WEBVTT - Supreme Court Roe Ruling Transforms Abortion-Rights 0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:04.400 This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carole Masser and I'm 0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:07.280 Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanibek. We're here every day bringing 0:00:07.280 --> 0:00:09.840 you the latest news from the world of business and finance, 0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:13.640 plus technology, politics, economics, all purnising the power of Business 0:00:13.640 --> 0:00:17.119 Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and 0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:19.640 analyst in more than one and twenty countries. You can 0:00:19.640 --> 0:00:23.200 download Bloomberg Business Week at iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot Com. 0:00:23.400 --> 0:00:25.160 You can also listen to our radio show at two 0:00:25.160 --> 0:00:27.840 pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio, or watch us on 0:00:27.880 --> 0:00:32.839 YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. Well, we're continuing our coverage 0:00:33.080 --> 0:00:36.360 of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, 0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:40.040 wiping out the constitutional right to abortion. Earlier in the afternoon, 0:00:40.040 --> 0:00:42.199 President Joe Biden weighed in. Check out what he had 0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:45.559 to say. It's a realization of an extreme ideology and 0:00:45.600 --> 0:00:48.080 a tragic error by the Supreme Court. In my view, 0:00:48.320 --> 0:00:52.000 the Court has done what has never done before, expressly 0:00:52.080 --> 0:00:56.960 takeaway a constantial right. It is so fundamental, so many 0:00:56.960 --> 0:01:01.480 Americans that have already been recognized. That was President Joe 0:01:01.480 --> 0:01:04.480 Biden with his initial response at least to the Roe v. 0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:07.679 Wade ruling today or the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade 0:01:08.080 --> 0:01:10.520 joining us our Bloomberg in Actor Broker Studios, Jim Grasso, 0:01:10.560 --> 0:01:13.399 Bloomberg News legal analyst. She and I spent most of 0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:15.920 the morning together today talking about this story, and I 0:01:15.959 --> 0:01:19.039 know since that time she has literally been boring over 0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:24.640 uh this uh statement and the case. What's new? Well 0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:27.240 what I this morning we were talking about, you know, 0:01:27.720 --> 0:01:31.240 the repercussions of this decision and what it might mean 0:01:31.400 --> 0:01:35.720 for contraception and gain marriage and all these decisions based 0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:40.399 on privacy, and the dissent predicted that quote, no one 0:01:40.400 --> 0:01:44.080 should be confident that this majority is done with its work. 0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:48.760 And Justice Thomas in his concurrence, he actually said we 0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:53.360 should reconsider all of the Court's substantive due process precedents, 0:01:53.440 --> 0:01:59.400 including Griswold that's privacy lawrence, that's marriage, and oh Berger Fell, 0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:04.800 which is same sex marriage. So he's inviting people to 0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:08.520 challenge that. So people who say let's not panic read 0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:12.960 that opinion. So you're saying, you were saying that Justice 0:02:13.000 --> 0:02:17.639 Clarence Thomas in the text today is essentially inviting cases 0:02:17.680 --> 0:02:20.840 to overturn gay marriage to overturn the right to be 0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:24.360 in the same sex relationship. Yes, and he has succeeded. 0:02:24.440 --> 0:02:27.680 He has been saying that people should challenge the Second Amendment, 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:30.880 that the Second Amendment was uh not, you know, was 0:02:30.919 --> 0:02:34.880 a secondary people considered a secondary constitutional right. It wasn't 0:02:34.880 --> 0:02:37.360 like on the same level as the First Amendment, etcetera. 