Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene. Daily
Speaker 1: we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. Right now,
Speaker 1: we're going to attempt an intelligent conversation. I turned to
Speaker 1: Mrs Keene at the ten o'clock hour last night and
Speaker 1: I said, you know, I figure Wheeler will cancel is
Speaker 1: Ohio State went down in flames? Tom Wheeler, your comment
Speaker 1: on the spirit of college football in the time of
Speaker 1: this national crisis. My comment is, go Buckeyes. Think about
Speaker 1: what brought you there, not just the outcome, but it
Speaker 1: was a tragedy lesson. He is a former FCC chairman,
Speaker 1: and we're thrilled to Thomas Wheeler could join us this morning. Tom.
Speaker 1: I don't like the phrase in net neutrality. It's Greek
Speaker 1: to me um, But tell us what the net looks
Speaker 1: like in two or three years. We are evolving each
Speaker 1: and every day. With Fiorina and Wheeler on the same page,
Speaker 1: what does our FCC world look like in five years? Well,
Speaker 1: I think that what is important is we've got to
Speaker 1: think about what the new world looks like. That, um,
Speaker 1: that we have been trying to oversee, um the revolution
Speaker 1: of the digital economy and digital technology using statutes and
Speaker 1: regulatory structures that were created for the industrial era. And
Speaker 1: we need a new approach that recognizes that the world
Speaker 1: has changed, that things move much more quickly than they
Speaker 1: did before, and so we can't have the old scarrot
Speaker 1: approach to oversight. And and secondly that we're dealing with
Speaker 1: a whole new class of assets, soft assets instead of
Speaker 1: hard assets, and they behave differently in the marketplace. All Right,
Speaker 1: So Tom, let's bring this to what happened over the
Speaker 1: past week or so. We saw Twitter band President Trump
Speaker 1: from its platform, Facebook suspending him from There's raising a
Speaker 1: question about big text rule in really determining the discourse
Speaker 1: in the nation and frankly in the world. What is
Speaker 1: the government's rule in dictating the guidelines for some of
Speaker 1: these big tech companies. Well, I think Creli fi Arena
Speaker 1: hit the nail on the head. And this is the
Speaker 1: basis for things that I've been writing saying saying that Look, um,
Speaker 1: what's been going on is the technology companies have assumed
Speaker 1: quasi governmental role. They are making the rules because our
Speaker 1: representatives in government are not. And we even step up
Speaker 1: and figure out, um, as the people, what are the
Speaker 1: rules that um that that should should exist. How do
Speaker 1: we have competition instead of these monopolies. How do we
Speaker 1: have expectations for responsible behavior rather than um, well, we'll
Speaker 1: do whatever we want because it's profitable. But but but, Tom,
Speaker 1: I mean, you talk about these concepts and there's very
Speaker 1: little agreement on exactly how to frame uh these issues.
Speaker 1: We can't even get a stimulus effort pass, and we
Speaker 1: have a jobless rate that's incredibly high. I mean, what
Speaker 1: is your confidence level that there actually is some consensus
Speaker 1: on these big philosophical concepts in Washington, d C. Lisa,
Speaker 1: I think this goes back to our discussion of the
Speaker 1: game last night. You know, I think you need to
Speaker 1: have the willingness to get on the field and to
Speaker 1: try and work it out rather than just running away
Speaker 1: from it, and which is frankly what we've done for
Speaker 1: too long. You know. One of the things that happened
Speaker 1: is that is that policymakers have been sold. For the
Speaker 1: last couple of decades, policy makers have been sold this
Speaker 1: snake oil that that somehow digital is different and that
Speaker 1: it's pretty close to magic, and if you do anything
Speaker 1: to provide public interest oversight, you'll break that magic. That's
Speaker 1: not the case, and we need to have policy makers
Speaker 1: who understand and I think they are coming up to speed,
Speaker 1: who understand the realities of the digital economy, and they
Speaker 1: are willing to step up. I mean, let's go back
Speaker 1: in history for just a second. The regulatory structures that
Speaker 1: we have in place right now, we're created to provide
Speaker 1: balance in the industrial economy to the inherent incentive to
Speaker 1: excess that was created at that point in time. We
Speaker 1: need to have some kind of an offsetting, countervailing structure
Speaker 1: created in the digital economy. But we can't rely on
Speaker 1: the structures that were created for a hundred years ago,
Speaker 1: because it's a new world. Tom Well, I want to
Speaker 1: talk about your wonderful work in the Civil War, your
Speaker 1: book Take Command on Leadership, and then you talk about
Speaker 1: taking the next hill. We've got to take the next
Speaker 1: technology hill. Do you assume whatever that technology hill looks like,
Speaker 1: and let's say I see Ohio regiments at Gettysburg, do
Speaker 1: you just assume that's a breakup of these technology companies no, Tom,
Speaker 1: I think that what you have to do, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: another chapter in the book talks about you've got to
Speaker 1: look at new techniques and new and have new thoughts
Speaker 1: because because you know, I don't want to break up
Speaker 1: Facebook and have half a dozen mini me facebooks, all
Speaker 1: with the incentive to use their monopoly power over the
Speaker 1: digital assets which they hold and won't share with anybody else.
