Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferroll and Lisa A. Brawnwitz Jaily. We bring
Speaker 1: you insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, and of course on the Bloomberg terminal. There
Speaker 1: are seventeen miles of corridor in the Pentagon, and the
Speaker 1: distance between the second and the fourth floor and the
Speaker 1: acclaimed e ring where the fancy people said it's maybe
Speaker 1: thirty ft. James Travitis on September eleventh, two thousand one,
Speaker 1: was on the fourth floor. Is a plane hit the
Speaker 1: second floor? He was directly involved in that rescue effort,
Speaker 1: and of course went on to a longer tenure on
Speaker 1: a rock and on Afghanistan than literally any officer in
Speaker 1: the American military forces. He joins us now off of
Speaker 1: an extraordinary essay in Time magazine. Um At Musterrvidas, I
Speaker 1: just congratulate you on the clearest statement from all the
Speaker 1: experts weighing in on this debacle. Let's start with the
Speaker 1: simple idea. When you constructed that essay, what was the
Speaker 1: greatest mystery about where we are now in Afghanistan. I
Speaker 1: think the mystery for all of us has been the
Speaker 1: sudden complete collapse of the Afghan military. And to me,
Speaker 1: you can pull a lot of different threads together. But
Speaker 1: I spent a good deal of my four years as
Speaker 1: Supreme a life commander of NATO, that's of course Afghanistan
Speaker 1: NATO mission training the Afghan security forces. I would have
Speaker 1: bet they could have held on for a long time
Speaker 1: if we had continued to supply them and resource them.
Speaker 1: So this sudden collapse with a shock to me, must
Speaker 1: we have to get x thousands of people out. You
Speaker 1: are expert at deploying helicopters, planes, whatever to do it.
Speaker 1: I guess we're not going to deploy boats and ships
Speaker 1: to get people out. How do we get them out?
Speaker 1: Admiral Yeah, three miles to the sea, that's not a
Speaker 1: good option. Landlocked country. Um, we have the technology to
Speaker 1: get them out. The challenge is going to get them in.
Speaker 1: By that, I mean getting them into the airport. We've
Speaker 1: got to find a mechanism to bring in, first and
Speaker 1: foremost the American citizens, but also the interpreters. The allies
Speaker 1: who worked with us are are native partners. Um, there
Speaker 1: are tens of thousands of people who need to get out.
Speaker 1: The Taliban are around that airport. I think the only
Speaker 1: path forward to get the people in is going to
Speaker 1: be through the Taliban. No one likes that, but we're
Speaker 1: going to have to have a very direct dialogue with them,
Speaker 1: offering them some carrots and some sticks to open up
Speaker 1: the doors and let the people in who want to leave.
Speaker 1: A weal what do you make of this Taliban two
Speaker 1: point oh? As some folks who are calling it they've
Speaker 1: seen too on their initial press conference say everything that
Speaker 1: a Westerner would want to hear. What did you make
Speaker 1: of that Taliban two point oh? And I've been using
Speaker 1: that phrase for quite a while. Um is taliban one
Speaker 1: point oh with really good media training and and and
Speaker 1: I for one do not believe they are going to
Speaker 1: change their stripes. They're not going to suddenly listen to
Speaker 1: their better rangels. They are not going to be kind
Speaker 1: of a gentler. And even in the last couple of days,
Speaker 1: we've seen shootings, beatings, their reports from out in the provinces,
Speaker 1: out from under the side of Western media of girls
Speaker 1: being taken away from their homes. I don't look for
Speaker 1: big improvements. Unfortunately, all right, Adam, given where we are,
Speaker 1: and it's it's easy to obviously keep focusing on the
Speaker 1: video that we see on our news shows over the
Speaker 1: last several days, but you've got the perspective of the
Speaker 1: longer term as you look back over the last twenty years. Here,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts as you see these events of
Speaker 1: unfolding on the screen. I think there's three vectors of
Speaker 1: failures here. Uh One is the Afghan government and in
Speaker 1: that sense, the people of Afghanistan. They did not buy into,
Speaker 1: by and large, the vision that we had for the country.
Speaker 1: I think a second vector is ourselves, our belief, our
Speaker 1: hubris in believing that we could create a kind of
Speaker 1: highly democratic, very Western oriented structure, train a national army.
Speaker 1: Um we believe too much in our own mission. And
Speaker 1: then thirdly, you've got to give credit to the Taliband here.