0:02:37.639 --> 0:02:40.440 And he and he won with that one yesterday. So 0:02:41.280 --> 0:02:45.080 you know, I mean, so anything in the there's really 0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:48.040 nothing surprising and how the vote went down, is that right? 0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:51.320 I mean, there's no, there's nothing surprising because we got 0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:54.040 that draft and do we know anything more about that 0:02:54.080 --> 0:02:57.040 where that may have No, we don't know anything about that. 0:02:57.120 --> 0:03:00.680 And that's sort of what's puzzling to me, is that. 0:03:01.600 --> 0:03:05.359 Now my opinion, this is just my opinion. No basis 0:03:05.360 --> 0:03:07.840 in fact for this. But we know it is true 0:03:07.919 --> 0:03:12.359 that the Justice Chief Justice decided that the Marshal the 0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:16.560 Supreme Court Martial would do the investigation instead of, for example, 0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:21.640 the FBI. That lets them have control over what the 0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:25.080 marshal finds. They may know at this point who leaked that, 0:03:26.160 --> 0:03:30.720 they may not tell us. Why does that matter so much? Well, 0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:34.200 it matters to the court because after that leak. Justice 0:03:34.240 --> 0:03:37.840 Clarence Thomas said something to the effect of, I'm looking 0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:41.360 over my shoulder now there's has destroyed the confidence and 0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:44.320 trust on the Court, and it's something that they want 0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:46.960 to find out so that doesn't happen again. It's interesting 0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:48.960 that you mentioned the confidence and trust of the Court 0:03:49.120 --> 0:03:54.360 because Susan Collins, Senator Susan Collins, uh, you know, voted 0:03:54.440 --> 0:04:00.840 to confirm uh, Kavanaugh and Gore such and earlier today 0:04:01.400 --> 0:04:04.120 she put out a statement that said, this decision is 0:04:04.160 --> 0:04:07.480 inconsistent with what Justices Gore such in Kavanaugh said in 0:04:07.520 --> 0:04:10.600 their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both 0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:14.760 were insistent on the importance of supporting longstanding precedents that 0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:18.440 the country has relied upon. Well, it's not only inconsistent 0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:21.920 with what they told her. Also, Joe Manchin said something 0:04:22.320 --> 0:04:27.320 similar Senator Joe Mansion. But all the Supreme Court conservative 0:04:27.360 --> 0:04:30.719 Supreme Court justices in their testimony, because I've gone back, 0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:36.560 had said that row is an established right, even Justice Alito, 0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:42.400 so he said that then, and Kavanaugh was really emphatic 0:04:42.440 --> 0:04:46.000 about it. It's an established right, It's been established. So, 0:04:46.160 --> 0:04:49.599 I mean, did their minds change when they were these 0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:53.000 arguments for your oral arguments, or would it be fair 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:57.560 to say that they perhaps weren't necessarily being truthful in 0:04:57.600 --> 0:05:01.760 their testimony. M I don't want to say they weren't 0:05:01.800 --> 0:05:05.039 being truthful in their testimony. Perhaps the way they felt, 0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:07.680 the way they worded it. I mean, I have to 0:05:07.680 --> 0:05:11.159 say that Amy Coney Barrett, just as Amy Coney Bartt was, 0:05:11.160 --> 0:05:14.760 was more forthcoming in her testimony. She said it's not 0:05:15.080 --> 0:05:18.120 a super right whatever. She called it a super precedent. 0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:21.960 So she said it's a precedent, but not a super precedent. 0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:26.200 She said that only super precedents can be overturned. It's 0:05:26.200 --> 0:05:30.279 not a thing. It wasn't wasn't a thing at Harvard. 