think it will happen in

0:39:47.000 --> 0:39:49.720
<v Speaker 3>twenty twenty five, I'm giving it a sixty to seventy

0:39:49.719 --> 0:39:52.000
<v Speaker 3>percent chance of happening at the end of twenty twenty five,

0:39:52.239 --> 0:39:55.080
<v Speaker 3>no matter who wins, I do think it's going to happen.

0:39:56.000 --> 0:39:58.040
<v Speaker 3>I don't think it's going to happen in twenty twenty four.

0:39:58.680 --> 0:40:00.480
<v Speaker 3>And I'm just calling that out BECA because there are

0:40:00.520 --> 0:40:02.640
<v Speaker 3>a lot of marijuana investors right now who think that

0:40:02.680 --> 0:40:05.680
<v Speaker 3>this will be one of President Biden's last acts is

0:40:05.719 --> 0:40:08.120
<v Speaker 3>to complete this rule making. I don't think it's going

0:40:08.160 --> 0:40:09.880
<v Speaker 3>to happen. I may be out of consensus on that,

0:40:10.239 --> 0:40:13.000
<v Speaker 3>and the reason being is is that we still have

0:40:13.080 --> 0:40:16.320
<v Speaker 3>heard anecdotally that there are a lot of career staffers

0:40:16.320 --> 0:40:20.200
<v Speaker 3>over at the Drug Enforcement Agency the DEA, that are

0:40:20.239 --> 0:40:22.400
<v Speaker 3>not on board with this, and in fact, in the

0:40:22.440 --> 0:40:25.360
<v Speaker 3>proposal there was language that said, we at the DEA

0:40:25.960 --> 0:40:28.879
<v Speaker 3>are not making a determination on going to Schedule three.

0:40:29.280 --> 0:40:31.480
<v Speaker 3>We're just putting this out here for comment, and then

0:40:31.480 --> 0:40:33.680
<v Speaker 3>if you follow the administrative Procedures Act, which is the

0:40:33.760 --> 0:40:37.759
<v Speaker 3>rule that these regulators have to follow to conduct these rulemakings.

0:40:38.400 --> 0:40:40.520
<v Speaker 3>To go from language where it says we're not making

0:40:40.560 --> 0:40:44.880
<v Speaker 3>a determination to finalization within the quickest time frame that

0:40:44.960 --> 0:40:47.920
<v Speaker 3>I have ever seen in my history of Washington. That

0:40:48.080 --> 0:40:50.360
<v Speaker 3>means to me that the courts could eventually get involved.

0:40:50.400 --> 0:40:52.520
<v Speaker 3>And I don't think the President Biden would want to

0:40:52.560 --> 0:40:55.040
<v Speaker 3>go there now, but President Trump has said that he's

0:40:55.080 --> 0:40:58.520
<v Speaker 3>open to it, and you know, I think that, you know,

0:40:58.760 --> 0:41:00.480
<v Speaker 3>maybe at the tail end of twenty two twenty five,

0:41:00.600 --> 0:41:03.320
<v Speaker 3>this could happen. And then the final issue for marijuana

0:41:03.400 --> 0:41:05.360
<v Speaker 3>is to call it something called the Safe Banking Act,

0:41:05.640 --> 0:41:08.120
<v Speaker 3>and this is the bill that will allow banks to

0:41:08.160 --> 0:41:11.000
<v Speaker 3>service marijuana businesses. And the reason why I cover the

0:41:11.040 --> 0:41:13.640
<v Speaker 3>Safe Banking Act so much is because these marijuana equities

0:41:13.680 --> 0:41:16.000
<v Speaker 3>have what I call is hot sauce. You know, there's

0:41:16.040 --> 0:41:18.640
<v Speaker 3>a lot of volatility on these things. One policy statement

0:41:18.760 --> 0:41:20.920
<v Speaker 3>saying we're going to get Safe Banking Act, and then

0:41:20.960 --> 0:41:23.480
<v Speaker 3>these things start moving up and down fifteen to twenty percent.