Speaker 1: That's the third vector. They've been very successful and have
Speaker 1: found ways to maneuver around us. And well, I've got
Speaker 1: about forty two more questions, paulse we need tells me
Speaker 1: with fifty more questions, But here's the single final question
Speaker 1: on this morning, and it's just simply, isn't it to
Speaker 1: the benefit of the Taliban. They're pushed in their tribe.
Speaker 1: They've got their own rules set. Don't they want all
Speaker 1: those elites to leave cobble. Isn't it your best interest
Speaker 1: to get the elites out? It is, and frankly, not
Speaker 1: just the elites they want to get In my view,
Speaker 1: they ought to want to get all of these people out.
Speaker 1: The question is what's their appetite for vengeance as opposed
Speaker 1: to their rational calculus. Let's hope they land on the
Speaker 1: ladder almost tribus. Thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: We've barely had time to touch on my Book of
Speaker 1: the Summer two thousand thirty four, a novel of the
Speaker 1: next World War. It is a different novel than what
Speaker 1: we've been talking about, but I can't say enough about it.
Speaker 1: It is. It is just a phenomenal read. I'd also
Speaker 1: mentioned Thomas Barfield's one volume in Afghanistan. Paul just superb,
Speaker 1: just superb on this stew We go macro. We do
Speaker 1: that with George gun Comvas with m u f G Securities,
Speaker 1: America's head of US macro strategy. George, I want you
Speaker 1: to fold the g d P guestimates into the dynamics
Speaker 1: of the market. You are acclaimed it yield dynamics. How
Speaker 1: do you fold a movable feast of g d P
Speaker 1: guesses into that? You don't, tom, I mean, and that's
Speaker 1: really the bottom line. We've been really divorced from these
Speaker 1: fundamentals for you know, going on five ten years. And
Speaker 1: this is something that you know, I think most rate
Speaker 1: forecasters have been kind of struggling with is trying to
Speaker 1: go back to what, you know, what does growth and
Speaker 1: inflation really mean for what should be captured within an
Speaker 1: interest rate forecast? And I think that's that's you know,
Speaker 1: that's the way the way things go. I mean, the
Speaker 1: bomb market trades more and more on price and on momentum.
Speaker 1: It trains almost like a commodity in many, many regards,
Speaker 1: where yield becomes like a second thought until yields get
Speaker 1: too low and then people start saying, wait, why am
Speaker 1: I buying it? There's a lot of carry. George Lason
Speaker 1: brought up a quote yesterday from Bank America that I
Speaker 1: think it's really important. I was talking about it as well.
Speaker 1: Bank America suggested we were at the threshold of a
Speaker 1: major bifurcation of scenarios. They could say, you know, it's
Speaker 1: go to north of two percent by the end of
Speaker 1: the year, south of one percent by the end of
Speaker 1: the year. Do you think things are that funny balanced
Speaker 1: right now. I mean, maybe not that finally balanced, but
Speaker 1: I do think that there is a break potentially coming
Speaker 1: up soon and that and that is definitely true. And
Speaker 1: I think you kind of in your intro kind of
Speaker 1: alluded to these things that on the one hand, the
Speaker 1: FETE is not gonna get boxed in. I mean, we
Speaker 1: saw from the RB and Z you know, if you know,
Speaker 1: the delta virus were to get worse, or if we
Speaker 1: get any sort of kind of slow downs beyond what
Speaker 1: we're being projected, or or the concerns of like this
Speaker 1: kind of peak growth gets you know, further in trenched,
Speaker 1: and that factors into a slower end of the year,
Speaker 1: and it's the early part of Q one. The fact
Speaker 1: can just kind of always push back. That's that's that's
Speaker 1: what they'll always do. They're never gonna pull forward tightening,
Speaker 1: They're always gonna push it back. And of course these
Speaker 1: global factors matter too. And so even if we were
Speaker 1: to handle the delta virus better in the US, if
Speaker 1: the rest of the world either has a more lockdowns.
Speaker 1: That's that's an issue. Plus this China growth dynamic, if
Speaker 1: if that starts a really way on commodities and overall
Speaker 1: just kind of economic financial conditions, the Fed's going to
Speaker 1: take that into account as well. When you say the
Speaker 1: FED won't get boxed in in other words, they don't
Speaker 1: want to necessarily commit to tapering. There is an issue
Speaker 1: of harmful effects of their carrying on with their programs
Speaker 1: the way they are for a longer period of time,
Speaker 1: especially as we do see inflationary pressures. Yes, they're idiosyncratic
Speaker 1: with respect to supply chain issues, but also on the margin,
Speaker 1: if we do get a rebound like Goldban, Sachs thinks
Speaker 1: it could be that much bigger if the FED keeps
Speaker 1: pumping money into the financial system. How much are you
Speaker 1: concerned that the FED is drugging off some of these
Speaker 1: dill interious effects of their continuing of monetary stimulus at
Speaker 1: this point, Oh, I'm concerned. I mean, as we all know,
Speaker 1: it's all not what we want the FED to do,
Speaker 1: or we think to fetch should do. It's what they
Speaker 1: will do, right, so we're always trying to forecast that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do think that they should be in
Speaker 1: the process of tapering and maybe they've overstayed there their
Speaker 1: Q we welcome for from quarters now potentially and they maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, we should have been starting sooner. But you
Speaker 1: know that's that's my my opinion, not necessarily what they're
Speaker 1: gonna do. Well, well, let's go with that. Then what's
Speaker 1: the negative consequence of that that you're willing to bet
Speaker 1: on or that you're gaming out in terms of your
Speaker 1: market call. Yeah, so right now, like the concern is
Speaker 1: and we're seeing it manifests itself in the r RP
Speaker 1: in the reverse repot program and how there's too much liquidity.
Speaker 1: Even in the minutes yesterday, Uh, you know, there was
Speaker 1: referenced that potentially as we headed to a debt ceiling
Speaker 1: with all this liquidity, with the Fed not tapering yet,
Speaker 1: potentially uh you know, most likely, I don't think they're
Speaker 1: going to do it in September unless things really perfectly
Speaker 1: line up in terms of tapering announcement any even that
Speaker 1: they do that, they're not gonna start in September. So
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a lot of liquidity still flows in
Speaker 1: the system into this very acute period of excess liquidity,
Speaker 1: and so that you know, causes an intertal potentially for
Speaker 1: the money market. So there's definitely a science that you know,
Speaker 1: they need to be tapering and they need to get
Speaker 1: out of this que business. You've spent a long time
Speaker 1: with Japanese banks, George. The reason I bring that up
Speaker 1: is because you've got a lot of experience looking at
Speaker 1: the Japanese bond market. I want to understand from your perspective,
Speaker 1: because some people raise this question just because I'm asking
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean I believe it's going to happen. I
Speaker 1: think it's a question we need to be asking. Do
Speaker 1: you think we could replicate what we've seen type place
Speaker 1: in Japan over the last twenty years, which ultimately Europe
Speaker 1: took over in the last ten Do you think that
Speaker 1: could happen in America? So Europe is still struggling with
Speaker 1: believing that there's a Japanification going on within their bond market.
Speaker 1: But when you have negative rates and you have just
Speaker 1: low activity overall in Europe, I think the Europe looks
Speaker 1: a lot more like Japan than the US will for
Speaker 1: the most part. But I think that you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: that we talk about always like these breaks and markets
Speaker 1: for the next quarter, but the real breaks is trying
Speaker 1: to understand the next three or five years, if the
Speaker 1: U S can really get it back into a growth
Speaker 1: trend that would prevent us from falling into like this
Speaker 1: Japan scenario. I would say, I would say, we're not there.
Speaker 1: It's not clear yet. I agree m u f G
Speaker 1: Securities Matt Cross, head of US MACROI Strategy. He is optimistic.