0:05:30.400 --> 0:05:32.840 I don't know if maybe where she goes she went 0:05:32.880 --> 0:05:37.880 to Notre Dame. So all right, uh Noah Feldenberg opinion 0:05:37.880 --> 0:05:39.640 comp So I'm gonna call out and refer to this 0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:41.200 note probably a couple of times today out with a 0:05:41.200 --> 0:05:43.480 column today, and the title just grabbed me. The headline 0:05:43.520 --> 0:05:48.360 abortion ruling is suicidal for the Supreme Court. That strong 0:05:48.440 --> 0:05:51.200 language there, it's strong language. But we have a Supreme 0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:55.520 Court that the super majority on the Court now is 0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:59.040 out of step with the majority of Americans, because in 0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:01.760 every single time kind of goes to how you interpret 0:06:01.839 --> 0:06:04.919 the Constitution. Is it just a concrete thing that doesn't change, 0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:08.520 or does it expand and contract with society and evolved 0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:12.279 and things like that. When Justice um Scalia was alive, 0:06:12.480 --> 0:06:15.880 he and Justice Brier would do these um sort of 0:06:15.960 --> 0:06:21.880 dueling constitution lectures, and Justice Scalia would talk about originalism 0:06:21.880 --> 0:06:25.760 and textualism, and Justice Brier would talk about the living Constitution. 0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:29.279 The problem now is you have six people who believe 0:06:29.279 --> 0:06:34.159 in textualism and some who are real adherence to textualism. 0:06:34.480 --> 0:06:38.640 So that's how we got, I believe, to these two decisions, 0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:42.360 which yesterday they went back to the seventeen hundreds and 0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:45.920 eighteen hundreds. Today's decision they went back to the fifteen 0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:49.360 hundred sixteen hundred. I mean, it's it's it's starring for 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:53.080 someone to think that, you know, I don't. I think 0:06:53.080 --> 0:06:56.360 the founders were very wise, But how could the founders 0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:59.800 anticipate the kind of world we have today? I mean, 0:06:59.800 --> 0:07:02.400 look with the Founders included in the Constitution about slavery, 0:07:02.520 --> 0:07:04.640 and then you have to look no further than the 0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:09.120 fourteenth Amendment to understand that that document was something that 0:07:09.320 --> 0:07:12.480 has been living and changing. That's why this decision today 0:07:12.600 --> 0:07:16.720 is so shaking. It so it's it's sort of put 0:07:16.760 --> 0:07:20.240 you off balance because you know what about precedent? Now, 0:07:20.320 --> 0:07:22.120 does that mean that there's no They're not going to 0:07:22.120 --> 0:07:25.440 rely on precedent anymore. It's very scary in a way. Well, 0:07:25.480 --> 0:07:28.240 we'll certainly keep turning to you. That's June Grasso. She's 0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:30.760 Bloomberg News Legal analyst, also the host of Bloomberg Law 0:07:30.800 --> 0:07:33.120 weeknights at ten pm Wall Street Time on the Bloomberg 0:07:33.200 --> 0:07:36.320 Radio with us in the Bloomberg Interactive Broker's Studio. You're 0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:40.320 listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and Bloomberg 0:07:40.400 --> 0:07:44.160 Quick Takes. Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Well, he's a 0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:46.440 Nobel Laureate, a columnist for The New York Times, and 0:07:46.480 --> 0:07:49.000 the Distinguished Professor of Economics at the City University of 0:07:49.040 --> 0:07:51.520 New York Graduate Center. Also the author or editor of 0:07:51.520 --> 0:07:54.160 more than two dozen books, including the Return of Depression, 0:07:54.200 --> 0:07:58.360 Economics and Arguing with Zombies, among others. Paul Krugman, Welcome 0:07:58.360 --> 0:08:00.480 back to Bloomberg Business Week Radio. It's it's great to 0:08:00.480 --> 0:08:02.960 have you with us. How are you I I'm good. 0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:05.480 How are you. We're doing okay? I