Speaker 1: I would rather see, let's have instead of break up,
Speaker 1: let's break open access to those assets. Let me give
Speaker 1: you one specific example. In ninety six, A T and
Speaker 1: T was forced to open access to its patents, which
Speaker 1: was the greatest repository of of patents in the world.
Speaker 1: And when that happened, innovation and competition took off. They
Speaker 1: had been using those patents to thwart others from creating
Speaker 1: competitive alternatives. And what we need to do is say, Okay,
Speaker 1: these companies are now sitting on massive databases. We will
Speaker 1: never be able to compete with them if they continue
Speaker 1: to hoard those databases. You need to open the databases
Speaker 1: for free. Not for free, but you need to provide
Speaker 1: access to the essential essential for the digital economy to
Speaker 1: right now. Controversial to say, at least Thomas Wheeler thinking
Speaker 1: so much greatly appreciated. Stephen Whiting is with that Morrisett
Speaker 1: City Group, City Group Private Bank, and he joins us
Speaker 1: this morning. Stephen Whiting, do you readjust your two thousand
Speaker 1: one view with the two amult of the first twelve
Speaker 1: days of this year? We don't not because of political
Speaker 1: shocks like this. I think when we look back at history,
Speaker 1: we can find twenty events all the way back and
Speaker 1: including World War Two that really qualify as political or
Speaker 1: geopolitical shocks. Only two of them really turned to direct
Speaker 1: and of the world economy. And this is one that
Speaker 1: I would doubt is going to turn the direction of
Speaker 1: the world economy. And for all those that didn't, the
Speaker 1: effects and financial markets weren't felt for more than ninety days.
Speaker 1: Let's see, I want you to have common on ed
Speaker 1: Morris and oil to sixty as well. You've got frontline
Speaker 1: commodity work filtering in the City Group Private Bank. How
Speaker 1: do you filter in the work of Edward Morris. Remarkably,
Speaker 1: because it's across asset classes, it's powerful when we understand
Speaker 1: what's going on in the oil market in particular more
Speaker 1: than other commodities, but certainly in commodities like copper and
Speaker 1: iron ore um. These might have directly relatively small shares
Speaker 1: of economic activity, but the sensitivities to credit, the movements
Speaker 1: and currencies, the read through the broader asset allocation, it's
Speaker 1: been really powerful. So it's been a fantastic contributor to
Speaker 1: to our work in terms of broader asset allocation, even
Speaker 1: beyond commodities. So what you're saying is that you've either
Speaker 1: flation trade. Is that what you're saying, Oh, I do
Speaker 1: because I believe in a vaccine. Uh. And we see
Speaker 1: already with just three producers, probably five billion vaccine doses
Speaker 1: will be distributed over the course of one and that's
Speaker 1: not the end of the vaccine pipeline. Uh. And you
Speaker 1: can hear it from the Federal Reserve if you don't
Speaker 1: want to believe me, that the course of the virus,
Speaker 1: the pandemic, and the vaccines will really determine the course
Speaker 1: of the future economy. This has been uh in external
Speaker 1: exogenous shock. We came into this event relatively healthy, with
Speaker 1: low inflation rates, no booms in any industries, and this
Speaker 1: virus knocked us down incredibly deeply. It's changed every asset
Speaker 1: price in the world. And when it leaves, it will
Speaker 1: change every asset price in the world. Uh. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of the economy that can still be restored
Speaker 1: uh in later as it departs. All right, So in
Speaker 1: the near term, how are you looking at the vACC
Speaker 1: nations in order to determine your investing thesis? We were
Speaker 1: speaking with Mark McCormick about how he's tracking which nations
Speaker 1: are doing the best job of getting vaccines into our arms.