0:41:23.600 --> 0:41:29.840
<v Speaker 3>It's very low dollar denomination, high probability change. Safe Banking

0:41:29.840 --> 0:41:33.160
<v Speaker 3>Act has the votes. There are enough votes, I would

0:41:33.280 --> 0:41:37.000
<v Speaker 3>estimate to get this through. The question is how does

0:41:37.040 --> 0:41:40.600
<v Speaker 3>it get through right now? You would have to spend

0:41:40.640 --> 0:41:43.759
<v Speaker 3>about thirty right now. There's not enough time for the

0:41:43.800 --> 0:41:45.600
<v Speaker 3>rest of the year to get this done. And I

0:41:45.640 --> 0:41:47.560
<v Speaker 3>don't think it can be attached to something as a

0:41:47.640 --> 0:41:50.800
<v Speaker 3>vehicle to get something done. So I think safe Banking

0:41:50.880 --> 0:41:53.120
<v Speaker 3>will come back next year. I think there's a decent chance.

0:41:53.200 --> 0:41:56.360
<v Speaker 3>But full disclosure, I said safe Banking was going to

0:41:56.440 --> 0:41:58.760
<v Speaker 3>get done at the end of the last congressional term

0:41:58.880 --> 0:42:01.680
<v Speaker 3>and it hasn't, and so full disclosure, I was wrong

0:42:01.719 --> 0:42:05.239
<v Speaker 3>on this one once. So but still I'm going to

0:42:05.280 --> 0:42:06.640
<v Speaker 3>go again and say that I think it's going to

0:42:06.680 --> 0:42:07.399
<v Speaker 3>get done next year.

0:42:07.920 --> 0:42:09.800
<v Speaker 2>All right, great, we're going to end it there on

0:42:09.480 --> 0:42:14.239
<v Speaker 2>some good news. Thanks for doing this, Nathan, You're great man.

0:42:14.280 --> 0:42:17.200
<v Speaker 2>I learned so much. Where can listeners find your work

0:42:17.239 --> 0:42:19.000
<v Speaker 2>outside of the Bloomberg terminal?

0:42:19.320 --> 0:42:21.840
<v Speaker 3>Well, so the best thing to do is we actually

0:42:21.880 --> 0:42:24.319
<v Speaker 3>have a call every Monday at ten am. It's open

0:42:24.360 --> 0:42:27.080
<v Speaker 3>to both Bloomberg and non Bloomberg. If you want to

0:42:27.160 --> 0:42:29.360
<v Speaker 3>join that, just shoot me an email at end ten

0:42:29.440 --> 0:42:31.319
<v Speaker 3>at Bloomberg dot net or find me on LinkedIn or

0:42:31.360 --> 0:42:35.040
<v Speaker 3>Twitter at Nathan Dan DC. But we'll be more than

0:42:35.080 --> 0:42:36.960
<v Speaker 3>happy to have you host you on that call. We'll

0:42:36.960 --> 0:42:39.440
<v Speaker 3>put you on our distribution list and then we'll get

0:42:39.440 --> 0:42:41.120
<v Speaker 3>you access to a lot of the information that we

0:42:41.960 --> 0:42:42.680
<v Speaker 3>provide as well.

0:42:43.440 --> 0:42:46.360
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it's a great, very in depth newsletter with some

0:42:46.520 --> 0:42:47.520
<v Speaker 2>humor sprinkled in.

0:42:48.760 --> 0:42:51.520
<v Speaker 1>I highly recommend it and thanks to the audience for

0:42:51.560 --> 0:42:51.920
<v Speaker 1>tuning in.

0:42:51.960 --> 0:42:54.080
<v Speaker 2>If you liked the episode, please share it with your

0:42:54.080 --> 0:42:56.960
<v Speaker 2>friends and colleagues. Check back soon for a discussion with

0:42:57.000 --> 0:42:57.800
<v Speaker 2>Brandon Barton

0:42:57.880 --> 0:43:05.640
<v Speaker 1>The CEO of Bite.