Speaker 1: His name is Neil Datta, and he is courageously carved
Speaker 1: an optimistic tone on the classic g DP formula. He
Speaker 1: joins us down on a day of a multiple set
Speaker 1: of glooms. Neil, within the GDP formula, what's gonna come
Speaker 1: to the rescue? Is it the consumer? Is it investment,
Speaker 1: net exports? What comes to the rescue to give us
Speaker 1: a better than good outcome? Well, I think it's inventories. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know when you look at UM, the last I
Speaker 1: s M number, the customer inventories index that looks at UM,
Speaker 1: you know respondents that are saying their current level of
Speaker 1: inventories are too low compared to too high, and it's
Speaker 1: basically at a record. So basically manufacturing UM survey respondents
Speaker 1: are telling you the inventory levels are too low. Basically,
Speaker 1: what that means is they're going to be um, you know,
Speaker 1: working to fill those inventories. Right. They need to get
Speaker 1: inventories into line with final demand. And while inventories, you know,
Speaker 1: over long periods of time kind of net out to zero,
Speaker 1: they do in the short run contribute a lot to
Speaker 1: cyclical swings and growth. And that's gonna put manufacturing production
Speaker 1: into overdrive. So you know, when you look at things
Speaker 1: like Philly fed at nineteen point four, that's still a
Speaker 1: pretty healthy number. Uh. And so you know, manufacturing production
Speaker 1: is going to be a talent for economic activity. And
Speaker 1: as those inventories catch up to final demand, that's gonna
Speaker 1: be a big tale went for overall GDP. I just
Speaker 1: took Philadelphia fed photos off my terminal. You're uh back
Speaker 1: fifteen years and Neil's right, it's nicely above the long
Speaker 1: term moving average. Neil Dudda, what is your g DP
Speaker 1: for two thousand tow you one? We're seeing everybody market
Speaker 1: and market down. Where are you for the economic growth
Speaker 1: of the nation for this calendar year? Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think like six and a half seven percent is
Speaker 1: not beyond the realm of expectations. And I understand that
Speaker 1: people are taking their their forecast down for the third quarter.
Speaker 1: I think that's largely just a mechanical adjustment to what's
Speaker 1: going on with the delta variants. So you have increasing
Speaker 1: COVID spread. People are taking matters into their own hands
Speaker 1: and staying away from restaurants, their travel hotels, these sort
Speaker 1: of high touch services. But you know, I mean the
Speaker 1: people that I talked to have a time horizon that
Speaker 1: extends beyond three weeks, and um, you know, when I
Speaker 1: look further out the twelve to eighteen month outlook, can
Speaker 1: anyone really say that that's materially changed. Um. If anything,
Speaker 1: you're seeing more activity getting pushed into that into that
Speaker 1: time frame. Is such an important point, if you allow
Speaker 1: me to jump in, We've been talking about your point
Speaker 1: through this morning. For you and other it's recovery delayed,
Speaker 1: not derailed. That any growth we lose in this quarter,
Speaker 1: we gain regain in the in the next quarter in
Speaker 1: the year after that. Now, what's the difference between a
Speaker 1: recovery that's delayed in the recovery that's derailed. What distinguishes
Speaker 1: the two things. Well, I'm just saying there's not as
Speaker 1: much structural, um, you know, changes in consumer behavior than
Speaker 1: people are expecting right now. So just extrapolating what's going on, UM,
Speaker 1: and you know in August isn't necessarily going to tell
Speaker 1: you much about what's going to happen next August. It
Speaker 1: may well be John that we're trading a bit more
Speaker 1: COVID risk now for a lot less COVID risk later. UM. Certainly,
Speaker 1: if you look at UM, you know, some of the
Speaker 1: data on coronavirus, it looks like cases will probably start
Speaker 1: to peak sometime in the next week and case growth
Speaker 1: will begin to moderate. To the extent that COVID is
Speaker 1: an issue, I think it's more of an issue in
Speaker 1: the Asia Pacific economies, right Australia, New Zealand, UM, certainly Vietnam,
Speaker 1: you know you're seeing and so maybe that's going to
Speaker 1: exacerbate some supply chain issues. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, I don't think it's going to matter much
Speaker 1: for the U S housing situation. Well, but you know,
Speaker 1: there does seem to be a one to punch here.
Speaker 1: On one hand, I mean, I'm just throwing this out there.