want to start 0:08:05.520 --> 0:08:07.800 with the Supreme Court decision. I saw you were tweeting 0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:10.560 about it. We learned today, of course, that the Supreme 0:08:10.600 --> 0:08:13.320 Court overturned at Roe v. Wade, wiping out the constitutional 0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:15.840 right to an abortion. Now we've already seen companies like 0:08:15.920 --> 0:08:18.120 JP Morgan and others come out today and say that 0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:20.840 they're gonna pay for employees to travel to other states 0:08:20.880 --> 0:08:24.000 if needed to obtain a legal abortion. I'm wondering about 0:08:24.000 --> 0:08:26.080 the economic effects of this. Do you see any ripple 0:08:26.120 --> 0:08:28.280 effect in the U s economy as a result of 0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:31.480 this decision? Well, it probably not in terms of the 0:08:31.520 --> 0:08:35.439 macro numbers. I think there may be some regional aspects. 0:08:35.440 --> 0:08:38.760 I mean it too. One of the big driving forces 0:08:38.800 --> 0:08:41.520 of change in the US economy over the past couple 0:08:41.559 --> 0:08:46.040 of decades has been this um kind of unequalizing as 0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:51.480 the knowledge economy has wanted to gravitate towards big cities 0:08:51.480 --> 0:08:56.800 with highly educated populations. Um. And now there's gonna be 0:08:56.840 --> 0:09:00.680 additional factor, which is um if companies want the kind 0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:03.480 of workers that they can get in those locations, are 0:09:03.480 --> 0:09:05.440 they going to want to locate in the states that 0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:10.000 are going to be have really overregressive social policies, the 0:09:10.080 --> 0:09:13.719 kinds of social policies that that they're the workers they 0:09:13.760 --> 0:09:16.600 want really don't like. So you really have to think, 0:09:16.360 --> 0:09:20.920 you know, how, how does Texas or Florida fair in 0:09:20.960 --> 0:09:23.720 this kind of competition for business and in this new 0:09:23.800 --> 0:09:26.600 legal environment. Florida seems to be doing pretty well. We 0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:31.400 saw citadel Um move down there and lots of other companies. 0:09:31.400 --> 0:09:32.920 Means to see how that plays out of our time. 0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:35.080 So Paul, just wondering here. I think you know, as 0:09:35.360 --> 0:09:38.600 Tim and I speak to various fund managers and uh 0:09:38.840 --> 0:09:41.800 uh C suite folks, one of the questions obviously today 0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:45.559 is this Federal Reserve. They have a balancing act. They're 0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:47.760 very tough balancing act to reign in inflation while not 0:09:47.800 --> 0:09:51.560 going too far and pushing this economy into recession. How 0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:55.400 do you think that plays out well? It's I mean, 0:09:55.440 --> 0:09:58.320 the fundamental problem is not does not actually look to 0:09:58.360 --> 0:10:01.120 me to be all that hard. It's a weird thing 0:10:01.160 --> 0:10:03.440 to say, but it's pretty clear that the US economy 0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:08.480 got overheated UH fiscal monetary policy. UM, it was misjudged. 0:10:08.920 --> 0:10:10.720 I was among the people who misjudged it. And the 0:10:10.840 --> 0:10:14.720 u s economy got overheated, and so we have most 0:10:14.720 --> 0:10:16.959 of the inflation we're seeing as special factors that will 0:10:17.000 --> 0:10:21.400 go away. Russia won't evade Ukraine every every month, but 0:10:21.920 --> 0:10:26.160 there's a good, solid extra maybe two points of inflation. 0:10:26.320 --> 0:10:30.520 Excess inflation that results from an overheated economy. Cooling off 0:10:30.520 --> 0:10:33.920 that overheating is not fundamentally a hard thing to do, 0:10:34.000 --> 0:10:37.240 and and needn't be all that hard, needn't even involve 0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:40.200 a recession, just a little bit of a an uptick 0:10:40.280 --> 0:10:44.360 in the unemployment rate. The problem is precision. I mean, 0:10:44.400 --> 0:10:47.839 the Fed is not sure however heated the economy is. 0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:50.319 It doesn't know exactly how much of our of a 0:10:50.480 --> 0:10:52.880 rate rise is needed to do this. So the chance 0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:56.320 of of you know, overdoing it, of slamming that breaks 0:10:56.360 --> 0:10:58.360 a little too hard and causing a bit of a 0:10:58.400 --> 0:11:02.439 skid is deathly there. So it's a reasonable chance that 0:11:02.480 --> 0:11:07.160 will have something that will be formally a recession. But 0:11:07.320 --> 0:11:09.840 the chance of a really you know, sort of early 0:11:09.920 --> 0:11:13.520 eighties type grueling and anti inflation flight, uh that that 0:11:13.600 --> 0:11:17.200 doesn't look serious. How deep of a recession could we have, 0:11:17.640 --> 0:11:20.360 How long have the recession? How high could unemployment go 0:11:21.520 --> 0:11:24.120 it's well, how high it could go could be over 0:11:24.679 --> 0:11:27.880 I mean, it probably has to rise over four. And 0:11:27.960 --> 0:11:30.560 it's not hard to come up with a story in 0:11:30.559 --> 0:11:33.960 which the FED bobbles the thing badly enough that it 0:11:34.120 --> 0:11:37.679 briefly goes above five. But briefly. There's nothing at all 0:11:37.720 --> 0:11:40.880 in there to suggest that we need UM an unemployment 0:11:41.000 --> 0:11:44.559 rate that's over five for any extended period of time, 0:11:44.600 --> 0:11:46.880 and the Fed will of course correct if it does 0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:49.760 look like we're heading in that direction. So just to 0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:53.000 that point, Paul Larry Sumners is out with an idea 0:11:53.040 --> 0:11:56.320 of five years five percent unemployment needed to bring down 0:11:56.320 --> 0:11:59.600 cp I. That doesn't necessarily seem to hold water to you. 0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:03.280 That looks to me like Larry is for reasons, I 0:12:03.320 --> 0:12:07.199 do not understand thinking that we need something that's like 0:12:07.440 --> 0:12:11.720 a UM sort of a half vocre that we need 0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:16.240 a massive period of excess unemployment for an extended period 0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:19.880 of time to crush inflationary expectations, so which is what 0:12:19.960 --> 0:12:23.920 we had in the early eighties, except everything every indicator 0:12:24.040 --> 0:12:27.440 I look as says that inflationary expectations are actually pretty muted. 0:12:27.920 --> 0:12:30.120 When you consider the price of gas, the fact that 0:12:30.640 --> 0:12:33.439 surveys are showing that people expect only three percent inflation 0:12:33.440 --> 0:12:37.040 over the next five years um that they break even rate, 0:12:37.280 --> 0:12:40.840 and the bond market is is well under three percent. Now, 0:12:41.559 --> 0:12:44.400 I just don't understand where the idea that we need 0:12:44.440 --> 0:12:47.920 to do something like a volcre in the economy of 0:12:47.960 --> 0:12:50.640 twenty two is coming from. But what about the idea 0:12:50.720 --> 0:12:52.760 that so much of this inflation is outside of the 0:12:52.760 --> 0:12:56.319 Fed's control, and so much is due to demand to 0:12:56.360 --> 0:12:58.880 supply constraints. Excuse me, and the FED, you know, has 0:12:58.920 --> 0:13:02.320 famously blunt tools. How can the FED get this under control? 0:13:02.360 --> 0:13:05.080 If if they can't drill for oil, if they can't 0:13:05.080 --> 0:13:07.640 refine oil, and if they can't build houses. Know what 0:13:07.720 --> 0:13:10.440 the FED does? Is it? It? It? Uh you know, 0:13:10.840 --> 0:13:13.240 give me the monetary policy to deal with the things 0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:15.320 I can and to accept the things I can't. The 0:13:15.360 --> 0:13:20.680 Montreal J. Powell, it's a it's a these these things 0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:23.360 will pass. That's the whole point. I mean, the big 0:13:23.400 --> 0:13:26.400 misjudgment that many of us made was to focus only 0:13:26.440 --> 0:13:29.439 on these things and think that they were transitory and 0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:34.240 uh um and would pass fairly quickly. But they will pass. 0:13:34.320 --> 0:13:36.400 And so what the FED needs to do is to 0:13:36.480 --> 0:13:40.240 get some kind of underlying inflation rate back to around 0:13:40.280 --> 0:13:44.800 his two percent range, and then the other stuff will eventually. 0:13:44.840 --> 0:13:47.840 I mean, gas prices are already coming down. So think 0:13:47.880 --> 0:13:52.319 about the the things that that really are the appropriate 0:13:52.320 --> 0:13:56.480 targets of monetary policy on a global perspective, Paul, I mean, 0:13:56.520 --> 0:13:57.640 you know a lot of folks have said to the 0:13:57.679 --> 0:14:00.160 US federal reserves behind the curve, but I look across 0:14:00.160 --> 0:14:02.480 the pond and I see the Bank of England. Okay, 0:14:02.520 --> 0:14:04.920 twenty five basis points. We heard from Christine Lookard at 0:14:04.960 --> 0:14:09.840 the ECB that they're thinking about raising interest rates next meeting. 0:14:10.240 --> 0:14:13.160 How do you think about the the European response and 0:14:13.200 --> 0:14:15.800 meeting from the Bank of Japan as well, relative of 0:14:15.800 --> 0:14:18.200 where the were The FED is, well, what's the funny 0:14:18.200 --> 0:14:23.080 thing about terrey policy? Is it? Um? It's it Terrey 0:14:23.160 --> 0:14:26.240 policy starts having an effect before it actually happens, right 0:14:26.360 --> 0:14:29.200 the uh So, we look at the actual amount by 0:14:29.200 --> 0:14:31.400 which the FED has raised rates, and it isn't that 0:14:31.520 --> 0:14:34.000 much yet. But if you look at the rates don't 0:14:34.000 --> 0:14:37.600 matter for the economy, mortgage rates, corporate bond grades, they're 0:14:37.680 --> 0:14:41.800 way way up. So the anticipation of future FED rate 0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:44.640 hikes has already done a lot and the peculiar thing 0:14:44.720 --> 0:14:48.600 is that although the ECB hasn't raised rates as much 0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:53.320 as the FED um the those indicators of what people 0:14:53.760 --> 0:14:57.040 are expecting are every bit as big, if anything bigger, 0:14:57.480 --> 0:15:00.360 in Europe than they are right now. De fact, the 0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:03.400 e c B is is pursuing a tighter monetary policy 0:15:03.400 --> 0:15:05.880 than the FED is, which seems to me to be crazy. 0:15:06.040 --> 0:15:09.240 I mean, the the underlying inflation rate in Europe is 0:15:09.240 --> 0:15:12.440 probably substantially lower than it is here. They didn't have 0:15:12.520 --> 0:15:16.720 an American rescue plan. They don't have the rapid wage 0:15:16.720 --> 0:15:20.080 increases that we've been seeing. So I'm my concern is 0:15:20.120 --> 0:15:22.040 not that the e CP is behind the curve. My 0:15:22.400 --> 0:15:24.920 concern is actually that the u CP is way ahead 0:15:24.920 --> 0:15:26.840 of the curve, and that that they're going to do 0:15:26.920 --> 0:15:29.760 what historically the e CP has tended to do, which 0:15:29.800 --> 0:15:32.320 is to over contract. Interesting, all right, so you mentioned 0:15:32.360 --> 0:15:33.880 kind of wages. That's kinda where I wanted to go. 0:15:33.960 --> 0:15:37.600 The The labor market has been just spectacular. We've got, 0:15:37.600 --> 0:15:39.120 you know, more job openings and we know what to 0:15:39.160 --> 0:15:41.360 do with here. Are you concerned? Do you think we 0:15:41.400 --> 0:15:46.440 will in fact see meaningful wage inflation because the five percent? Uh, 0:15:46.520 --> 0:15:48.320 you know, we we see it's just not keeping up 0:15:48.320 --> 0:15:53.000 with that headline number. Yeah. Well, the the numbers, i mean, 0:15:53.200 --> 0:15:56.840 wage rates now are are rising depends on We're having 0:15:56.840 --> 0:15:58.960 a lot of problems with adjusting because we have a 0:15:59.040 --> 0:16:02.600 changing composition, the pandemic and all of that has really 0:16:02.600 --> 0:16:05.160 screwed up with our ability to interpret the data. But 0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:07.120 I would have said that we seem to be having 0:16:07.160 --> 0:16:11.000 wage growth in the fine ish percent range, which given 0:16:11.040 --> 0:16:15.400 productivity growth, is underlying inflation, and the probably full or 0:16:15.440 --> 0:16:18.320 a bit less range, which is consistent with the other 0:16:18.360 --> 0:16:22.600 indicators we have. So basically and wage growth, if anything, 0:16:22.640 --> 0:16:25.520 seems to be slowing, even though we haven't yet had 0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:29.080 a uh significant rise. And unemployment, it looks as if 0:16:29.160 --> 0:16:32.960 the wage numbers are are coming down a bit. So 0:16:33.320 --> 0:16:39.280 wages are not They're they're not They're not an additional problem. 0:16:39.440 --> 0:16:42.080 They're basically telling the same story as everything else is. 0:16:42.440 --> 0:16:45.080 I'll have some anecdotal evidence of inflation. Did you get 0:16:45.080 --> 0:16:47.560 a raise? The best hogies in the world are hog 0:16:47.680 --> 0:16:51.560 Haven from Princeton, New Jersey, and they actually did raise 0:16:52.040 --> 0:16:53.840 the prices on the hogies there. I was down there 0:16:53.840 --> 0:16:56.760 a couple of weeks ago, and they haven't raised I 0:16:56.760 --> 0:16:58.880 mean I don't think so. So they're making up for 0:16:58.880 --> 0:17:01.280 some lost time. Paul Krug down in Printon, you're seeing 0:17:01.360 --> 0:17:04.679 some inflation down there. Oh yeah, well, I mean it 0:17:04.760 --> 0:17:08.600 looked lots of things. I mean it's uh um, I'm 0:17:08.720 --> 0:17:10.639 surprised actually give them the way that a lot of 0:17:10.720 --> 0:17:13.240 companies that behave, they didn't just make the hogies smaller, 0:17:13.640 --> 0:17:15.520 which would both be a way to conceal the price 0:17:15.600 --> 0:17:18.600 increase and probably be good for your health. Inflation, it's 0:17:18.600 --> 0:17:20.480 a real thing. I've actually noticed it happening with ice 0:17:20.480 --> 0:17:24.639 cream containers I'm buying are smaller. Uh. Paul, I'm wondering 0:17:24.680 --> 0:17:26.919 about the peak federal funds rate. If you would give 0:17:26.920 --> 0:17:30.320 a prediction as to where you think it will end up? Yeah, 0:17:30.480 --> 0:17:33.600 I mean that this is that's that's that's a that's 0:17:33.600 --> 0:17:37.480 a mystical art. And um, even the people who do 0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:40.040 it well do it badly. Uh So you know, I'd 0:17:40.040 --> 0:17:42.360 say three d paces points. What do I know? It's 0:17:43.320 --> 0:17:46.159 and the truth there's nobody knows. J Powell doesn't know. 0:17:46.320 --> 0:17:49.919 We're we really are the fittest feeling its way forward 0:17:50.000 --> 0:17:53.160 here as it should be. I mean, the at any time, 0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:56.119 any attempt to lock in a rigid path given the 0:17:56.200 --> 0:17:59.919 uncertainties about not just about the effects of policy, but 0:18:00.000 --> 0:18:01.840 even about where we are. I mean, the US economy 0:18:01.880 --> 0:18:06.560 is clearly overheated. How much overheated? I don't know. So No, 0:18:06.680 --> 0:18:09.240 I mean this is yeah, I uh, I mean I 0:18:09.240 --> 0:18:11.960 I don't have any reason to think that the No. 0:18:12.080 --> 0:18:17.400 I my guess is that the markets are probably overstating 0:18:17.800 --> 0:18:20.439 how much the FED is going to raise rates. That 0:18:20.680 --> 0:18:24.760 it's probably um, we're probably going to be seeing just 0:18:24.840 --> 0:18:28.520 as inflation went up faster than people thought it would 0:18:29.080 --> 0:18:32.639 as the economy overheated, inflation probably coming down faster than 0:18:32.680 --> 0:18:35.119 people thought it would as the economy cools off. But 0:18:35.480 --> 0:18:37.320 I can't give you a number on that. Okay, Well, 0:18:37.600 --> 0:18:39.560 last question, just in the last thirty seconds that we 0:18:39.600 --> 0:18:43.000 have with you, what's the biggest economic risk that lies 0:18:43.040 --> 0:18:46.360 ahead for the U s economy? Oh? I mean right now? 0:18:46.480 --> 0:18:49.320 I mean that's short term. Long term, there's always horrible 0:18:49.320 --> 0:18:51.040 things like climate change and more and all that, but 0:18:51.080 --> 0:18:53.680 short term it is I think the biggest risk is 0:18:53.720 --> 0:18:57.240 that the FED will overdo it, that it will slam 0:18:57.240 --> 0:18:59.840 on the brakes too hard. All right, There you have 0:19:00.040 --> 0:19:03.640 Paul Krugman, Noble Laureate economist New York Times columnist. He's 0:19:03.680 --> 0:19:06.400 Distinguished Professor of economics at the City University of New 0:19:06.480 --> 0:19:09.160 York Graduate Center. He's the author or editor of more 0:19:09.200 --> 0:19:11.480 than two dozen books. Joining us via Zoom from Princeton, 0:19:11.520 --> 0:19:15.200 New Jersey, Paul Krugman. Really appreciate your time this afternoon. 0:19:15.200 --> 0:19:17.880 Thanks so much for joining us on Bloomberg Business Week. 0:19:19.400 --> 0:19:23.000 You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Messer and 0:19:23.119 --> 0:19:28.399 Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Our coverage 0:19:28.560 --> 0:19:32.840 of the Supreme courts overturning of Roevie Wade continues this afternoon. 0:19:32.920 --> 0:19:35.679 We're very pleased right now to be joined by Sonya Sarrio, 0:19:35.880 --> 0:19:38.959 the president of the National Organization for Women in New 0:19:39.040 --> 0:19:42.000 York City. The National Organization for Women is the largest 0:19:42.080 --> 0:19:46.240 organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States. Sonia 0:19:46.320 --> 0:19:51.040 joining us this afternoon from the city, Sonja, Good afternoon. UM. 0:19:51.080 --> 0:19:52.760 I want to just you know this. I think this 0:19:52.880 --> 0:19:55.159 decision for a lot of people was anticipated because of 0:19:55.200 --> 0:19:58.440 the leak from May, but I'm wondering your reaction as 0:19:58.440 --> 0:20:00.960 soon as you saw just after ten clock Wall Street time, 0:20:01.280 --> 0:20:05.840 the Supreme Court's ruling. You know, I've been checking my 0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:09.480 phone over the last days, with each passing day being 0:20:09.480 --> 0:20:13.640 a little bit more nervous knowing that the decision was 0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:17.919 was imminent. Uh, And I have to say, it's still 0:20:18.200 --> 0:20:22.400 was shocking to see, and my reaction, um was certainly 0:20:22.920 --> 0:20:26.239 one that was shared by many many people. I mean, 0:20:26.359 --> 0:20:30.280 my phone, UM has just been blowing up all day 0:20:30.440 --> 0:20:38.320 with people's just shock and and fear and disappointment over 0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:40.520 the turn of events here in this country for women, 0:20:40.920 --> 0:20:44.240 you know, a right that we have had for more 0:20:44.240 --> 0:20:48.480 than fifty years to fundamentally be able to make decisions 0:20:48.560 --> 0:20:54.320 about our lives, about our bodies. UM. And it's um, 0:20:54.359 --> 0:20:56.399 it's it's moving forward. It is going to be a 0:20:56.520 --> 0:21:00.400 very very difficult situation for a lot of people, purely 0:21:01.280 --> 0:21:04.960 imminently as this change goes, it starts to take place. 0:21:05.880 --> 0:21:08.000 So that's kind of where I wanted to go, Sonya. 0:21:08.000 --> 0:21:13.520 How do you anticipate, uh, this practically unrolling over the 0:21:13.640 --> 0:21:16.000 upcoming days, weeks, and months. I know you and your 0:21:16.040 --> 0:21:18.640 organization and others have been you know, kind of thinking 0:21:18.640 --> 0:21:20.600 about this and probably planning for it to some degree. 0:21:20.600 --> 0:21:23.320 How do you think this is gonna play out? Well? 0:21:23.400 --> 0:21:26.439 You know, we have we have Texas in Oklahoma to 0:21:26.680 --> 0:21:29.720 look at for what has happened over the last eight 0:21:29.960 --> 0:21:33.800 weeks or so there. Um. You know, some of the 0:21:33.840 --> 0:21:38.520 stories that we are hearing are are just um devastating. 0:21:38.960 --> 0:21:43.480 You know, we have the the states that remain legal 0:21:43.720 --> 0:21:47.240 that are in the vicinity of those states where there 0:21:47.280 --> 0:21:51.600 may have only been one clinic to begin with are 0:21:51.720 --> 0:21:55.480 up to five and six weeks with waiting periods. So 0:21:55.520 --> 0:21:59.000 you can imagine for those women who are pregnant now 0:21:59.440 --> 0:22:03.360 and our look for care, it's uh, it's it's a panic, 0:22:04.359 --> 0:22:08.200 a panicked scramble to figure out what to do. And 0:22:09.320 --> 0:22:12.600 you know, there's one woman story that resonates so much 0:22:12.960 --> 0:22:14.920 with me to think about what so many women and 0:22:15.000 --> 0:22:18.040 families are going through. This was a Texas woman who 0:22:18.359 --> 0:22:22.760 um had to drive to Virginia to get to a 0:22:22.800 --> 0:22:26.840 clinic because that was the soon as she could get 0:22:26.880 --> 0:22:29.760 an appointment, which she needed to get one soon she 0:22:29.840 --> 0:22:31.800 had to do. So what this meant for her family 0:22:32.359 --> 0:22:35.280 was her and her husband packed up their two little kids, 0:22:36.000 --> 0:22:40.480 drove to Virginia, had the appointment, and they had to 0:22:40.480 --> 0:22:44.280 get back in the car and drive back. Because this family, 0:22:44.560 --> 0:22:47.600 these parents had to get to their job in the morning. 0:22:48.280 --> 0:22:51.560 That's the burden that the U. S. Government is putting 0:22:51.560 --> 0:22:54.040 on women and their families in our country now. And 0:22:54.080 --> 0:22:56.480