Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene, along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa A. Brawnowitz Jailey. We bring
Speaker 1: you insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. To find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcast, sun Cloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com and of course on the Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 1: This is a really important conversation. Is typically done at Davos.
Speaker 1: It has maybe done at Jackson Hole. It has done
Speaker 1: at world meetings where she holds holds court with profound
Speaker 1: and original prospectives perspective, I should say on Central Asia,
Speaker 1: Sonny Beschlov is the rock Creek, the chief executive officer. Yes,
Speaker 1: very good on investment, expert on natural gas, but also
Speaker 1: expert on her Iran and all of Central Asia. And
Speaker 1: it is in crisis. It's best laws. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us today. You know, back to the
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties, the Iran Pakistan India gas pipeline. You've lived
Speaker 1: it at the Kaibra pass uh in West Pakistan. The
Speaker 1: romance of the British, the Great Game and all that
Speaker 1: other malarkey. Is China going to come in and take
Speaker 1: over the vacuum of the Iran Pakistan India pipeline is
Speaker 1: the US exits um Uh. You always go straight to
Speaker 1: the to the point of the matter. And it is
Speaker 1: really interesting as you set up studied these natural gas
Speaker 1: pipelines going through all the way in Asia but also
Speaker 1: in Europe. And no question that your politics is always
Speaker 1: more important than the physical aspect of these things. China
Speaker 1: is seeing avoid you know, we saw the Russians losing Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: We saw us pulling out as we speak. And no
Speaker 1: question that the Chinese are seeing big void um and uh.
Speaker 1: And they will take advantage because they will need a
Speaker 1: lot of energy to continue their growth and they know
Speaker 1: that natural is part of that solution to their coal problems.
Speaker 1: Our core memory here is cobalt in Africa. How the
Speaker 1: Chinese came in and worked out long term contracts on
Speaker 1: obscure minerals. How will they work with the Taliban? Will
Speaker 1: it be the same method long term contracts with some
Speaker 1: things on the back end that maybe we'll give them
Speaker 1: an advantage you know. Um again, I'm not an expert
Speaker 1: on on working with the Taliban, but um, I think
Speaker 1: what we're seeing this time around is that the economic
Speaker 1: um thinking on the Taliban side is not something that
Speaker 1: is clear at this the rest of the world. They
Speaker 1: are not a group that worked closely with the World Bank,
Speaker 1: or with multilateral institutions, or with eight organizations, so we
Speaker 1: have no idea how they will really behave when it
Speaker 1: comes to having international agreements, if any, and to sticking
Speaker 1: to it. So those I would not really um think
Speaker 1: about relying on. I think the question is where does
Speaker 1: the pipeline go. It doesn't have to go to Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, as Fanny. As Fanny, we are looking
Speaker 1: at a Jackson Hole that has a very big effect
Speaker 1: potentially at least on the international community, at least the
Speaker 1: international community that does fall within the international banking world.
Speaker 1: There is a question of whether any kind of taper
Speaker 1: announcement would affect the international community, arguably more than even
Speaker 1: domestic markets in the United States. What do you think
Speaker 1: You're so right, Lisa. I think the whole international point
Speaker 1: of Jackson Hall has been a little bit diminished in
Speaker 1: the last few weeks and people have not been talking
Speaker 1: about it. I think a lot of people are disappointed
Speaker 1: not to be there in person and for it to
Speaker 1: be virtual. But um, I mean my own thinking is
Speaker 1: that UM is that tapering is not going to start
Speaker 1: in um UM in this meeting, and I don't think
Speaker 1: that that j PAL is going to UM go there
Speaker 1: at this meeting. Is more likely in November December. But
Speaker 1: no question, the conversations that usually take UH take part
Speaker 1: in Jackson Hall at the margins are going to be
Speaker 1: the ones that will decide in terms of how the
Speaker 1: central bankers are communicating with each other, not just to
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. And those are the ones
Speaker 1: that I would watch for. And again I don't think
Speaker 1: that they will be talking about it too much about
Speaker 1: us papering at this particular meeting this Friday. Okay, so
Speaker 1: let's say you're correct, and if that does follow that timeline,
Speaker 1: what are the grammifications for emerging markets for asset prices
Speaker 1: following a slowdown in these bond purchases UM. So as
Speaker 1: we've seen a number of emerging markets have been already
Speaker 1: starting to increase their own interest rates. We've seen that
Speaker 1: happen over the la as few months, and we've seen
Speaker 1: actually some more tightening in emerging markets again as the
Speaker 1: usual sort of course of things. UM. The emerging markets
Speaker 1: that have a lot of US denominated. They that and
Speaker 1: do not have a lot of exports that our U
Speaker 1: S data base will be the ones to get get
Speaker 1: into difficulty. I think, given the way tapering will happen,
Speaker 1: which is probably incredibly gradually and not sudden, probably the
Speaker 1: impact on emerging markets will be something that is slower.
Speaker 1: The third job of the FED, which is stability of
Speaker 1: the global economy. The U S economy of course, but
Speaker 1: also the global economy, will not be something that j
Speaker 1: POW will be forgetting to consider. We've been having a
Speaker 1: lot of conversations about moral hazard. What is the level
Speaker 1: and the risk right now of moral hazard if we
Speaker 1: don't do something, if we don't taper as quickly as
Speaker 1: we should. I think the big problem if we don't
Speaker 1: start papering, whether it you know it is in October
Speaker 1: or November or December, more likely November December time, is
Speaker 1: the pressure of inflation again, UH are thinking that Rock Creek,
Speaker 1: and my thinking is that the supply chain problems are
Speaker 1: so huge, so overwhelming number one and all the other
Speaker 1: things that are going on in UM in terms of
Speaker 1: COVID related problems in various economies, that they are the one.
Speaker 1: They are the things that are governing price increases much
Speaker 1: more than typical inflationary pressures. So the issue really at
Speaker 1: hand is whether we get we are too late to move.
Speaker 1: But in general inflation is a slow process. If we
Speaker 1: see take off, I think Jay Powell and its colleagues
Speaker 1: at the Federal Reserves have lots of tools to catch
Speaker 1: up quickly if they need to. So not so worried
Speaker 1: about moral hazard. Thank you so much, greatly appreciate it.
Speaker 1: With the Rock Creek this morning, what we're supposed to
Speaker 1: do is dutifully come out right now and talk about
Speaker 1: price up, yield down or price down, yield up, talk
Speaker 1: full faith and credit. I g HW yield bonds with
Speaker 1: Bob Michael. He's been a JP Morgan for four hundred
Speaker 1: years and joins us this morning, thrilled that he could
Speaker 1: join us, Bob. But we're gonna spend some serious time
Speaker 1: here on the great unspoken, and you nail it in
Speaker 1: your research note. Stephanie Kelton at Stony Brook has changed
Speaker 1: the world. She came out with modern monetary theory. We
Speaker 1: are in an MMT experiment of some type as well,
Speaker 1: and the financial media is not talking about this enough
Speaker 1: because everybody sort of wishes the theory would go away,
Speaker 1: which is unfair to something that's had such an impact.
Speaker 1: Are you a believer in MMT more and Tom, It's
Speaker 1: hard not to be a belief. It seems like the
Speaker 1: go to policy response now in a crisis where the
Speaker 1: role of governments is to borrow large amount of debts
Speaker 1: and deploy it through fiscal stimulus and try to shortcut
Speaker 1: two recovery, and the role of central banks is to
Speaker 1: print lots of money and buy that debt and ensure
Speaker 1: that the cost of the recovery is affordable. I think
Speaker 1: it's worked. It's hard to see where any pain has
Speaker 1: been created or where there will be problems down the road.
Speaker 1: I think we all sense that there's got to be something.
Speaker 1: What I'd like to see how the Jackson hold is
Speaker 1: for the central bankers to say this is an emergency
Speaker 1: policy response. This isn't a normal part of our tool kit.
Speaker 1: They need to draw the line somewhere here. And I'm
Speaker 1: not surely said I think this is really important with
Speaker 1: no criticism of people like Claudia sam and Stephanie Kilt
Speaker 1: and I'm not even criticizing their cats and they have
Speaker 1: cats at home. It's very evident on Twitter that they do.
Speaker 1: So nobody has an exit strategy from our pandemic MMT well,
Speaker 1: and no one has a sense of exactly what the
Speaker 1: consequences will be either, Bob, we talk about the potential
Speaker 1: of some digital deal interious to use the same word
Speaker 1: from the day before at ramifications of from the MMT
Speaker 1: types of policies that you talk about, Yet we're not
Speaker 1: seeing them. Yields are not going up. Inflation to the
Speaker 1: extent that it is going up is recognized as passing
Speaker 1: and somewhat decelerating. So when are we going to see
Speaker 1: the negative ramifications from MMT like policies. Well, we're at
Speaker 1: an interesting point right now with Chair Pal and the
Speaker 1: FED in the crosshairs of what's going on in Washington,
Speaker 1: and he's got Jackson Hole in the September f O
Speaker 1: MC meeting to start backing out of this. But right
Speaker 1: now we're well past the crisis, and the recovery is underway,
Speaker 1: and we're recovering a lot of lost jobs, and we're
Speaker 1: going to close the output gap by the end of
Speaker 1: this year. And if m m T continues with half
Speaker 1: a trillion in an infrastructure bill and three and a
Speaker 1: half trillion in various forms of stimulus, and the FED
Speaker 1: continues to print money and buy debt. I think there's
Speaker 1: a moral hazard there where you're looking at the FED
Speaker 1: underwriting a lot of government policies. So I think it's
Speaker 1: a very good time for the FED to assert its independence,
Speaker 1: draw line in the sand, and say that they're bringing
Speaker 1: these things to an end. Now when, though, and what
Speaker 1: commentary do you need to hear to get them to
Speaker 1: do that, is that inflation goes from transitory to worrying.
Speaker 1: I think that's part of it. I think right now
Speaker 1: they can point to substantial further progress hasn't been made
Speaker 1: on a lot of the things that they look at.
Speaker 1: When when they look at where policy rates are, um,
Speaker 1: they don't need to be at zero for a lot longer,
Speaker 1: they don't need the hundred and twenty billion in in
Speaker 1: large scale asset purchases every month. They can move to
Speaker 1: something that's more normal. I step back and I look
Speaker 1: at where things are, and if this had been a
Speaker 1: normal cycle, say going back I don't know, forty years ago,
Speaker 1: maybe even fifteen or so years ago, at this point
Speaker 1: in the cycle, I'd expect the FED funds rate to
Speaker 1: be two around a zero real held, and I'd expect
Speaker 1: the ten year treasury to be around three about a
Speaker 1: one real heeld. So the fact that we're not there
Speaker 1: tells you the amount of distortion that the central banks
Speaker 1: are creating. Bob. But if the FED were to say
Speaker 1: at the Jackson Hole meeting they're planning to start tapering
Speaker 1: their bond purchases September, November, December at some point in
Speaker 1: the near future, I'd indicated it would be faster than expected.
Speaker 1: What would be the market response, Well, I think the
Speaker 1: market response would be a gradual rise in rates. And
Speaker 1: I know there's some debate out there about whether FED
Speaker 1: taper leads to a rise in rates or not. I
Speaker 1: don't get that at all. Let me tell you if
Speaker 1: if bond prices are the very definition of asset price inflation,
Speaker 1: you've got a central bank printing unlimited amounts of its
Speaker 1: own money and going in and buying a specific asset class.
Speaker 1: If that's not how you inflate the price of an
Speaker 1: asset class, how do you you look at the negative
Speaker 1: one percent real yield on ten year treasuries. I think
Speaker 1: the first stop is to get to something that looks
Speaker 1: around a zero percent and and we'll get there, we're
Speaker 1: gonna run out of time. But how do you affect
Speaker 1: a hundred basis point move in the real yield? Do
Speaker 1: you do it off phenomenal or do you do it
Speaker 1: with the help of inflation expectations. I think you do
Speaker 1: it with the combination of both, but mostly with nominal yields,
Speaker 1: mostly with the realization that you don't have the eight
Speaker 1: hundred pound gorilla of the Fed sitting on the bond market.
Speaker 1: And maybe other central banks will start to dial down, uh,
Speaker 1: their large scale Pharaoh Pharaoll right now is writing on
Speaker 1: manuscript brought on meditation. Bob, It's going to be a
Speaker 1: really important book. Uh, you know, I think Barnes and
Speaker 1: Noble is like waiting with boxes and boxes of it.
Speaker 1: You gotta do a book, Bob michael on MMT. That
Speaker 1: would be That would be just wonderful. It would really
Speaker 1: work with JP Morgan Asset Management, they've been on fire
Speaker 1: marksany sifting through all the cross winds. Here Moody's analytics
Speaker 1: chief economist, a well renowned and well respected economists who
Speaker 1: has been often cited for being accurate in a time
Speaker 1: of such great uncertainty. Mark, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being with us. We start to look out to September
Speaker 1: to October to November. Regardless of what the Fed does,
Speaker 1: how can you characterize the men behind this labor market
Speaker 1: right now? Good? Very good recording lots of jobs, created
Speaker 1: almost a million jobs in July. That's on top of
Speaker 1: a million jobs in June. I don't think we can
Speaker 1: sustain that pace. But if you told me the economy
Speaker 1: creates a half million jobs per month on average over
Speaker 1: the next twelve eighteen months, that'll bring unemployment back in
Speaker 1: close to full employment, something kind of in the mid
Speaker 1: three percent range by likely twenty three. That sounds about
Speaker 1: right to me. So it's good, all right, So everyone
Speaker 1: agrees that it's good, and the degree which it is great,
Speaker 1: or the degree to which we've got a tightness in
Speaker 1: a late labor market that perhaps isn't recognize, is up
Speaker 1: for debate. However, there is also a question of the
Speaker 1: enhanced unemployment benefits what the role off will do. Will
Speaker 1: it allow more people are sort of push them back
Speaker 1: into the labor market, or will it simply reduce the
Speaker 1: buying power of consumers that see uh, some of their
Speaker 1: income depleted. This is a great uncertainty. Where do you
Speaker 1: weigh in on that. Well, I around the debate over
Speaker 1: whether the supplemental unemployment insurance that's the three dollar extra
Speaker 1: per week that folks are getting in about half the
Speaker 1: states UH, that was part of the American Rescue Plan. UH.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that had a major impact on
Speaker 1: the willingness of people to go to work. I think
Speaker 1: that's probably on the list of reasons. But it's towards
Speaker 1: the bottom of the list of reasons. And we got
Speaker 1: some data points regarding that late last week we got
Speaker 1: state employment data for July and you could see in July,
Speaker 1: and you know, you had half the states UH eliminate
Speaker 1: that the supplemental insurance benefit. In July, there was no
Speaker 1: effect an employment in those states compared to states that
Speaker 1: kept the unemployment insurance. So so, you know, a lot
Speaker 1: of data points to calm the script still being written.
Speaker 1: We'll see and I expect we'll see some impact, but
Speaker 1: it's really on the margin. And Mark, in the depths
Speaker 1: of oh eight oh nine, you were the reigning optimist.
Speaker 1: You were the one everybody tried it out to say,
Speaker 1: you know what, folks, we're going to recover from this.
Speaker 1: It took some time, but folks, Mark Zandi absolutely nailed
Speaker 1: the economic recovery of twelve and on. You have a
Speaker 1: heated note mark Sandy saying, would everybody calm down by
Speaker 1: the overheating effects of this trillions of dollars of stimulus?
Speaker 1: Why should I be calm about overheating? Well, the first
Speaker 1: thing I'd say is there's a lot still a lot
Speaker 1: of slack in the economy, Tom, I mean, the unemployment
Speaker 1: rate is still five point four percent full employments, something
Speaker 1: in the mid threes, maybe even the low threes. We
Speaker 1: still have millions of people who stepped out of the
Speaker 1: workforce during the pandemic, who aren't even counted as unemployed.
Speaker 1: So you know, we got a long way to go.
Speaker 1: I you know, we're head in the right direction. We're
Speaker 1: creating lots of jobs, and we got pretty deep holed
Speaker 1: dig out of and this support we're talking about now
Speaker 1: that you know something, some flavor of the build Back
Speaker 1: Better agenda the present by uh you know, unveiled earlier
Speaker 1: this year, that doesn't really kick in until four and
Speaker 1: and to do a degree that you know, I don't
Speaker 1: really think that is an inflationary issue nothing. I quickly
Speaker 1: point it out. There's a lot of aspects of the
Speaker 1: plan that address inflation. So, for example, a big part
Speaker 1: of the plan is to increase housing supply, and we
Speaker 1: all know there's a very severe shortage of affordable housing
Speaker 1: and that's driving up rents and rank growth is the
Speaker 1: single most important aspect of in so you know that
Speaker 1: will go a long way to addressing that particular aspect.
Speaker 1: Mark there was a folk crew of years ago called Stubbs,
Speaker 1: Blinder and Zandy. They were outstanding. I loved what they
Speaker 1: did that by coffee houses all through eastern Pennsylvania. David
Speaker 1: Stubbs over in London with JP Morgan is just brilliant
Speaker 1: on the technological overlay in our underestimation of productivity. You've
Speaker 1: studied this with the former vice chairman of the FED.
Speaker 1: How do you take in the technology overlay right now
Speaker 1: and what it will do to wage growth? Do we
Speaker 1: grossly worry about wage growth where we should not? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not. That's a great point. You know, wage growth
Speaker 1: has held up admirable well during the pandemic, and I
Speaker 1: do expect it to continue to accelerate as the labor
Speaker 1: market continues to improve unemployee comes in. But I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not concerned that this is inflationary because productivity growth
Speaker 1: is also accelerated. Now, part of that is you know,
Speaker 1: cyclical related to the pandemic measurement issues, all that kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. But abstracting from all that, looking through the noise,
Speaker 1: it feels like productivity growth underlying productivity growth that's accelerating.
Speaker 1: And there's many reasons for that. One is, I think technology.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot of technologies out there that's
Speaker 1: just taking time for businesses to incorporate, incorporate into their
Speaker 1: business practices. But I think they are and I think
Speaker 1: we are seeing productivity improvement. That if that is the case,
Speaker 1: then that you know, that's a win win, right. That's
Speaker 1: a win for businesses because they can you know, pay
Speaker 1: higher wages and still maintain their earnings. Is obviously a
Speaker 1: win for workers as you know, it's a reason to
Speaker 1: be more feel more confident about our long term fiscal
Speaker 1: situation because it means more tax revenue. You know, there's
Speaker 1: an endless reasons for optimis and if in fact, protectival
Speaker 1: growth is accelerated, I you know, you know, hard to know,
Speaker 1: but it feels like Tom that product productivity growth is improving.
Speaker 1: Mark though, on that note, you mentioned that We may
Speaker 1: not get some of this fiscal stimulus until twenty three,
Speaker 1: but by then, what is the argument that it's too late,
Speaker 1: Maybe the economy won't need it. Well, the UH support
Speaker 1: we're talking about now, the fiscal package, the build back
Speaker 1: better gender, is not about short term growth. It's about
Speaker 1: long term growth. It's about lifting long term growth, lifting
Speaker 1: productivity growth because of better public infrastructure. Everything from roads
Speaker 1: to broadband is about lifting labor force participation in labor
Speaker 1: force growth. That's you know, if I give lower income,
Speaker 1: lower middle income households support for childcare and elder care
Speaker 1: and paid family leave, that's going to make it more
Speaker 1: likely that they can go to work. Right now, they
Speaker 1: can't get a lot of low income households, particularly women
Speaker 1: in low income households, can't go to work because they
Speaker 1: can't pay for childcare. And this is helping free them
Speaker 1: up so they and go to work. So this is
Speaker 1: about long term economic growth, and it's also about making
Speaker 1: sure that the benefits of the increasing long term economic
Speaker 1: growth a crew to lower and middle income households EF
Speaker 1: folks have been left behind in our economy over the
Speaker 1: past three four decades, UH Mark, this has been wonderful.
Speaker 1: Marks Andy, thank you so much, greatly appreciated. With Moody's
Speaker 1: analytics there with a decidedly optimistic cast. When you are
Speaker 1: on the train between Boston and New York, you look
Speaker 1: across the water at the secrets of the General Dynamics Company.
Speaker 1: Arguably Phee Novakovic has resurrected General Dynamics into what it
Speaker 1: used to be and what it is moving forward. This
Speaker 1: is a really important interview with David Rubinstein, of course,
Speaker 1: peer to peer conversations, David, she just basically rescued General Dynamics.
Speaker 1: There's no no beating around the bush. What is the
Speaker 1: Novakovic method. Well, she's very tough, she's very smart. Um,
Speaker 1: she knows the defense industry quite well. She had worked
Speaker 1: with the Pentagon for quite some time and she write
Speaker 1: omb was overseeing the defense BUDG difference sometime when she
Speaker 1: took over in two thousand thirteen. The previous year General
Speaker 1: Dynamics had lost about six or seven hundred million dollars
Speaker 1: and so she turned it around and now the stock
Speaker 1: is up about a d since she's been the CEO.
Speaker 1: So a very good turnaround story. It's a good turnaround story.
Speaker 1: But as you well know, it Carlile. This is so
Speaker 1: much a contract by contract boomer bus business as well.
Speaker 1: Is she mackenzie did into a different kind of company
Speaker 1: or is it the same defense contract or that you
Speaker 1: and I used to stare at across the bay in Grutten. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a little different. And that many defense companies today
Speaker 1: are making a lot of money on I T or
Speaker 1: electronic related things or things relating to cyber and that's
Speaker 1: an important part of what General Dynamics is doing as well.
Speaker 1: But the bread and butter of General Dynamics has long
Speaker 1: been tanks and submarines, and they are very very good
Speaker 1: at that. They also owned golf Stream, and golf Stream
Speaker 1: has been extremely profitable in recent years. Well it is.
Speaker 1: You know, I decided not to go for the gulf
Speaker 1: Stream seven hundred, David. I just thought it was too
Speaker 1: extravagant for what we're doing at surveillance. Francine wanted to
Speaker 1: go there. Tell us about golf Stream. Is it a
Speaker 1: bolt on business or is it early part of her vision? Well,
Speaker 1: when they bought it from uh TED Enforcement many years ago,
Speaker 1: it was seen as uh unclear what this mission was
Speaker 1: because it really wasn't a defense part of of General Dynamics.
Speaker 1: It's not a defense uh industry uh kind of company.
Speaker 1: Kind of company, but in recent years General Dynamics has
Speaker 1: really turned around golf stream to the point where it's
Speaker 1: clearly the in my view of the elite of of
Speaker 1: the business jet business in the United States. And they
Speaker 1: have done quite well in their G six fifties, there
Speaker 1: G seven hundreds and so forth, so it's a very
Speaker 1: very profitable business for them now. Mr Rubinstein. It's incredible
Speaker 1: the timing of this interview as well, just given the
Speaker 1: events in Afghanistan. Any insight that you can glean from
Speaker 1: that interview just after the Taliban took over cobble and well,
Speaker 1: where we think about the future of defense spending, Well,
Speaker 1: there's always a thought in Washington and when presidents of
Speaker 1: the United States are Democrats and the Congress is Democratic,
Speaker 1: probably defense spending will go down. But I think the
Speaker 1: events in Afghanistan will probably make it more likely defense
Speaker 1: spending will go up more than even President Biden are proposed,
Speaker 1: because it's clear there's still a lot of uncertainty out
Speaker 1: there in the world, and I think that what happened
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, without assessing whether there was fault on somebody's
Speaker 1: part or not is clearly going to embolden people to
Speaker 1: think we need to have a much bigger defense budget
Speaker 1: in my view, David, one final question, if we could,
Speaker 1: and it folds in from Taylor's good question. In our
Speaker 1: business and in our government relationship with China, do you
Speaker 1: look in Afghanistan is being a change agent for how
Speaker 1: we speak to China. I think Afghanistan is going to
Speaker 1: make it more difficult for the United States to persuade
Speaker 1: some of our allies to follow our lead. And so
Speaker 1: with resuspect of China, China is probably going to have
Speaker 1: a closer relationship with Afghanistan in the future than then
Speaker 1: we are going to have, clearly, and I think as
Speaker 1: a result, it will change the dynamics somewhat. But our
Speaker 1: own relationship with China really is not dependent on Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: and that's a complicated relationship. And I don't think President Bush,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, President Biden and President she are likely to
Speaker 1: meet anytime soon. The sooner they meet, I think it
Speaker 1: would be good, But I just don't think it's gonna
Speaker 1: happen anytime soon, right, David Rubinstein, thank you so much
Speaker 1: in congratulations, are really inspired peer to peer conversation. Look
Speaker 1: for that. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: Join us live weekdays from seven to ten a m.
Speaker 1: Eastern on Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day
Speaker 1: from six to nine am for insight from the best
Speaker 1: in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. And subscribe to
Speaker 1: the Surveillance podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: and of course, on the terminal. I'm Tom keane In.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg