Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern
Speaker 1: on Apple CarPlay or Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Brian Weezer joins us, Madison and Wall And what's great
Speaker 2: about Brian Weezer It's it's less by hold.
Speaker 3: Cell and much more. What in God's name are they doing?
Speaker 2: What's the single myth of Facebook Meta that our listeners
Speaker 2: and viewers have.
Speaker 3: What's the thing that drives you nuts?
Speaker 4: That the myth that advertisers care about all the problems
Speaker 4: on the platform, and that they will care, they care
Speaker 4: about performance for better and worse, and they care about
Speaker 4: whether or not they get what they think are results,
Speaker 4: and that they think results come from meta. Because Metta's
Speaker 4: got great attribution tools, right, even if a lot of
Speaker 4: its false attribution.
Speaker 3: Will dan Off, Good Morning ninety to nine.
Speaker 2: If I'm up in Boston, Will dan Off, I believe
Speaker 2: it's his number one holding, a contrafund, And I think
Speaker 2: he would suggest the reason it's his number one holding
Speaker 2: is he bought it and he never sold it and
Speaker 2: just kept adding to it as well.
Speaker 3: Is that the emotion you feel about Meta even with
Speaker 3: these valuations.
Speaker 4: That's a really good way to put it. I mean,
Speaker 4: if someone just held on, obviously they did incredibly well.
Speaker 4: There are lots of reasons why you should have expected
Speaker 4: that markers might have abandoned the platform, let alone consumers.
Speaker 3: Nobody screwing it.
Speaker 5: So the I mean, you got a two hundred billion
Speaker 5: dollar revenue company with Meta here streets forecasting twenty percent
Speaker 5: top line revenue growth. This is advertising.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's what's going on here the advertise. Well, to
Speaker 4: be clear, they undoubtedly have a more optimistic go look
Speaker 4: on the ad market, let alone the economy than we do.
Speaker 4: But nonetheless they're sure certainly taking share no matter what's
Speaker 4: happening here. And that's the main thing. They're building these
Speaker 4: performance based tools. They're segmenting the market really well. When
Speaker 4: I say segmenting, I mean Fudy, the markers who are
Speaker 4: willing to pay the most fun fact just came out
Speaker 4: the ten k an hour ago. Their third biggest market, Singapore.
Speaker 4: Really that's new. Why Singapore it's a tiny ad market
Speaker 4: because that's where all the Chinese transhipers are sending all
Speaker 4: their budgets.
Speaker 2: This is like when I talked to YouTube here at Bloomberg,
Speaker 2: whos spearheaded ore YouTube Bedford?
Speaker 3: Paul's same thing for YouTube.
Speaker 5: How was AI impacting? Is it making their ad tools
Speaker 5: even better?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I mean the attributed performance.
Speaker 3: That's the key thing.
Speaker 4: We don't know that actually drive performance, right, but they
Speaker 4: can claim performance because of the modeling tools that they offer,
Speaker 4: because they may just be targeting the customer that was
Speaker 4: already going to buy a product better than someone else does.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining this morning, Brian Weezer. Where a Seamashawn
Speaker 2: Deck and London. We'll get to her in a moment,
Speaker 2: Brian Weezer, is it Madison? And Okay, so you were
Speaker 2: an intern at Stirling and Cooper way way long time ago.
Speaker 3: You nailed this.
Speaker 2: I remember the IPO day, Paul Kodrowski, David Kirkpatrick. What
Speaker 2: a magical IPO release we did. Did you see this coming?
Speaker 2: Did you know in the first year of their public
Speaker 2: trading that they'd be twenty three percent per year?
Speaker 4: Well, we definitely had an optimistic view in the business.
Speaker 4: Not the stock That's why I had a celebrating at
Speaker 4: the IPO, but the business itself was incredibly durable. That's
Speaker 4: why at the trough, if you remember the summer after
Speaker 4: the IPO, we're like, why is everyone selling this thing?
Speaker 4: This is a great business. It was always going to
Speaker 4: be a really good business, and they've got amazing business professionals.
Speaker 3: That's the core thing.
Speaker 5: When you look at the great results of Facebook here,
Speaker 5: how do we extrapolate it or can we extrapolate it
Speaker 5: to Google in the search business?
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, at least you can say that there are
Speaker 4: good tailwinds for growth for advertising. Overall, Google's not going
Speaker 4: to grow this fast. But the reality is that if
Speaker 4: medic can grow at twenty percent, you should expect that
Speaker 4: Google can grow like called ten or something.
Speaker 5: What is the it's much big? Yeah, I know, And
Speaker 5: but my use of Google right now Gemini gives me
Speaker 5: what I want right on tom means I'm not clicking
Speaker 5: as much, Isn't that doesn't that impact Google's revenue if
Speaker 5: I'm not clicking as much?
Speaker 4: There's a lot of threats around that, but we argue
Speaker 4: that the budgets and marketers have are independent of what
Speaker 4: consumers do on that level.
Speaker 2: Just because it's the time of the blue lights, did
Speaker 2: Detroit Lyons, Blue Light, Brian Weezer, just because we're here
Speaker 2: the super Bowl does it? You know you you nailed.
Speaker 2: People will still watch sports like you more than anyone.
Speaker 2: I know you, Nathan so Moffatt nailed in Greenfield.
Speaker 3: You nailed. It's not going to end. Yeah. Super Bowl
Speaker 3: still a big deal.
Speaker 4: Still the single most important event. It is the center
Speaker 4: of the universe for a lot of the advertising industry.
Speaker 5: It's not going way anytime.
Speaker 3: It's the industry like when you were at Sterling Cooper.
Speaker 3: I mean, is he is he?
Speaker 2: You know, Martin Soro and all that and Rob Schwartz
Speaker 2: and you know, is it gone.
Speaker 3: No, it's involving.
Speaker 4: Here's the thing, I argue, this is a contrary view
Speaker 4: for all of AI, and there's a lot of fears
Speaker 4: that A is going to places a lot of people.
Speaker 4: I argue it's going to cause the need for more
Speaker 4: people because that's more complexity, and the complexity is what
Speaker 4: requires people to manage the processes. We already saw this
Speaker 4: in ad tech at Technique, the automation of most core
Speaker 4: media buying. It was meant to automate the whole industry. No,
Speaker 4: it caused the need for more people and you're going
Speaker 4: to see that in the creative size the agency as.
Speaker 5: Well Warner Brothers Discovery. When you talk to big, big
Speaker 5: advertisers out there, did they care who owns Warner Brothers Discovery,
Speaker 5: whether it's Netflix or Paramount.
Speaker 4: So, to be clear, while they care about many things
Speaker 4: about television, like sports in particular, they don't care about
Speaker 4: television broadly. So when you think about like the Warner
Speaker 4: Cable networks and now Netflix is still interesting too many
Speaker 4: because it's an incremental reach thing and it seems to
Speaker 4: be sexy, but at the end of the day to
Speaker 4: is diminishing. That's a good way to think about it
Speaker 4: in the minds of marketers.
Speaker 2: Sparta emails it's Sparta, thanks for getting out of bed
Speaker 2: so early, seven h nine am. To have Sparta email
Speaker 2: in this early is a real shock here. We're like
Speaker 2: devoted to YouTube. Where is you too? In five years?
Speaker 2: Sparda wants to know.
Speaker 4: So they continue to invest in content. They continue to
Speaker 4: look at this, having the oscars in twenty twenty nine, right,
Speaker 4: they're not letting up on investment contents speak of sports, right,
Speaker 4: NFL Sunday Ticket, that's the YouTube property. They will continue
Speaker 4: to invest They continue to share revenue with creators. They're
Speaker 4: spending more than anyone else on earth on content. I
Speaker 4: think they'll be fine.
Speaker 2: Okay, see Michelle wants to know. Is met a single
Speaker 2: best buy? Is it like a bye?
Speaker 3: Is it a hold where I don't have a bicell
Speaker 3: hold record? There we go. I need to hear that.
Speaker 2: Brian Weezer, thank you, thank you so much for getting
Speaker 2: and started Madison room.
Speaker 3: Well this morning, there, stay with us.
Speaker 2: More from Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Catch us Live
Speaker 1: weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern. Listen on
Speaker 1: Apple Karplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
Speaker 1: or watch us Live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: This is a really important conversation thermodynamics this morning.
Speaker 3: Yeah, physics is great.
Speaker 2: That hurts. This is way more importantly one of the
Speaker 2: great words tossed around like a mint, like one of
Speaker 2: the York peppermint patties. You want you're to bar, you
Speaker 2: want to impress somebody. Well, I'm looking at the liquidity.
Speaker 2: Jerom Schneider is expert on liquidity. He's a pimpco legendary
Speaker 2: in the short term paper space and we're Theriolldy could
Speaker 2: be in studio with us today.
Speaker 3: When an idiot like me says liquidity, what do we
Speaker 3: get wrong?
Speaker 6: Well, there's two different aspects of liquid It's the one
Speaker 6: that the person thinks about how much liquid liquidity liquid
Speaker 6: assets they need to survive in day to day life.
Speaker 6: And then there's what the macroeconomist thinks about liquidy is
Speaker 6: what is the arrogate amount of demand for cash and
Speaker 6: liquid type products that saints yates or sustains business activity.
Speaker 6: And that's where the intersection comes within the economic cycles.
Speaker 6: And really, as a functionary you don't really want to
Speaker 6: make it too complex. You want to understand that there's
Speaker 6: risk to both sides. People can over cherish liquidity and
Speaker 6: markets can over cherish liquidity or assume liquidity is there.
Speaker 6: But at the same time you want to keep your
Speaker 6: eyes open that liquity may not be there at all
Speaker 6: times at the same cost. And that's really what the
Speaker 6: lessons of the past twenty five years have been for
Speaker 6: the financial market.
Speaker 3: Can I do an audible quickly?
Speaker 7: Paul?
Speaker 2: That right? Okay?
Speaker 3: Okay, thank you?
Speaker 2: I mean Jerome, your idea of long term is two
Speaker 2: year paper. Jerome Schneider on the liquidity of private equity
Speaker 2: and private credit.
Speaker 3: I don't want to get you in trouble with Dan,
Speaker 3: but tell me about the liquidity of these new alternative investments.
Speaker 6: Well, I think it's you know, one of the things
Speaker 6: to keep in mind as an investor is you're not
Speaker 6: only making an investment in an asset, meaning you want
Speaker 6: the asset to perform some ready to return and horizon
Speaker 6: for that asset's return of principle or capital. That's the
Speaker 6: key metric that many investors overlook. There's some variability in
Speaker 6: that metric. Many investors make that predisposition because they're assuming
Speaker 6: economic returns are going to be x percent over a
Speaker 6: period of time. That period of time is going to
Speaker 6: grow in flocks. And I think we're finding in private
Speaker 6: credit markets is assumptions that were made several years ago
Speaker 6: may not necessarily be as concrete as what people had
Speaker 6: expected to have a infruition. At the same time, what
Speaker 6: we are also finding is that there's differentiation in those
Speaker 6: private markets, in those private credit markets, and really what
Speaker 6: we're finding is that those assets that might have more
Speaker 6: resiliency because they're asset backed in those private credit markets
Speaker 6: or potentially of the transability to transcend. Both public and
Speaker 6: private credit markets have a different, perhaps a more improved
Speaker 6: liquidity profile than the predecessors. And that's really what we're
Speaker 6: focused on is in the broader market, make sure, as
Speaker 6: an investor you understand what that liquidity horizon looks like
Speaker 6: and what you expect likelihood to get that maturity payment
Speaker 6: back or that capital repayment back over that horizon is
Speaker 6: incredibly important obviously to returns.
Speaker 5: What do you say to the people that have got
Speaker 5: that I don't know, seven billion dollars in money markets?
Speaker 5: You go see them at a PIMPO dinner somewhere. You say, hey,
Speaker 5: come on and buy some two year paper. Here, let's
Speaker 5: get into the market here. What do you say there?
Speaker 6: So we've been having that conversation a lot over the
Speaker 6: past few years, obviously since we got off the zero bound,
Speaker 6: and we recognize the fact that it has worked. We
Speaker 6: have seen people come off the sidelines where seeing people
Speaker 6: move to those ultra shortened loderation strategies. You know, about
Speaker 6: fifteen percent growth year of year. Oddly though, money market
Speaker 6: funds are still growing at twelve to thirteen percent, above
Speaker 6: the organic growth rate of you know, three to four
Speaker 6: percent interest. So what I would say is is that
Speaker 6: that message is making and is resonating, but there's still
Speaker 6: a lot of cash sitting on the side, and so
Speaker 6: that doesn't mean it's all risk seeking. There's a lot
Speaker 6: of equidy from central banks, from corporations, that's operational cash,
Speaker 6: but it is sitting on the sidelines. But people are
Speaker 6: recognizing that with the FED coming to the end of
Speaker 6: their rate cutting cycle over the next year, let's call it.
Speaker 6: You find yourself in a situation where rates are fairly balanced,
Speaker 6: there's real rates that are attractive and maybe adding a
Speaker 6: little duration to the portfolio outside my long bond. That,
Speaker 6: to your point, is perhaps perhaps a perhaps an attractive point.
Speaker 2: Jerrem senaider or PIMCO with US. I need to do
Speaker 2: some economics here. As mister Holman was speaking in Minneapolis,
Speaker 2: claims came in. It is stunning, two hundred and nine thousand,
Speaker 2: just above survey the four week moving average of claims.
Speaker 2: Paul is worth noting two hundred and six thousand. That
Speaker 2: is just absolutely was really addressed by the chairman yesterday.
Speaker 2: Some other nother non farm productivity came in on survey
Speaker 2: at a buoyant four point nine percent, and Paul, you
Speaker 2: and I mentioned this yesterday the thirty year bond. Jerome
Speaker 2: doesn't even know the function on the Bloomberg the thirty
Speaker 2: year bond four point eighty eight percent creeping grinding, I say,
Speaker 2: up to five percent.
Speaker 3: Paul Sweeney, what did you.
Speaker 5: Take away from our fit chairman yesterday in his comment?
Speaker 6: Yeah, First of all, GT thirty is the function, so
Speaker 6: I know. There you go there, Bill Groves Cone. So,
Speaker 6: but I would say that a few things. One, we're
Speaker 6: obviously data dependent for some period of time here, and
Speaker 6: I think one of the Fikey facets here is that
Speaker 6: the tension between jobs and inflation is probably going to
Speaker 6: be a key theme that we have to see evolving
Speaker 6: as we sort of dissect inflation or economic data over
Speaker 6: the next few few months. At PIMCO. We believe that,
Speaker 6: you know, we obviously have one to two rate cuts
Speaker 6: later on this year, obviously influenced by the incoming FED
Speaker 6: share But the committee based approach really maintains the fact
Speaker 6: that we're going to have to look at it from
Speaker 6: an economic point of view, recognizing the fact that yes,
Speaker 6: there's growth that's pretty pretty outstanding compared to where we
Speaker 6: thought it'd be. A year ago being resilient, and the
Speaker 6: and the FED is going to have to sort of
Speaker 6: take that into account as we get into the later
Speaker 6: months of this year. So from that perspective, we might
Speaker 6: actually find ourselves in attention that has high growth inflation
Speaker 6: that obviously is moving higher over the coming months, but
Speaker 6: then coming back down to two and a half percent.
Speaker 6: But the need for significant rate cuts beyond the one
Speaker 6: maybe two cuts later on this year is not really noteworthy.
Speaker 6: And I think you know, we are, you know, at
Speaker 6: the usual rate probably right now. The market's probably going
Speaker 6: to bifurcate that and cut another expect another cut or so,
Speaker 6: but is it meaningful to the broader market? Probably not.
Speaker 6: And I think a stronger economy and productivity combined with
Speaker 6: profitability of many corporations is going to be a dominating
Speaker 6: theme for later on this year.
Speaker 5: Do you is that kind of your call there that
Speaker 5: you think this economy a is strong and perhaps can
Speaker 5: even get stronger throughout the year.
Speaker 6: There's inclinations. One of the key facets to obviously keep
Speaker 6: in mind is the fiscal element, the stimulus coming from
Speaker 6: the fiscal side, the consumerism. Yes, we call it the
Speaker 6: K shaped economy at PIMCO, and that lower end of
Speaker 6: the economy is under some stress and to rest, but
Speaker 6: the average remains really really impressive right now. So you
Speaker 6: could easily have a growth rate that's about two and
Speaker 6: a half percent. That sort of creates animal spirits from
Speaker 6: the positive side. And yes, you might have that as
Speaker 6: a lingering effect that is in the back of the
Speaker 6: Fed Committee's mind as we get into the later half
Speaker 6: of this year as reasons maybe to maybe hesitate about
Speaker 6: that great cut later this year.
Speaker 3: Cherald, thank you so much.
Speaker 2: She really waited around quite a long time to be
Speaker 2: with us the Home and Press conference on Really Cherim,
Speaker 2: thank you for your commitment to Bloomberg Surveillance.
Speaker 3: Mister Schneider is with Pim Koll. Stay with us.
Speaker 2: More from Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Catch us live
Speaker 1: weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern Listen on
Speaker 1: Apple Karplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
Speaker 1: or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Stephanie Sansheva, Besides the privilege you're working under, Kenneth Rogoff
Speaker 2: at Harvard has become a force worldwide and economics, founder
Speaker 2: of Social Economics Lab at Harvard in her latest research,
Speaker 2: goes to the tension that we heard in the home
Speaker 2: and press conference. This is the emotion and the anger
Speaker 2: in society in our political discourse. Stephanie, this is going
Speaker 2: to be a three hour conversation. I got to squeeze
Speaker 2: it in a few minutes. How do you measure the
Speaker 2: rage the anger of a modern American political discourse?
Speaker 7: Yes, that's a great question, and really happy to be
Speaker 7: with you today. We measure it both online and offline.
Speaker 7: So we have this amazing data of a lot of
Speaker 7: social media posts. You know, since since twenty eleven, we
Speaker 7: have campaign speeches, we have congressional speeches. We can compare
Speaker 7: the same person tweeting online and talking in congress. So
Speaker 7: we have this amazing body of data where we can measure,
Speaker 7: thanks to AI, that emotional content of the statements. And
Speaker 7: what we can see is that, especially since twenty sixteen,
Speaker 7: there has been a really sharp rise in anger. So
Speaker 7: the share of statements, the share of tweets that are
Speaker 7: angry has really really risen.
Speaker 8: And this comes at the expense of.
Speaker 7: The factual or like lack mutually emotional tweets. Other emotions
Speaker 7: don't show this pattern, so fear, joy, other emotions have
Speaker 7: been pretty flat.
Speaker 2: Professor Richard Nixon, November third, nineteen sixty nine. Is there
Speaker 2: a silent majority out there in twenty twenty five.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's a really great question. But what we see
Speaker 7: is that this rise and anger is actually very general.
Speaker 8: So you might think it's on one side.
Speaker 7: Of the political spectrum or not, But what we see
Speaker 7: is that policy makers do follow some cycles. So when
Speaker 7: policymakers are in power, they tend to have less angry content,
Speaker 7: and then when they're in the opposition they have more
Speaker 7: angry content, And it's pretty symmetric on both sides. But
Speaker 7: for citizens, it seems like the anger has just risen
Speaker 7: and doesn't come down anymore, regardless of your political leaning.
Speaker 7: So perhaps this anger has been triggered by policymaker and
Speaker 7: now just doesn't come back down. And what we also
Speaker 7: see is that it seems like anger is used strategically.
Speaker 7: If you tweet something angry, you're much more likely to
Speaker 7: be retweeted and to get engagement. If you post something angry,
Speaker 7: you know, you get a lot more attention, and so
Speaker 7: this actually reinforces this pattern where angry content is going
Speaker 7: to spread much more rapidly than neutral content.
Speaker 5: So if in fact there has been a rise in
Speaker 5: increase in anger in political discourse, that does that suggest
Speaker 5: that centrist type policy making is that becoming more and
Speaker 5: more difficult going forward.
Speaker 7: So what's interesting is that anger is not a part
Speaker 7: is an issue. It is actually very evenly spread on
Speaker 7: both sides of the political spectrum, and so it is
Speaker 7: not something that will determine, you know, which side you're.
Speaker 8: On, if you're on the center.
Speaker 7: On the ends, it does correlate with being more extremely partisan,
Speaker 7: So it is stronger among people who tend to follow
Speaker 7: more partisan accounts, who tend to be you know, more
Speaker 7: stronger Republicans or stronger Democrats rather than moderate. But what's
Speaker 7: most important to me is that this really matters for
Speaker 7: our policies.
Speaker 8: It matters for economics.
Speaker 7: What we see is that if you make people angrier,
Speaker 7: they become more anti immigration, more anti free trade, they
Speaker 7: become more anti democracy as well. So there's this very
Speaker 7: strong effect on the policy views that you express. And
Speaker 7: while this might be short lived, you know, in the moment,
Speaker 7: if we are constantly being bombarded by angry content, you
Speaker 7: can imagine that this is going to persist and have
Speaker 7: some real consequences.
Speaker 5: Social media doesn't appear to be going anywhere soon, Professor,
Speaker 5: Is there any solution or I don't change in behavior
Speaker 5: that may take the rhetoric down and may allow for
Speaker 5: some more again, I get bipartisan policy making.
Speaker 7: So I'm glad you're mentioning the role of social media
Speaker 7: here because we can compare the same person, the same
Speaker 7: Congress person online you know how they tweet, how they
Speaker 7: speak online and offline, you know which means on the
Speaker 7: Congress floor. And what we see is that for the
Speaker 7: same person, content is systematically angrier when it's online. So
Speaker 7: it's not that some people just tend to be angrier
Speaker 7: than others. It's also that everybody tends to be angrier
Speaker 7: when they're posting publicly, when they're posting online. So clearly
Speaker 7: social media does have a role to play in amplifying this.
Speaker 5: What are next steps here? Do you think?
Speaker 7: I mean?
Speaker 5: It's this interesting polarization. We all feel it, we all
Speaker 5: see it. It seems to be growing. Is there a
Speaker 5: sense that at some point people on both sides, if
Speaker 5: nothing else, will just grow punch drunk, weary, tired, And
Speaker 5: maybe you just start seeing that in tone down rhetoric
Speaker 5: and policymaking.
Speaker 7: So what we see is that this is happening in
Speaker 7: many countries actually, so it is not just a US phenomenon.
Speaker 7: They have data for friends, for other European countries, So
Speaker 7: it seems to be something more general. And I'm also
Speaker 7: very curious where it will go and to keep studying it.
Speaker 3: There's so much to go on here.
Speaker 2: My book of the I think the Year of the
Speaker 2: Summer a couple of years ago is Paul Pearson, Eric Schickler,
Speaker 2: professor out.
Speaker 3: At Berkeley, and it's folks, three hundred dense pages.
Speaker 2: It's called Partisan Nation, and it basically goes from Madison
Speaker 2: and then Paul, we pick up at the civil rights
Speaker 2: of nineteen sixty four and then the culture War and
Speaker 2: the raging debate that we're in. Professor forgetting about the academics,
Speaker 2: what's the path for America to get back to the
Speaker 2: middle ground democrat, the middle ground republican, the quiet that
Speaker 2: we used to remember in our parents' political debate.
Speaker 7: Now that's a very very important question to which I
Speaker 7: don't have the answer. But you know, what we see
Speaker 7: in general is that the economic environment matters so so much,
Speaker 7: and especially younger people today are growing up in times
Speaker 7: which have lower growth, lower mobility.
Speaker 2: I totally agree this is really important. This goes back
Speaker 2: to Benjamin Friedman at ear Harvard. The bottom line on
Speaker 2: this is the bargain of economic growth broke a number
Speaker 2: of years ago.
Speaker 3: That's the first order regressor.
Speaker 2: Isn't it.
Speaker 8: I think it is.
Speaker 7: And you know, we can talk about changing mindsets, et cetera.
Speaker 8: But what I see is that mindset's really.
Speaker 7: Follow the reality that people live in and their experiences,
Speaker 7: and especially you know, the younger generation we see is
Speaker 7: living in this time of lower growth, living in lower mobility,
Speaker 7: with a lot of competition you know, for housing, for jobs,
Speaker 7: and so this is the reality people live in. So
Speaker 7: I think before we think about just quote unquote changing mindset,
Speaker 7: I think we have to think of policies that actually
Speaker 7: you know, grow the pie and also share the gains
Speaker 7: that are happening.
Speaker 5: So this case shaped economy, it's something we've all I've
Speaker 5: probably gotten a better understanding of over the last ten
Speaker 5: to twenty years. Should is that how do we think
Speaker 5: about that going forward? It doesn't that doesn't seem to
Speaker 5: be solving itself as well.
Speaker 7: I think, you know, many things are a bit the
Speaker 7: role of policies. You know, we think of policies as
Speaker 7: trying to grow the pie or trying to redistribute it
Speaker 7: in a more in a more equitable way. And you know,
Speaker 7: as much as I love the market as an economist,
Speaker 7: it cannot do everything.
Speaker 8: And so I think there's a lot of role for policies.
Speaker 7: You know, we know some policies literally pay for themselves
Speaker 7: over the medium or short run, for instance, helping families
Speaker 7: with children, whether it's on nutrition, education, health investments, Those
Speaker 7: pay for themselves later create opportunities for lots of generations.
Speaker 7: Innovation policy, innovation is something that grows the pie. So
Speaker 7: I think this is the direction which we need to think.
Speaker 2: Because Stephanie, you came from Europe. I got one time
Speaker 2: for one more question. We're going to November. We just
Speaker 2: heard all the tension of Minneapolis in that what is
Speaker 2: your prescription where people on the edge of the middle
Speaker 2: of this nation in a broader sense, where they have
Speaker 2: a voice this side? How do they get a voice?
Speaker 2: Given the polarity of our media, the polarity of our discourts,
Speaker 2: we can't even hold a dinner party anymore between Republicans
Speaker 2: and Democrats.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, it's tough, Stephanie. How do we find go
Speaker 3: in search of that middle ground?
Speaker 7: I think a lot of a lot of things are
Speaker 7: stacked against this. You know, we talked about social media
Speaker 7: and even the algorithm is going to tend to amplify,
Speaker 7: you know, more extreme voices, and so I think there's
Speaker 7: a real structural issue to actually have that type of
Speaker 7: dialogue and that type of that life type of debate.
Speaker 7: So I don't have the answer, but really hoping I
Speaker 7: keep studying this.
Speaker 3: Do you have super Bowl tickets? I mean you're up
Speaker 3: at Harvard. I mean, you know.
Speaker 2: She's did you get you get Patriots super Bowl ticket?
Speaker 8: Stephanie, I don't have super Bowl ticket?
Speaker 3: Talk to Rogueff, We'll get them.
Speaker 2: So Stephanie san Seva is at Harvard with important research
Speaker 2: there on the fabric of our culture.
Speaker 3: Stay with us.
Speaker 2: More from Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Catch us live
Speaker 1: weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern Listen on
Speaker 1: Applecarplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app, or
Speaker 1: watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Let's get right to it. The newspaper's Alexis Christopherus.
Speaker 9: Thanks Tom Soker. I'm gonna start with a Bloomberg story here.
Speaker 9: Robin Hood now wants a key role in the SPACEXIPO,
Speaker 9: which we know is supposed to be coming in June.
Speaker 9: So Robinhood, playing with the big Wall Street banks here,
Speaker 9: wants to secure a big block of SpaceX stock to
Speaker 9: sell directly to retail investors. So it wants to do
Speaker 9: this through its own platform called IPO Access Platform, and
Speaker 9: Elon Musk himself has said he's considering setting aside a
Speaker 9: significant portion of the shares for retail investors. This would
Speaker 9: be amazing to get in on the ground level, though,
Speaker 9: right you're looking at evaluation of one and a half trillions.
Speaker 3: Of time, is Paul, You're better at this?
Speaker 2: I am.
Speaker 3: It's a timeless debate, it is.
Speaker 5: And you know, typically in an IPO, fifteen to twenty
Speaker 5: percent will be allocated to retail. If it's a tough
Speaker 5: to execute IPO, even more would go to retail because
Speaker 5: they're less Christ sensitive. But this makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 5: I mean, Robin Hood's a huge platform, especially for young people, yep.
Speaker 5: And it's a monster fifty billion dollars is there a
Speaker 5: red hearing yet, I'm not. I don't think so. I've
Speaker 5: not seen it. But the bottom line is they're going
Speaker 5: to need everybody and the brother to be, you know,
Speaker 5: have access to this.
Speaker 9: Their brother, their mothers, this.
Speaker 5: I think it's going to be really I think it's
Speaker 5: gonna be absolutely fascinating and one of the most fascinating
Speaker 5: ipeos of all time. In my opinion is it's it's
Speaker 5: the story, it's Elon, it's the size and valuation, it's
Speaker 5: all there.
Speaker 2: For just it just isn't a sign for twelve seconds
Speaker 2: we are preparing over this frigid weekend to send astronauts
Speaker 2: into orbit around the Moon.
Speaker 3: It's barely in the zeitgeist.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's a good true.
Speaker 9: It kind of got lost in the shuffle.
Speaker 2: I think we're talking like early February. You know, they're
Speaker 2: they're getting, they're preparing, they're putting. It's like formula one.
Speaker 3: They're putting it to exactly exactly, rocket mixed all right.
Speaker 9: New York Times got a story the sun Dance Film
Speaker 9: Festival saying bye bye to Park City, Utah. So it's
Speaker 9: happening this week, right, You got in industry insiders, fans
Speaker 9: are all making that annual pilgrimage over to Park City.
Speaker 9: This was started, of course by Robert Redford, the late
Speaker 9: actor and director, back in nineteen eighty five. But they're
Speaker 9: moving over to Boulder, Colorado. Why you ask infrastructure because
Speaker 9: Sundance has grown so much over the years, but you
Speaker 9: can't beat financial incentives from the state and the city.
Speaker 9: Apparently that was even better than Park City sixty percent
Speaker 9: of their programming first or second time directors. Was always
Speaker 9: sort of the spirit of indie films in indie artists.
Speaker 3: What I love about.
Speaker 2: This is you can go out and now to Boulder
Speaker 2: and you can see some new indie film with your
Speaker 2: course light at the sink.
Speaker 3: Yep exactly. I maybe you could just sit right there
Speaker 3: at the sink. Yeah, have the beverage of your choice,
Speaker 3: which we did.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely, And I hate just the festival just kind
Speaker 5: of outgrew Park City, and quite frankly, Park City doesn't
Speaker 5: need it. They're packed all season and it's almost like, oh,
Speaker 5: now I got to make room for these film festival guys.
Speaker 5: I got to shut down my restaurant party.
Speaker 9: And look like Davos right might be moving. They were
Speaker 9: talking about maybe having it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sensitive issue is this question, alexis if you ever
Speaker 2: had a Corrus three to two beer? Oh?
Speaker 9: No, yeah, should I No, no, you shouldn't.
Speaker 3: Okay, No, that's why Primo exists in the rain or
Speaker 3: whatever it was.
Speaker 9: No to sell business insider, this is a good one.
Speaker 9: Why Wall Streeters love expensive gyms. Look, you can spend
Speaker 9: thousands of a month on an equinox, on a Chelsea
Speaker 9: pier's lifetime. They're all here in the city. Now you
Speaker 9: might think Tom and Paul that the draw here is
Speaker 9: that eucalyptus steam room or that cold plunge pool, But no, no,
Speaker 9: it's about networking, socializing and guess what, actually being healthy.
Speaker 9: So a lot of these gyms they'll set up designated
Speaker 9: networking events. So you know, you would usually go to
Speaker 9: the bar to do those kinds of things. Now people
Speaker 9: are going to Jim, can I.
Speaker 2: Just editorialize, not that I need gym's a lot. The
Speaker 2: cell phone is ruined gyms.
Speaker 3: In the Havings film. Now, yeah, thanks film. They workout
Speaker 3: for those you radio.
Speaker 10: Your list pumping and then they look at their they
Speaker 10: look at their phone and go, you know, you know
Speaker 10: what's Carol and Tim say, I'm bloomberg rate and then
Speaker 10: they get back into another exercise.
Speaker 5: Hedge fund manager said, banks will now take us out
Speaker 5: do a workout class instead of getting a drink. It's
Speaker 5: a good value if someone pays fifty bucks for your
Speaker 5: pilates class, boy times a change.
Speaker 3: It's I was gonna say, I didn't get that. Alexis Christopher,
Speaker 3: thank you so much. That is the newspapers for the day.
Speaker 1: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, available on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday,
Speaker 1: seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You
Speaker 1: can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and
Speaker 1: always on the Bloomberg terminal
Speaker 2: M