Speaker 1: Are you doing the same to determine where the world
Speaker 1: to invest? Well, it's no surprise, for example, that throughout
Speaker 1: Asia the pervasiveness of the virus has been lowered. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's the experience with stars for example, very very high
Speaker 1: compliance with mast wearing right has had a different economic
Speaker 1: impact there. Um. I just think that we are very
Speaker 1: early on in terms of vaccination. I mean, it is
Speaker 1: fairly miraculous that we have effective vaccines at the levels
Speaker 1: that we are seeing. Right. Epidemiologists expected efficacy, you know,
Speaker 1: a little bit closer to fluid vaccines, and here we
Speaker 1: are with some of these well above nine. The rollout
Speaker 1: may be slow, but I think this is a little
Speaker 1: bit like sand than a sieve. Right, It'll move faster
Speaker 1: as we as we go forward, right, So equipping about
Speaker 1: a couple of months is not something that I'm going
Speaker 1: to do with asset allocation. Steve whing been Layler over
Speaker 1: Tower Hudson very courageously. He's been dead out on optimism
Speaker 1: on the equity markets cost for three years of double
Speaker 1: digit return he says, there's a not certitude, but a
Speaker 1: likelihood of that you and I have lived in the
Speaker 1: certitude of single digit returns. Is that where we finally
Speaker 1: are We look, we're not expecting returns as robust as
Speaker 1: on headline, especially for US equities where we had a
Speaker 1: lot of defensive equities in the technology sector. They provided
Speaker 1: the solutions to the COVID economy. Their valuations were driven
Speaker 1: up by falling interest rates, right, So it's more than
Speaker 1: the durability of their earnings. But there's that invaluation. So
Speaker 1: we're not expecting to be as strong as last year's
Speaker 1: return for US equities. But there's a lot around the
Speaker 1: world right now where of our equity overweight is outside
Speaker 1: the United States, where we've seen some pockets of the
Speaker 1: world lag badly behind. Now when we think back to
Speaker 1: two thousand nine, where conditions perfectly lost jobs, the entirety
Speaker 1: of two thousand nine. That was a thirty five percent
Speaker 1: game right for global equities in that year, less for
Speaker 1: the United States, more for the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: People thought the expansion was over, that we priced in recovery.
Speaker 1: It's now time, you know, the wait for the next crisis.
Speaker 1: We then went on to ten years in which we
Speaker 1: had a game in global equities games and nine out
Speaker 1: of eleven years and what was the returning cash over
Speaker 1: the time six percent annuals. Yeah, well, Steve, what's the
Speaker 1: distinction of the city gro view on markets in one
Speaker 1: given Then what you've laid out is very much or
Speaker 1: hearing from most people on the show. Well, I think
Speaker 1: again it's discriminating between which assets will really move that
Speaker 1: there are these shorter term dislocations that are quite severe.
Speaker 1: We've been overweight small cap US equities for a good
Speaker 1: period of time in that has mean reverted pretty significantly.
Speaker 1: Latin America, Southeast Asia, these are markets that have not
Speaker 1: come back nearly as much. The fact that there's a
Speaker 1: strong correlation between what you mentioned earlier um At morses
Speaker 1: you on oil and financial stocks that sort of are
Speaker 1: priced as if they are their businesses reflect the worst
Speaker 1: of the credit conditions of the most impacted industries. These
Speaker 1: are areas again that we'd be bullish on for a
Speaker 1: practical revaient. Now, when we get all through with these distortions,
Speaker 1: we're gonna focus in on a different set of opportunities.