Speaker 1: Aren't you tired of being wrong? For the last skeptical
Speaker 1: I'm not making a market call, honestly, it's honestly trying
Speaker 1: to come up to look around corners. Wow, you come
Speaker 1: out with gloves on. Um, bear with me while I
Speaker 1: try to ask my question. But like just this one
Speaker 1: two punch of supply chain disruptions that are causing higher
Speaker 1: input costs in addition to a FED that's being that
Speaker 1: much more patient because of some of the headwinds that
Speaker 1: the economy is is experiencing. I mean, does this contribute
Speaker 1: to higher inflation on the margins down the line than
Speaker 1: otherwise would happen? Well, I think it's not so much
Speaker 1: about the inflation in my view, it's about what the
Speaker 1: FED is gonna do about it, right, I mean, so,
Speaker 1: I mean I conceive that point. I mean, you have
Speaker 1: had a little bit of you could say, stagflation light
Speaker 1: concerns coming to the market. Growth has weakened. I mean
Speaker 1: even the FED staff took down their growth outlook and
Speaker 1: revised up their inflation outlook. We saw it in the
Speaker 1: minutes yesterday. Um. But again I think that's probably going
Speaker 1: to be uh temporary and certainly, um, you know you
Speaker 1: have seen things like use car prices come down. I mean,
Speaker 1: if anything, in the July data, the supply chain issues
Speaker 1: are becoming less prevalent, right. I mean, if you look
Speaker 1: at building unit housing units under construction still going up,
Speaker 1: completions going up, so even as starts moderated, right, So
Speaker 1: that tells you that buildings are working through those backlogs
Speaker 1: and similar we had a nice popping manufacturing production driven
Speaker 1: by h autos motor vehicles. Neil, Can I ask you
Speaker 1: a question, does it what does it make you upset
Speaker 1: to hear people try to come up with the potential
Speaker 1: barish counterpoints at a time where there still is a
Speaker 1: lot of pain in the economy. I mean, yes, it
Speaker 1: has been my right. My job, Lisa is to take
Speaker 1: an economics call and help investors turned that into some
Speaker 1: kind of a market call. In other words, make them
Speaker 1: help help them make money. So if I wanted to
Speaker 1: be bearish, I would tell people to pile I mean,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, it's not about what
Speaker 1: GDP is. It's irrelevant. It's using that two and translating
Speaker 1: it into a market call. So if you want to
Speaker 1: go head first and buy utilities hand over first, be
Speaker 1: my guest, but I will I'll be telling people to
Speaker 1: do something else. Uh. And that's ultimately how business economics
Speaker 1: market economics That's why it's important. A GDP call on
Speaker 1: its own is irrelevant. What matters is taking that GDP
Speaker 1: call and translating into some kind of market outlook. So uh,
Speaker 1: you know, if if I'm looking at it and I'm
Speaker 1: telling people are saying you want to be raising cash
Speaker 1: for the last twelve months, it's ridiculous. So um, I
Speaker 1: think the cyclical trade is probably taking a temporary break.
Speaker 1: But this is essentially my view of consolidation within an
Speaker 1: ongoing up trend in the market. You two should have
Speaker 1: to run, could just sit, I could just take a break,
Speaker 1: nail dust, Nanny's gonna catch up. Appreciate your time and
Speaker 1: nice research had of US economic research. This is an
Speaker 1: important conversation because Jennifer news Oh reads the research. Jennifer
Speaker 1: news O The New York Times has a standout article
Speaker 1: on these silly plastic barriers that have invaded our lives
Speaker 1: That includes JOHNS Hopkins University research which say death screens
Speaker 1: could actually give us an increased risk versus intelligent use
Speaker 1: of mass. Can you help us with the plastic that's
Speaker 1: engulfed us. I am hermetically sealed from Lisa and John.
Speaker 1: I haven't hugged Lisa in like eighteen months. I mean,
Speaker 1: help me, Jennifer. I think Lisa nets out rotten out home.
Speaker 1: Can you watch the ductor about a question? I missed
Speaker 1: you guys so much. Jennifer, Please on the plastic screen.
Speaker 1: Somebody reach over and hog Tom. He really needs it.
Speaker 1: Go ahead. I mean, you know, listen. Uh. We don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of evidence for a lot of these things.
Speaker 1: I think intuitively, there are probably some environments in which
Speaker 1: it makes sense. It's, for instance, toll both operators people
Speaker 1: who have a lot of exposure with the public. Putting
Speaker 1: another barrier between those people and the people they're serving,
Speaker 1: I think makes a lot of sense. But when you
Speaker 1: see people sitting at a desk and they have like
Speaker 1: a three foot um, you know, plexiglass between them, it's
Speaker 1: it's not clear what that does, if anything, and it
Speaker 1: sounds like it could potentially cause harm. The bottom line
Speaker 1: is UM probably not going to be as protective as
Speaker 1: a mask. Although you know, we always try to layer
Speaker 1: these interventions, but UM, you know, I think the most
Speaker 1: egregious example of the plastic was that one of the
Speaker 1: vice presidential debate, those tiny little things that UM separated
Speaker 1: m vice presidential candidates not going to do much help
Speaker 1: me with then the need to get vaccinated. What is
Speaker 1: the last forty hour show you within all your reading
Speaker 1: and research about the getting vaccinated, that has not changed.
Speaker 1: If we do anything to put ourselves back to normal,
Speaker 1: to go to back to our lives, it is to
Speaker 1: get vaccinated. There is nothing new in the data that
Speaker 1: suggests otherwise. Heard a lot of news yesterday about the
Speaker 1: potential need for a third dose. I will tell you
Speaker 1: most people, including myself, think that the data aren't quite
Speaker 1: there to suggest that most people need it. There are
Speaker 1: clearly some small groups of people that absolutely need extra help,
Speaker 1: and that's the immune compromise, and they're already able to
Speaker 1: access a third dose. But as far as people broadly, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we're not yet convinced that that's happened. The
Speaker 1: bottom line is the vaccines are still doing exactly what
Speaker 1: they need them to do. They prevent us from getting
Speaker 1: still enough to get in the hospital, which again, if
Speaker 1: this virus can't do it, we'd never hear of it.
Speaker 1: Dr Newts. So then when do we stop caring whether
Speaker 1: we get infected? Because right now I'll tell you, I'll
Speaker 1: be honest, it is a vaccinated individual who has a
Speaker 1: child at home, and I sound like a broken record
Speaker 1: who is not needed. I care as much about getting
Speaker 1: infected as I do about getting very sick, just simply
Speaker 1: because this will affect the people who I care about.
Speaker 1: So when does when does that change? Sure? So I
Speaker 1: think that's exactly a potential off ramp for caring about
Speaker 1: getting infected. UM. I have also unvaccinated kids at home
Speaker 1: because they're too young, and hopefully when vaccines become available
Speaker 1: for them, that'll that will lessen those worries. But getting
Speaker 1: a third dose doesn't necessarily prevent you from getting infected
Speaker 1: in the first place, so that's unfortunately not going to
Speaker 1: use those worries for you. Dr needs. There have been
Speaker 1: reports about new antibody therapies coming out of China that
Speaker 1: have actually been somewhat promising. How much does that potentially
Speaker 1: provide a game changer here where we can actually combat
Speaker 1: this and treat it more like a regular illness. I
Speaker 1: think that's, you know, one of the missing areas that
Speaker 1: we need more progress on it is treatments because you
Speaker 1: know there will be still some breakthrough infections, but also
Speaker 1: we know we have a lot of people who are
Speaker 1: not vaccinated and are gonna need treatment. So that is
Speaker 1: I think an important area of research. We have some
Speaker 1: things now, but they're not very scala. But you still
Speaker 1: have the the monoclonal anivis and hear about you have
Speaker 1: to go to uh A center and basically be hooked
Speaker 1: up to an ivy. And so it's very hard to
Speaker 1: deliver that UM at scale, particularly given the number of
Speaker 1: cases that we have. If we could give somebody a
Speaker 1: pill and treat them potentially even at home, like we
Speaker 1: do for influenza, I think that would have an enormous
Speaker 1: contribution to lessening our worries about this virus. Jennifer, New
Speaker 1: York City restaurants and I'm sure other restaurants that are
Speaker 1: listeners and viewers are familiar with UH. They're in an
Speaker 1: uproar about paper vaccine inspection to get into their restaurant.
Speaker 1: When do we get away from silliness of what the
Speaker 1: eighteen fifties? When do we get away from a paper
Speaker 1: document that's clearly instantly forgible. Yeah, well, I mean I
Speaker 1: think that's a real problem. People can forge it. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: UM the apps are not potentially better than that. I
Speaker 1: think there was a story about one of the apps
Speaker 1: being news in New York where you could just upload
Speaker 1: any photo and get a green check and then it's on. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the bouncer at a club to scrutinize whether
Speaker 1: you've got your two fighter ghost is on time. Um.
Speaker 1: I think there are people who are pushing for a
Speaker 1: more verified vaccine record. Of course, that raises all sorts
Speaker 1: of concerns and potentially concerns among the people who have
Speaker 1: not yet gotten vaccinated, and we absolutely don't want to
Speaker 1: turn those folks off. But I think, um, you know,
Speaker 1: we're seeing right now the challenges of the immunization records
Speaker 1: that we have there um easily forgeable. In my view, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, people who are determined to not comply, we'll
Speaker 1: find a way not to. People are very crafty, and
Speaker 1: so I tend to focus on changing hearts and minds
Speaker 1: and make sure we convince people to get vaccinated. Don't
Speaker 1: thank you. I appreciate you a time of perspective. As always,
Speaker 1: Dontor Jennifer news Sock. I think John's help can sense
Speaker 1: behind security. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: Join us live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day from
Speaker 1: six to nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course, on
Speaker 1: the terminal. I'm Tom Keene, and this is Bloomberg