WEBVTT - Steven Mnuchin Talks Recession, Economy and Trump

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.680 --> 0:00:10.240
<v Speaker 2>We have Treasure Secretary Stephen Mnushan with us here. Thank

0:00:10.280 --> 0:00:11.160
<v Speaker 2>you so much for joining.

0:00:11.360 --> 0:00:13.560
<v Speaker 3>Thank you, it's great to be here with you.

0:00:13.560 --> 0:00:16.639
<v Speaker 2>You have a unique insight into this administration because you

0:00:16.760 --> 0:00:20.240
<v Speaker 2>served all four years during the first term for President Trump.

0:00:20.760 --> 0:00:22.800
<v Speaker 2>I wonder what you make of a difference that we're

0:00:22.840 --> 0:00:25.760
<v Speaker 2>seeing with Trump this time around. He is a little

0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:29.520
<v Speaker 2>less concerned about day to day market swings. We've seen

0:00:29.680 --> 0:00:33.120
<v Speaker 2>big tarff talk two hundred percent tariffs, twenty five percent tariffs,

0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:35.280
<v Speaker 2>ten percent across the board, and the S and P

0:00:35.400 --> 0:00:38.640
<v Speaker 2>five hundred has wiped out five trillion dollars in part

0:00:38.720 --> 0:00:41.440
<v Speaker 2>because of this. What do you make in the shift

0:00:41.600 --> 0:00:44.080
<v Speaker 2>in Trump's thinking about markets.

0:00:44.640 --> 0:00:47.360
<v Speaker 3>I think the execution is slightly different, but I think

0:00:47.440 --> 0:00:50.760
<v Speaker 3>the fundamental economic policies are actually the same. And this

0:00:50.800 --> 0:00:54.240
<v Speaker 3>goes back to what the President campaigned on in twenty sixteen.

0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:58.160
<v Speaker 3>Tax cuts, regulatory relief, and trade, and those are the

0:00:58.200 --> 0:00:59.920
<v Speaker 3>same things you're hearing about today.

0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:02.320
<v Speaker 1>I would say it's critically.

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:04.560
<v Speaker 3>Important that the tax cuts are extended, and I know

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:08.520
<v Speaker 3>President Trump wants to add additional tax cuts. He's always

0:01:08.600 --> 0:01:12.240
<v Speaker 3>been very focused on trade. I think that you're seeing

0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:16.920
<v Speaker 3>a more aggressive trade policy in this administration. And I

0:01:16.920 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 3>think one of the questions is does the president want

0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:21.840
<v Speaker 3>to use this to negotiate or does he want to

0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 3>use this to raise tariff revenue, which he's talked about significantly.

0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:28.959
<v Speaker 3>Which if he's going to do that and use that

0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:32.080
<v Speaker 3>to create tax cuts or pay down debt, is an

0:01:32.120 --> 0:01:38.319
<v Speaker 3>interesting strategy for effectively creating a consumption tax on foreign goods.

0:01:39.160 --> 0:01:42.440
<v Speaker 2>Do you think that some of the tariff threats pulling

0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:44.600
<v Speaker 2>things back bringing them back up, do you think that's

0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:45.400
<v Speaker 2>a good policy.

0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:49.480
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think the market is adjusting to his negotiating,

0:01:49.600 --> 0:01:52.920
<v Speaker 3>which I think in the beginning the market thought that

0:01:53.000 --> 0:01:56.600
<v Speaker 3>he wasn't serious about tariffs, despite the fact that I

0:01:56.640 --> 0:01:59.840
<v Speaker 3>think and I've been saying, he's very serious about tariffs.

0:02:00.000 --> 0:02:04.000
<v Speaker 3>So I've suggested that if he wants to raise revenue,

0:02:04.080 --> 0:02:07.680
<v Speaker 3>a ten percent tariff across the board on everything would

0:02:07.680 --> 0:02:11.239
<v Speaker 3>be very effective. They could score that as part of reconciliation,

0:02:11.840 --> 0:02:14.120
<v Speaker 3>probably raise about two and a half trillion dollars, and

0:02:14.160 --> 0:02:17.000
<v Speaker 3>that would be very effective in terms of creating tax

0:02:17.080 --> 0:02:18.799
<v Speaker 3>cuts and paying down debt.

0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:21.880
<v Speaker 2>It's been a lot though for investors and business leaders

0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:25.320
<v Speaker 2>and CEOs to absorb. What's your What would your advice

0:02:25.400 --> 0:02:27.880
<v Speaker 2>be to some of this constituency as they try to

0:02:27.880 --> 0:02:29.959
<v Speaker 2>deal with and they get worried about all the stock

0:02:30.000 --> 0:02:32.400
<v Speaker 2>market gyrations from these taror threats.

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:36.600
<v Speaker 3>Well, my first advice would be, don't overreact. I know

0:02:36.680 --> 0:02:38.960
<v Speaker 3>there's some talk about are we going to go into

0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:42.040
<v Speaker 3>a recession. I don't see us at all going into

0:02:42.080 --> 0:02:44.440
<v Speaker 3>a recession. I think we could have a little bit

0:02:44.440 --> 0:02:47.360
<v Speaker 3>of a slowdown in the economy as we pull back

0:02:47.400 --> 0:02:50.639
<v Speaker 3>on government spending, but I don't think investors should be

0:02:50.720 --> 0:02:53.560
<v Speaker 3>concerned about a recession. The second thing I would say

0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:56.560
<v Speaker 3>is we came in with the market being fully priced,

0:02:56.919 --> 0:02:59.840
<v Speaker 3>so I think a five to ten percent correction on

0:02:59.880 --> 0:03:02.560
<v Speaker 3>the S and P or the NASTAC actually makes sense.

0:03:03.080 --> 0:03:06.720
<v Speaker 3>The market's been really fueled by massive amounts of tech spending,

0:03:06.800 --> 0:03:10.240
<v Speaker 3>particularly around AI, So some of this is a natural

0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:12.440
<v Speaker 3>correction in the market, and some of this is the

0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:15.799
<v Speaker 3>market worrying about tariffs and the impact on tariffs.

0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:19.519
<v Speaker 2>We're talking a lot about tariffs. You mentioned taxes as well.

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:22.760
<v Speaker 2>What do you make of Trump's strategy to do tariffs

0:03:22.800 --> 0:03:24.400
<v Speaker 2>before tax cuts this year.

0:03:25.760 --> 0:03:27.760
<v Speaker 1>Well, I think it's just a timing issue.

0:03:28.240 --> 0:03:31.359
<v Speaker 3>I think they're actually moving on what seems like an

0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:36.720
<v Speaker 3>incredibly fast agenda, which is encouraging that Speaker Johnson says

0:03:36.720 --> 0:03:40.800
<v Speaker 3>he's going to get a bill to the floor before Easter, which,

0:03:41.160 --> 0:03:44.040
<v Speaker 3>if that's the case, that includes both tax cuts and

0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:48.320
<v Speaker 3>border that's a very impressive timing. I mean, my concern

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 3>about this one big, beautiful bill was it was going

0:03:50.640 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 3>to take too long and that the President could get

0:03:53.360 --> 0:03:56.280
<v Speaker 3>a quick, easy win on the border and the tax issues,

0:03:56.280 --> 0:03:59.360
<v Speaker 3>as you know, Selea, are quite complicated, so these things

0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:02.200
<v Speaker 3>have to be thought through carefully and balanced.

0:04:03.200 --> 0:04:06.400
<v Speaker 2>You, as treasure Secretary in twenty seventeen, were the face

0:04:06.560 --> 0:04:10.960
<v Speaker 2>of the administration's efforts to get that tax bill through Congress.

0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 2>Knowing based on that experience and what you know and

0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:16.679
<v Speaker 2>see now of Washington, what do you think the chances

0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:18.800
<v Speaker 2>are that there will be a successful extension of the

0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:20.120
<v Speaker 2>tax cuts that Trump seeks.

0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:23.520
<v Speaker 3>Oh, I definitely think there'll be a successful extension. I

0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:26.920
<v Speaker 3>think it just depends what it includes. And look, we're

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:29.720
<v Speaker 3>very proud of the work we did in the first administration,

0:04:30.040 --> 0:04:33.880
<v Speaker 3>and obviously the tax cuts and job TEC was sweeping reform.

0:04:33.960 --> 0:04:37.280
<v Speaker 3>I mean, it took all year because it impacted almost

0:04:37.320 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 3>every single part of the economy. It dealt with domestic

0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:44.680
<v Speaker 3>taxes at lowered corporate taxes, at lowered individual taxes, It

0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:47.919
<v Speaker 3>had business tax credits. Right now they're dealing with a

0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:52.240
<v Speaker 3>much smaller segment. The most important priority is, in my mind,

0:04:52.440 --> 0:04:56.719
<v Speaker 3>extending the tax cuts, which from an operational standpoint is

0:04:56.760 --> 0:04:59.240
<v Speaker 3>actually quite easy to do, and then they have to

0:04:59.279 --> 0:05:01.960
<v Speaker 3>consider some of these other ideas that the President has

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:03.919
<v Speaker 3>thrown out and figure out how they could pay for

0:05:04.000 --> 0:05:04.599
<v Speaker 3>them as well.

0:05:05.160 --> 0:05:07.800
<v Speaker 2>Do you think that the salt cap is something that needs.

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:10.760
<v Speaker 3>To be part of the bill, Well, it only needs

0:05:10.839 --> 0:05:12.839
<v Speaker 3>to be part of the bill if that's what you

0:05:12.920 --> 0:05:15.599
<v Speaker 3>need to do to get Republican votes to get the

0:05:15.600 --> 0:05:19.240
<v Speaker 3>bill over the finish line. So there's no question that,

0:05:20.040 --> 0:05:23.440
<v Speaker 3>you know, removing the putting a cap on salt was

0:05:23.440 --> 0:05:27.080
<v Speaker 3>a fundamental issue that we thought of fairness treating all

0:05:27.120 --> 0:05:30.720
<v Speaker 3>the states similarly. Having said that, you know, I recognize

0:05:30.760 --> 0:05:34.520
<v Speaker 3>there's a small majority in the House and this clearly

0:05:34.640 --> 0:05:38.400
<v Speaker 3>impacts places like New York disproportionately, and I understand why

0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:40.400
<v Speaker 3>the New York members want to see that raised.

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:42.560
<v Speaker 2>So far, it seems like that might be one of

0:05:42.560 --> 0:05:44.839
<v Speaker 2>the sticking points. Are there any other sticking points that

0:05:44.880 --> 0:05:47.440
<v Speaker 2>you see bubbling up as this tax bill comes together.

0:05:47.960 --> 0:05:51.240
<v Speaker 3>I think the bigger issue is the pay force. So

0:05:51.760 --> 0:05:54.240
<v Speaker 3>you have some people who say this should be scored

0:05:54.320 --> 0:05:58.919
<v Speaker 3>against current policy and it doesn't cost anything. The traditional

0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:03.280
<v Speaker 3>way of scoring this is against what's the current law

0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:08.719
<v Speaker 3>after with with the reduction of the tax cuts, and

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:11.960
<v Speaker 3>that would be over four trillion dollars. So obviously if

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:15.400
<v Speaker 3>you score it that way, the pay fors are very significant.

0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:19.560
<v Speaker 3>I am concerned, and you know you've heard Treasury Secretary

0:06:19.640 --> 0:06:22.680
<v Speaker 3>Vesant and others talk about the deficit. I think the

0:06:22.680 --> 0:06:27.120
<v Speaker 3>deficit is our number one problem today. So I think

0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:30.400
<v Speaker 3>that whatever tax cuts are passed, at least some of

0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:31.599
<v Speaker 3>them have to be paid for.

0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:35.200
<v Speaker 2>That's one of the larger differences between twenty seventeen when

0:06:35.200 --> 0:06:37.880
<v Speaker 2>you worked on this and now that the deficit is

0:06:37.960 --> 0:06:41.120
<v Speaker 2>just so big. How much harder does that make dessence job?

0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>I think it's quite significant.

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:45.800
<v Speaker 3>And you know, if you put this in context, when

0:06:45.839 --> 0:06:49.240
<v Speaker 3>we did this, the entire tax bill cost a trillion

0:06:49.279 --> 0:06:52.240
<v Speaker 3>and a half dollars, there was about five hundred billion

0:06:52.279 --> 0:06:55.160
<v Speaker 3>that we thought that was the difference between dynamic in

0:06:55.720 --> 0:06:58.719
<v Speaker 3>scoring and there was another five hundred billion of things

0:06:58.720 --> 0:07:01.159
<v Speaker 3>that were extenders. So I thought the true cost was

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.640
<v Speaker 3>closer to five hundred billion and that we could easily

0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:08.000
<v Speaker 3>grow the economy to pay for that. You're now talking

0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:10.240
<v Speaker 3>about an economy that's much bigger.

0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:11.720
<v Speaker 1>The numbers are much bigger.

0:07:11.760 --> 0:07:15.320
<v Speaker 3>So the personal side alone is over four trillion dollars,

0:07:15.800 --> 0:07:19.200
<v Speaker 3>so the payfars are much more significant. We also have

0:07:19.360 --> 0:07:22.840
<v Speaker 3>a much bigger budget deficit. We had much more fiscal

0:07:22.920 --> 0:07:26.640
<v Speaker 3>room in twenty seventeen, and we had lower interest rates,

0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:28.560
<v Speaker 3>so the interest on the debt wasn't.

0:07:28.320 --> 0:07:29.720
<v Speaker 1>As big of a problem.

0:07:29.800 --> 0:07:33.400
<v Speaker 3>So you add all those things up, and yes, it's

0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:37.840
<v Speaker 3>more difficult today, but it's also simpler, and that the

0:07:37.880 --> 0:07:39.840
<v Speaker 3>tax cuts themselves are much simpler.

0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:43.840
<v Speaker 2>You know this so well. In twenty seventeen, you were

0:07:43.840 --> 0:07:47.560
<v Speaker 2>a key negotiator. You were the face of the administration's efforts.

0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:49.640
<v Speaker 2>Like I said, how important do you think it is

0:07:49.760 --> 0:07:53.360
<v Speaker 2>for the Treasury Secretary to lead the charge on tax

0:07:53.400 --> 0:07:55.240
<v Speaker 2>bill creation and negotiation.

0:07:55.600 --> 0:07:58.560
<v Speaker 3>I think it's very important because it's the president's signature

0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:03.360
<v Speaker 3>achievement and extending it is critically important for the administration.

0:08:04.840 --> 0:08:06.680
<v Speaker 2>We got to know each other during those four years

0:08:06.720 --> 0:08:09.040
<v Speaker 2>when you were in office. But one area that we

0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:10.960
<v Speaker 2>never talked about that was never a big deal when

0:08:10.960 --> 0:08:14.200
<v Speaker 2>you were there was the payments system. With your four

0:08:14.280 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 2>years of experience, you know how sensitive and significant the

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:21.760
<v Speaker 2>work at the Bureau of Fiscal Service is. Are you

0:08:21.960 --> 0:08:25.560
<v Speaker 2>concerned at all about doge's access to the payment system.

0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:28.920
<v Speaker 3>Well, let's step back and just talk about the payment system,

0:08:29.040 --> 0:08:30.640
<v Speaker 3>and you're right, we didn't.

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:31.600
<v Speaker 1>Talk about it much.

0:08:32.840 --> 0:08:37.679
<v Speaker 3>Treasury is a gigantic payment processor for the federal government.

0:08:38.160 --> 0:08:41.560
<v Speaker 3>So this is an important part of Treasury. But Treasury's role,

0:08:41.600 --> 0:08:44.199
<v Speaker 3>as you can think of as the bank. So what

0:08:44.240 --> 0:08:47.319
<v Speaker 3>Treasury does is it takes in files from other parts

0:08:47.360 --> 0:08:52.600
<v Speaker 3>of the government. The other departments certify those files, Treasury

0:08:52.640 --> 0:08:54.880
<v Speaker 3>make sure that it's in the proper form that it

0:08:54.920 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 3>can execute them, and it executes them. So it's not

0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:02.640
<v Speaker 3>Treasury's job to determine whether those payments are good payments

0:09:02.800 --> 0:09:07.200
<v Speaker 3>or bad payments. You know, I'm very comfortable with what

0:09:07.280 --> 0:09:11.520
<v Speaker 3>I understand Treasury Secretary has said in regards to the

0:09:11.520 --> 0:09:15.160
<v Speaker 3>controls over the payment system. That's the most important tissue.

0:09:15.640 --> 0:09:17.760
<v Speaker 3>I think some of the things that Dealon has said

0:09:18.280 --> 0:09:20.320
<v Speaker 3>make a lot of sense. I mean, does it make

0:09:20.360 --> 0:09:23.200
<v Speaker 3>sense that you put a category payment around the payment.

0:09:23.280 --> 0:09:27.960
<v Speaker 3>Of course, now those are things that should be easily added,

0:09:29.080 --> 0:09:31.600
<v Speaker 3>you know. I will say what we did work on

0:09:32.000 --> 0:09:35.800
<v Speaker 3>was the transparency issues associated with this that you know,

0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:38.360
<v Speaker 3>we put up on the internet a system where you

0:09:38.400 --> 0:09:41.840
<v Speaker 3>could see most of the government payments. So, you know,

0:09:41.960 --> 0:09:44.720
<v Speaker 3>I think a lot of this topic today makes a

0:09:44.720 --> 0:09:47.880
<v Speaker 3>lot of sense. But I'm comfortable today the system appears

0:09:47.920 --> 0:09:48.840
<v Speaker 3>to be very safe.

0:09:49.160 --> 0:09:51.880
<v Speaker 2>Do you think that investors should be worried about the

0:09:52.000 --> 0:09:55.200
<v Speaker 2>US's ability to fulfill its debt obligations considering how much

0:09:55.240 --> 0:09:57.880
<v Speaker 2>activity there is around the payment system right now with.

0:09:57.920 --> 0:10:01.880
<v Speaker 3>Doge in there a I know there were some concerns

0:10:01.920 --> 0:10:05.200
<v Speaker 3>about dose in the beginning. That seems to be taken

0:10:05.280 --> 0:10:06.920
<v Speaker 3>care of and not an issue.

0:10:06.920 --> 0:10:08.560
<v Speaker 1>Obviously. The bigger problem.

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:11.240
<v Speaker 3>With the payments is going to be the government debt

0:10:11.679 --> 0:10:12.559
<v Speaker 3>and the debt ceiling.

0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:15.839
<v Speaker 2>One thing I've noticed that Secretary Beston is doing that's

0:10:15.840 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 2>a little bit different than years past, is putting a

0:10:19.960 --> 0:10:25.040
<v Speaker 2>focus on lowering long term bond yields instead of looking

0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:28.440
<v Speaker 2>to the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. I'm curious

0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:29.720
<v Speaker 2>what you make of the strategy.

0:10:30.720 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think he's right in the sense of a

0:10:33.800 --> 0:10:37.800
<v Speaker 3>large part of the economy is tied to longer term rates,

0:10:38.160 --> 0:10:41.280
<v Speaker 3>So whether it's mortgages or other things, and whether it's

0:10:41.320 --> 0:10:43.640
<v Speaker 3>the five year or the ten year, there's a large

0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:45.959
<v Speaker 3>part of the economy. For a long time we had

0:10:45.960 --> 0:10:51.080
<v Speaker 3>a very flat yield curve. Ultimately, what the Fed does

0:10:51.320 --> 0:10:54.319
<v Speaker 3>will have an impact on long term rates. I think

0:10:54.320 --> 0:10:56.160
<v Speaker 3>if you actually look at the market today and you

0:10:56.200 --> 0:11:01.520
<v Speaker 3>look at the dot plot, the is telling you basically

0:11:01.559 --> 0:11:04.560
<v Speaker 3>their expectation is that they will lower rates down to

0:11:04.600 --> 0:11:05.760
<v Speaker 3>three and a half percent.

0:11:06.440 --> 0:11:08.240
<v Speaker 1>It's just a question of when they get there.

0:11:08.320 --> 0:11:11.480
<v Speaker 3>Right now, that's projected next year, and I think the

0:11:11.520 --> 0:11:15.760
<v Speaker 3>ten year treasury already has that priced in, so I

0:11:15.800 --> 0:11:18.000
<v Speaker 3>think it's it's built into the market today.

0:11:18.880 --> 0:11:21.200
<v Speaker 2>In the last couple of weeks we have seen yields

0:11:21.360 --> 0:11:24.520
<v Speaker 2>drop due to recession fears. Do you think that Bessett

0:11:24.640 --> 0:11:27.480
<v Speaker 2>might be getting what he wanted but for the wrong reasons.

0:11:28.480 --> 0:11:32.080
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think he wants long term treasuries to come down,

0:11:32.520 --> 0:11:37.679
<v Speaker 3>and I think part of that is around creating as

0:11:37.720 --> 0:11:41.800
<v Speaker 3>there's less government spending, there's no question, and they can

0:11:42.160 --> 0:11:43.960
<v Speaker 3>they can convince the market that they're going to cut

0:11:43.960 --> 0:11:47.720
<v Speaker 3>the data set that will help long term rates. But

0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:49.640
<v Speaker 3>you know, i'd say, look that the ten year has

0:11:49.640 --> 0:11:53.000
<v Speaker 3>been bouncing around in a twenty basis point range, which

0:11:53.040 --> 0:11:54.880
<v Speaker 3>I consider to be a market range.

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:57.560
<v Speaker 2>One of my favorite things to ask current and former

0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:00.400
<v Speaker 2>Treasure secretaries is about currency policy, something that we've spoken

0:12:00.440 --> 0:12:03.000
<v Speaker 2>about as well. We're expecting, at least in the next

0:12:03.080 --> 0:12:05.959
<v Speaker 2>couple of weeks, the first foreign exchange policy report coming

0:12:06.000 --> 0:12:08.680
<v Speaker 2>out of the Treasure Department when you were in office,

0:12:08.760 --> 0:12:12.080
<v Speaker 2>you labeled China a currency manipulator. I wonder if you

0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 2>think that that is an effective tag to apply.

0:12:16.040 --> 0:12:18.440
<v Speaker 3>I think it's one of the effective tags to apply.

0:12:18.559 --> 0:12:21.160
<v Speaker 3>It's not the only effective tag, but I think it

0:12:21.240 --> 0:12:23.839
<v Speaker 3>was one of the tools in the toolbox. And now

0:12:23.880 --> 0:12:27.480
<v Speaker 3>it's more fun talking about currencies because I think, as

0:12:27.480 --> 0:12:30.000
<v Speaker 3>you know, kind of like Treasury Secretary one oh one,

0:12:30.000 --> 0:12:33.320
<v Speaker 3>as everybody's supposed to just say, oh, strong dollar, strong

0:12:33.400 --> 0:12:36.520
<v Speaker 3>dollar is you remember when I was at Davos, I

0:12:36.559 --> 0:12:39.960
<v Speaker 3>made for the first time a comment more on a

0:12:40.000 --> 0:12:44.439
<v Speaker 3>stable dollar and the benefits of a strong dollar and

0:12:44.760 --> 0:12:48.880
<v Speaker 3>the problems with a strong dollar in the market reacted accordingly.

0:12:48.960 --> 0:12:52.559
<v Speaker 3>But I really do think the policy should be a

0:12:52.640 --> 0:12:56.800
<v Speaker 3>stable dollar policy. That's what's good for the US, that's

0:12:56.800 --> 0:12:59.280
<v Speaker 3>what's good for the world. I think the dollar will

0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:03.280
<v Speaker 3>be the reserve currency before the foreseeable future. But you

0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:06.080
<v Speaker 3>don't want a dollar that's too strong, that that hurts

0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:07.679
<v Speaker 3>us from an economic standpoint.

0:13:07.800 --> 0:13:10.440
<v Speaker 2>Well, you can speak much more freely about currency policy now.

0:13:10.480 --> 0:13:11.520
<v Speaker 2>Thank you so much for joining