Speaker 1: Some of these are really long term growth opportunities, like
Speaker 1: the fact that we've only had a minimal amount of
Speaker 1: shift in the world to uh to greener technologies, right
Speaker 1: electrification that you are thematic opportunities that are really incipient,
Speaker 1: just the way e commerce was ten years ago. Stephen Whiting, UH,
Speaker 1: just fascinating. Thank you so much. We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: leave it there right now. With the death Stephen Whiting
Speaker 1: of City Group, Private Think, Thank you so much. Julie
Speaker 1: Norman with us right now, Lisa Brownwittson, Tom King, your
Speaker 1: simulcast Professor Norman at the University College London. And you know, Professor,
Speaker 1: we've done different things here, including the TikTok with Kevin
Speaker 1: Surreali and the rest of it. I want to look
Speaker 1: forward with you, Professor, to the new grid Luck Democratic President,
Speaker 1: Democratic Senate, Democratic House. Why are we even talking about Gridlock? Well, Tom,
Speaker 1: I think there's always going to be a bit of
Speaker 1: gridlock in Washington, but for Biden especially, Yes, he does
Speaker 1: have a majority now in the Senate after the Georgia runoffs,
Speaker 1: but that is an extremely when majority with the Senate
Speaker 1: being fifty fifty and just having the vice president as
Speaker 1: a tiebreaker and only a four seat majority in the House,
Speaker 1: one of this limits in recent memory. So just because
Speaker 1: of that, it's going to be tough to that legislation through,
Speaker 1: especially in the Senate, where most meaningful legislation requires sixty votes,
Speaker 1: not just the simple majority, and even more than that.
Speaker 1: There's some uh surmising sometimes that having a closed House
Speaker 1: and a close Senate increases opportunities for compromise and partisanship,
Speaker 1: but in fact we sometimes see the opposite that in fact,
Speaker 1: often the minority party is even less likely to compromise
Speaker 1: in those situations because they don't want to give the
Speaker 1: majority a win. If we somehow get beyond our national catastrophe,
Speaker 1: how does a minority react to not owning either of
Speaker 1: the three houses? What what do the Republicans do? Based
Speaker 1: on histories? Take well, what we've seen historically is that
Speaker 1: again whichever party is the minority, Republicans or Democrats, Republicans
Speaker 1: in this case um which I instag me some of
Speaker 1: that legislation that the majority party wants to put through.
Speaker 1: For Joe Biden and for Democrats right now, the emphasis
Speaker 1: will most likely see on further stimulus bills for the
Speaker 1: Corona relief. We can expect that there will be some
Speaker 1: opposition to that in the Senate, starting with opposition to
Speaker 1: say the increase of two thousand dollar checks or increasing
Speaker 1: some of the age to state and local governments. So
Speaker 1: we'll see some kind of digging in and just trying
Speaker 1: to create some variers of having that legislation go through smoothly. Julie. Meantime,
Speaker 1: we're talking about impeachment yet again in Congress, even though
Speaker 1: we have eight more days of President Trump's tenure. Is
Speaker 1: this more of a damaging effect on Joe Biden's entry
Speaker 1: into the presidency than it is help to the Democrats?
Speaker 1: Well visa, I think that's a big question for Democrats
Speaker 1: right now. Certainly, Joe Biden has not thrown his weight
Speaker 1: behind the impeachment for speedings. He's pretty much just said
Speaker 1: all that Congress do what they decide. However, Providen definitely
Speaker 1: wants to be able to hit the ground running. He
Speaker 1: wants to be able to have his cabinet members and
Speaker 1: especially his national security team confirmed right away. He wants
Speaker 1: to get to work on the vaccination program and also
Speaker 1: again on some of this relief and stimulus bills. And
Speaker 1: he really doesn't want the whole Senate ground to a
Speaker 1: hold over an impeachment proceeding, especially one that is unlikely
Speaker 1: to even get all the votes. Theory for a two
Speaker 1: conviction to borrow Chump from the future office, and you know,
Speaker 1: something said to this also divide the country further, just
Speaker 1: deepen grievances and undermine Itiden pull messaging around unity and healing.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure that's certainly on his mind too, although
Speaker 1: his team is trying to spend it as more of
Speaker 1: an opportunity than a than a deepening problem right now.
Speaker 1: But it's going to be an upho battle for Biden regardless,
Speaker 1: and an impeachment is going to make it even trickier
Speaker 1: for him to navigate those waters. Yeah, I mean, I've
Speaker 1: been I've been wondering, you know, what's the point at
Speaker 1: a certain point, if it's not going to get through,
Speaker 1: if they're not going to actually get Trump out of office,
Speaker 1: he only has eight days left, why go through this exercise,
Speaker 1: and some people have arguable for as this has international
Speaker 1: ramifications in terms of edifying the United States view as
Speaker 1: a democracy that's united, do you have any sympathy for
Speaker 1: that view? Well, there certainly is the sense of what
Speaker 1: this looks like to the rest of the world. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the images from last week many saw as really hurting
Speaker 1: the global image of the US as a sort of
Speaker 1: similar bastion of democracy. I think it's more important though
Speaker 1: for internal messaging and optics to remote democrats, the sense
Speaker 1: of saying to their own voters into the country more broadly,
Speaker 1: that this kind of behavior, this kind of incitement, can't
Speaker 1: be a precedent and essentially saying that this is that
Speaker 1: the body would be without integrity if they didn't pursue
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings because of this. However, again, the pragmatics and
Speaker 1: the practicalities around it do make this difficult. They know
Speaker 1: that they can't remove from office and might be making
Speaker 1: things hard for Biden at the same time. One final question,
Speaker 1: and we can do this with Julie Norman. She is
Speaker 1: wonderful on the tensions of politics. Julie, this has been
Speaker 1: under our radar because of the news flow and this
Speaker 1: is the foreign policy exit of the Trump administration on
Speaker 1: Cuba and particularly overnight on Yemen. This was a heated
Speaker 1: report reported folks, heated exchange between legislative staff members and Mr.
Speaker 1: Pompeo in his State department. Julie Norman explained to our
Speaker 1: audience why these discussions on Yemen are so so heated
Speaker 1: in Washington. There was the discussions around Yemen and Yemen
Speaker 1: a country in the Middle East and the Gulf that
Speaker 1: has really been stuffering from a quite severe civil war
Speaker 1: for for years now. Pompey was preferring to declare one
Speaker 1: of the groups, the Footie Group, a terrorist group. Laboring
Speaker 1: any group a terrorist group has very significant rampiprocations in
Speaker 1: terms of what kind of aid can go to the country,
Speaker 1: in terms of what kind of political conversation can happen
Speaker 1: with that group for peace processes and negotiations, and also
Speaker 1: just start puts the US on a kind of very
Speaker 1: different political expance on that conflict that they've already done on.
Speaker 1: Do you assume that doesn't just because of time, Julie,
Speaker 1: to complete the circle. Do you assume that President Biden
Speaker 1: and his team can reverse that decision if they choose.
Speaker 1: I do think they will try again. The team is
Speaker 1: pretty pragmatic. They're going to want to leave all options
Speaker 1: open for negotiations and diplomacy, and the terrorism label inhibits
Speaker 1: that rather than facilitate that. That's why we love Julie Norman.
Speaker 1: I can take a tangent like that, and there she
Speaker 1: is with expert views Julie Norman with u c L
Speaker 1: right now on the economics of the moment. It is
Speaker 1: always good to speak to Glenn Hubbard, Columbia professor of economics,
Speaker 1: a former Airmen of the Council of Economic Advisors under
Speaker 1: President Bush, and I do want to part here that
Speaker 1: with the late Edward Lizier were the giants of conservative growth.
Speaker 1: The certitude that growth was good and incentivizing our private
Speaker 1: economy was to way to get it. Uh don, Glenn,
Speaker 1: I want you to speak for ed Lazier. What a loss.
Speaker 1: But right now, Glenn Hubbard, there has to be an
Speaker 1: optimism about a return to American growth. We have a
Speaker 1: rising debt, arising deficit from a natural natural disaster. Do
Speaker 1: you suggest that we can see American growth out of
Speaker 1: this terrible tragedy that we face. I think we can.
Speaker 1: I mean Obviously, there's almost nothing good about COVID nineteen,
Speaker 1: but the pace of innovation we're seeing is truly amazing,
Speaker 1: and every business leader I think believes were well in
Speaker 1: the interior of the productivity growth frontier. I think as
Speaker 1: long as policy focuses on recovery and renewal and reform,
Speaker 1: we're going to get there. And what was so distinctive here,
Speaker 1: Glenn Hubard, with your work and also Dul's ears, as
Speaker 1: you said, caffeinated enthusiasm, there has to be an American
Speaker 1: initiative that is different. Is that exceptionalism still there? I
Speaker 1: think there is. You know, whether you're talking about public
Speaker 1: policy or private goals, the idea of a moonshot is important.
Speaker 1: If you look at the pace of development of vaccines
Speaker 1: for COVID nineteen, you see an example of what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about, and we can see that throughout the economy.
Speaker 1: And I think a task for our new president will
Speaker 1: be to try to make sure that that spirit is there,
Speaker 1: both publicly and privately. Glenn, how quickly can we return
Speaker 1: back to normal? There are many questions even if people
Speaker 1: get vaccinated, how long you get protected for? So we
Speaker 1: are we overthinking that? You know that once people get vaccinated,
Speaker 1: we go back to normal economically. See, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: what normal will mean. We we do need to think
Speaker 1: about this in phases. So we need to make sure
Speaker 1: we have a vigorous recovery, get people back to work,
Speaker 1: make sure we support people while things are locked down.
Speaker 1: But then the economy is going to look different. People
Speaker 1: may be in different jobs. If I were advising President Biden,
Speaker 1: I would be focused on the possibility of something like
Speaker 1: a new g I bill. What's a way to retrain people,
Speaker 1: get them going. I think that's the spirit we need.
Speaker 1: But retraining into what I mean when I talk about normal,
Speaker 1: what's really thinking about Tom and I having a drink
Speaker 1: of our choice? Okay, I think you would talk to
Speaker 1: have the drink of your choice. But I'm saying the
Speaker 1: mix of businesses and jobs in the economy last February
Speaker 1: is going to look different than what it may be
Speaker 1: in the new economy, and we want to make sure
Speaker 1: that people are ready for that. Drinks and all. How
Speaker 1: different Glenn, So, is it just what we were already
Speaker 1: going through so much more e commerce, much more technology
Speaker 1: driven being accelerated, or does COVID ring team put us
Speaker 1: on a different economy path. Why don't like we know yet,
Speaker 1: But I think the acceleration is a big deal. A
Speaker 1: lot of what happened during COVID was an acceleration of
Speaker 1: trends like you mentioned with technology, e commerceince one, and
Speaker 1: that's just gonna go faster than people thought. So I
Speaker 1: think we need to make sure that we have a
Speaker 1: system for smaller midsized businesses that they can adapt, that
Speaker 1: we have an ability to help train people for the
Speaker 1: jobs that will be instead of the jobs that were.
Speaker 1: But when you talk about a g I bill in
Speaker 1: the scope of that, I'm going to take a conservative
Speaker 1: guy like you and throw you on the same page
Speaker 1: with a great liberal economist, Claudia Son. Claudia is calling
Speaker 1: for far more stimulus, and I think I'm hearing that
Speaker 1: from you as well. But what is the distinction of
Speaker 1: the application of the stimulus between conservatives and liberals. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm actually not talking about stimulus, although I do think
Speaker 1: we need another recovery package. What I'm talking about is
Speaker 1: actually a longer term program. We needed something like what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about before COVID, and we need it now.
Speaker 1: It's a way to help train people. I'm thinking of
Speaker 1: things like a block grant to interrupt. But look, we're
Speaker 1: looking at the death of Reaganism right now, I would say,
Speaker 1: within the uproar in Washington and all that, how do
Speaker 1: you drag your Republican Party economists and politicians toward a
Speaker 1: Hubbard view of bigger view of bigger programs? Ola Dwight D. Eisenhower. Well,
Speaker 1: I think of going back to Adam Smith, to be honest, Tom,
Speaker 1: you know Smith and Columbia. Yeah, I mean Smith talked
Speaker 1: about mass flourishing, and if you want mass flourishing, you
Speaker 1: have to have everybody prepared to compete. So I view
Speaker 1: this as part of what a dynamic capitalist economy is.
Speaker 1: It just we shouldn't get ourselves. It will cost money.
Speaker 1: We need different budget priorities to pay for Glenn Hubbard
Speaker 1: with us Columbia professor, and we're thrilled to come back.
Speaker 1: I've got about eight ways to go with Professor Hubbard
Speaker 1: here and these absolutely unique times. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Surveillance Piecast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can
Speaker 1: always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio