WEBVTT - Bannon’s Indictment Is the Fight Both Sides Want

0:00:01.800 --> 0:00:04.440
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Business Week. I'm Carol Masser and I'm

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:07.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stanovik. We're here every day bringing

0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:09.840
<v Speaker 1>you the latest news from the world to business and finance,

0:00:09.840 --> 0:00:13.680
<v Speaker 1>plus technology, politics, economics, all purtnising the power of Business

0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:17.159
<v Speaker 1>Week reporters and editors, not to mention our journalists and

0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:20.000
<v Speaker 1>analyst in more than one twenty countries. You can download

0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:23.479
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Business Weekend iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot Com. You

0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:25.439
<v Speaker 1>can also listen to our radio show at two pm

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:27.880
<v Speaker 1>Eastern Time on the Bloomberg Radio or watch us on

0:00:27.920 --> 0:00:32.760
<v Speaker 1>YouTube search Bloomberg Clovel News. We're tracking that on this Monday.

0:00:32.840 --> 0:00:35.960
<v Speaker 1>Also tracking what's going on in COVID. We did see

0:00:36.200 --> 0:00:38.440
<v Speaker 1>New York City asking healthcare providers to give a booster

0:00:38.479 --> 0:00:41.200
<v Speaker 1>basically to anyone who would cross one as New Cases

0:00:41.240 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 1>Pickups team. And then we are Tim seeing a new

0:00:43.040 --> 0:00:45.680
<v Speaker 1>wave of infections across Europe really showing no signs. It's

0:00:45.760 --> 0:00:47.360
<v Speaker 1>like that was really the big story for like over

0:00:47.360 --> 0:00:49.639
<v Speaker 1>the weekend. Yeah, perhaps the most controversial was what's going

0:00:49.680 --> 0:00:52.000
<v Speaker 1>on in Austria. It's beginning a lockdown for people who

0:00:52.040 --> 0:00:55.480
<v Speaker 1>haven't yet been vaccinated. So if you haven't gotten the shot,

0:00:55.560 --> 0:00:58.080
<v Speaker 1>you're going into lockdown. Ireland got set to recommend people

0:00:58.120 --> 0:01:00.880
<v Speaker 1>start working from home again, the UK spanning it's booster program,

0:01:00.920 --> 0:01:03.080
<v Speaker 1>Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying that he wouldn't rule out

0:01:03.080 --> 0:01:06.080
<v Speaker 1>another wave of lockdowns this winner if infection rates jump.

0:01:06.160 --> 0:01:08.119
<v Speaker 1>All right. Well, one of our go to voices over

0:01:08.120 --> 0:01:10.880
<v Speaker 1>the last year or so has been Dr Mario Ramirez.

0:01:10.920 --> 0:01:14.160
<v Speaker 1>He's managing director of the national nonprofit organization Opportunity Labs.

0:01:14.520 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 1>They work across different sectors healthcare, education, housing, workforce. It's

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:21.680
<v Speaker 1>all about really improving outcomes for low income Americans who

0:01:21.680 --> 0:01:25.840
<v Speaker 1>have been severely impacted, certainly during the pandemic. He also

0:01:25.840 --> 0:01:28.040
<v Speaker 1>served as emergency medicine doctor and flight surgeon in the

0:01:28.160 --> 0:01:30.520
<v Speaker 1>U S Air Force, Acting Director also for the Office

0:01:30.520 --> 0:01:34.440
<v Speaker 1>of Pandemic and Emergency Threats at HHS during the Obama administration.

0:01:34.800 --> 0:01:37.080
<v Speaker 1>He is back with us on the phone from Washington,

0:01:37.160 --> 0:01:39.240
<v Speaker 1>d C. Dr Amira is good to have you back

0:01:39.280 --> 0:01:41.959
<v Speaker 1>here on Business Week. How are you and how do

0:01:42.040 --> 0:01:47.040
<v Speaker 1>you see the current round of COVID headlines? Well, thanks

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:49.880
<v Speaker 1>for having me back, Carol, It's nice to be with you. Um.

0:01:49.920 --> 0:01:51.760
<v Speaker 1>You know, I think you guys had a great lead

0:01:51.800 --> 0:01:53.880
<v Speaker 1>in there. Uh. You know, for the last eight weeks

0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:56.400
<v Speaker 1>or so, we have enjoyed some decreasing cases here in

0:01:56.440 --> 0:01:57.920
<v Speaker 1>the United States, and I think a lot of us

0:01:57.920 --> 0:02:00.680
<v Speaker 1>were really opal that the trend was going to continue.

0:02:00.720 --> 0:02:02.560
<v Speaker 1>But certainly over the last week and a half we've

0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:06.480
<v Speaker 1>seen some troubling signs um maybe most notably capped off

0:02:06.920 --> 0:02:10.040
<v Speaker 1>this afternoon with Dr Fauci announcing that cases are up

0:02:10.040 --> 0:02:13.120
<v Speaker 1>by about eleven over the last week here in the

0:02:13.160 --> 0:02:15.360
<v Speaker 1>United States. And I think, you know, many of us

0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:17.920
<v Speaker 1>are concerned that the trends we're seeing in Eastern Europe,

0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:21.160
<v Speaker 1>where vaccination rates in some countries and most notably Germany

0:02:21.200 --> 0:02:22.920
<v Speaker 1>are very similar to what we have here in the

0:02:22.960 --> 0:02:26.320
<v Speaker 1>United States, are an ominous sign for what media ahead

0:02:26.960 --> 0:02:28.600
<v Speaker 1>for some parts of the country in the next few

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:31.800
<v Speaker 1>weeks ahead. But should we be counting or obviously we

0:02:31.800 --> 0:02:33.920
<v Speaker 1>should be counting cases, but should we be having this

0:02:34.000 --> 0:02:36.760
<v Speaker 1>reaction to when we see cases going out the vaccines

0:02:36.800 --> 0:02:40.760
<v Speaker 1>are available widely, should we be focusing on hospitalizations and

0:02:41.160 --> 0:02:44.440
<v Speaker 1>focusing on who gets severely sick? Because the vaccines have

0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:47.919
<v Speaker 1>been proven doctor to be effective in preventing severe hospitalization

0:02:47.919 --> 0:02:51.040
<v Speaker 1>and death. So You're making a great point, tim, And

0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:53.600
<v Speaker 1>what I would say is that in really well vaccinated countries,

0:02:53.680 --> 0:02:57.560
<v Speaker 1>most notably Spain and Portugal, where vaccination rates are north

0:02:57.600 --> 0:03:01.760
<v Speaker 1>of in some areas, they've been able to sort of

0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:05.160
<v Speaker 1>really separate the number of cases from the number of hospitalization,

0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:08.079
<v Speaker 1>meaning that even when their cases go up, so much

0:03:08.120 --> 0:03:11.280
<v Speaker 1>of their population is vaccinated that the hospitalization level seemed

0:03:11.280 --> 0:03:14.040
<v Speaker 1>to be staying pretty flat. But in countries like Germany,

0:03:14.080 --> 0:03:16.680
<v Speaker 1>for instance, whose vaccination rate is almost exactly what we

0:03:16.760 --> 0:03:19.079
<v Speaker 1>have here in the United States, there are still so

0:03:19.120 --> 0:03:22.480
<v Speaker 1>many unvaccinated people or people whose immunity is waning from

0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:25.480
<v Speaker 1>vaccines that they received six to eight months ago, that

0:03:25.560 --> 0:03:27.960
<v Speaker 1>as their case counts start to go up, their hospitalizations

0:03:27.960 --> 0:03:30.640
<v Speaker 1>start to go up significantly as well. Now, of course,

0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:32.519
<v Speaker 1>we know that that is a little bit of a

0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:34.760
<v Speaker 1>lag indicator, right There can be two to three weeks

0:03:34.800 --> 0:03:37.960
<v Speaker 1>before hospitalizations start to go up. And so my concern,

0:03:38.040 --> 0:03:39.760
<v Speaker 1>what I think the concern that a lot of other

0:03:39.760 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 1>people have, you know, is that if we chalk it

0:03:42.720 --> 0:03:45.280
<v Speaker 1>up essentially to saying that we have enough of the

0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:48.839
<v Speaker 1>country vaccinated that we won't see hospitalizations go up, that's

0:03:48.880 --> 0:03:51.000
<v Speaker 1>not necessarily what we're seeing from some of the countries

0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:56.080
<v Speaker 1>in Eastern Europe. So what do you make too of

0:03:56.120 --> 0:03:58.680
<v Speaker 1>New York saying basically, if you want a booster, go

0:03:58.800 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 1>get it. Should we just kind of opened up the

0:04:00.480 --> 0:04:04.360
<v Speaker 1>flood dates here. Well, you know, this is an area

0:04:04.360 --> 0:04:08.080
<v Speaker 1>of ongoing debate, Caroline, and I think many folks, particularly

0:04:08.160 --> 0:04:12.080
<v Speaker 1>you know Dr Fauci, Dr Kessler, Dr Murphy, um, you know,

0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:16.080
<v Speaker 1>and myself, although I would include myself in that same company, UM,

0:04:16.120 --> 0:04:18.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, have advocated strongly for a broad based booster

0:04:19.000 --> 0:04:21.400
<v Speaker 1>rollout since the beginning. UM. You know, when I look

0:04:21.400 --> 0:04:23.320
<v Speaker 1>at the data, and what I think, you know, many

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:25.560
<v Speaker 1>of them have said is that the overseas data from

0:04:25.600 --> 0:04:29.200
<v Speaker 1>countries like Israel, UH and other places suggest that boosters

0:04:29.240 --> 0:04:31.799
<v Speaker 1>really are needed, and that they can have a significant

0:04:31.839 --> 0:04:34.840
<v Speaker 1>increase UH in the immunity for your population. And that's

0:04:34.880 --> 0:04:37.400
<v Speaker 1>part of why the Israeli case counts have dropped so

0:04:37.560 --> 0:04:41.040
<v Speaker 1>precipitously over the last few weeks. UM. But there are

0:04:41.080 --> 0:04:44.200
<v Speaker 1>certainly other folks UH in the academic community, on the

0:04:44.200 --> 0:04:46.679
<v Speaker 1>CDC's advisory committee who have said that we don't fully

0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:51.159
<v Speaker 1>understand the risk of myocardias associated with some of these vaccines.

0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:53.160
<v Speaker 1>And that we need more information before we really give

0:04:53.160 --> 0:04:55.680
<v Speaker 1>a determination about how broad WAYLD roll out the boosters,

0:04:56.640 --> 0:04:58.800
<v Speaker 1>and I think we're many of them. Well, what are

0:04:58.800 --> 0:04:59.760
<v Speaker 1>I was going to say is that I think you

0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:03.040
<v Speaker 1>know of us believe that the mile card is potentially

0:05:03.040 --> 0:05:06.080
<v Speaker 1>caused by the vaccine is barely self limited, but the

0:05:06.160 --> 0:05:09.400
<v Speaker 1>risk caused by another surge is quite real, And so

0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:12.680
<v Speaker 1>in my mind, I think that the benefit part of

0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>that equation really favors of birth much broader based booster

0:05:16.120 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 1>rollout than we've done so far. But I think there's

0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:20.200
<v Speaker 1>so much confusion when it comes to who needs it

0:05:20.240 --> 0:05:22.440
<v Speaker 1>and when they actually need a booster. And I've been

0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:25.279
<v Speaker 1>talking about this Carol with friends and family and talked

0:05:25.279 --> 0:05:27.520
<v Speaker 1>about it over the weekend co workers to today. When

0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:29.480
<v Speaker 1>do we know when we need a booster? When should

0:05:29.480 --> 0:05:30.880
<v Speaker 1>we get a booster? How how do we know how

0:05:30.960 --> 0:05:33.280
<v Speaker 1>were antiboddies are doing well? Dr Mirrors? To be fair,

0:05:33.360 --> 0:05:35.200
<v Speaker 1>like I had signed up for a booster, although I

0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:37.920
<v Speaker 1>didn't quite the hospital that I had gotten my initial

0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:39.480
<v Speaker 1>shots had reached out to me and said, hey, you're

0:05:39.520 --> 0:05:42.080
<v Speaker 1>free to now get a booster, and then I didn't

0:05:42.080 --> 0:05:44.200
<v Speaker 1>really i'd signed up, had it all set and then

0:05:44.320 --> 0:05:46.320
<v Speaker 1>I realized, you know what, I don't really needle the

0:05:46.360 --> 0:05:50.039
<v Speaker 1>criteria of it, UM, and so then canceled it because

0:05:50.080 --> 0:05:53.320
<v Speaker 1>I just felt not right. And I do think there's

0:05:53.320 --> 0:05:55.960
<v Speaker 1>some confusion about should we just go do it, um

0:05:56.080 --> 0:06:00.440
<v Speaker 1>and and just move on. You're both as right. There

0:06:00.520 --> 0:06:02.280
<v Speaker 1>is a lot of confusion about this, and I think

0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:04.279
<v Speaker 1>a lot of this stems from the disagreement that we

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:07.920
<v Speaker 1>saw between um, some of the White House officials from

0:06:07.960 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 1>the FDA and from the CDC's advisory can make several

0:06:10.560 --> 0:06:13.120
<v Speaker 1>weeks ago, when they were trying to figure out how

0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:15.600
<v Speaker 1>broadly to authorize the boosters, uh, you know, And I

0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:17.240
<v Speaker 1>think a lot of the confusion that we're seeing now

0:06:17.360 --> 0:06:19.839
<v Speaker 1>is the tail end effect of that. UM. You know,

0:06:19.920 --> 0:06:22.840
<v Speaker 1>even within lots of the scientists in those two groups,

0:06:23.120 --> 0:06:26.000
<v Speaker 1>we see folks disagreeing about how broadly booster should be

0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:28.720
<v Speaker 1>rolled out, and at least two conflicting messages. That's a

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:31.600
<v Speaker 1>very nuanced argument, and it's hard for the public to

0:06:31.680 --> 0:06:35.479
<v Speaker 1>fully taken, and I think understand sometimes. UM. What I

0:06:35.480 --> 0:06:38.840
<v Speaker 1>think is becoming more clear from overseas data are that

0:06:39.160 --> 0:06:42.320
<v Speaker 1>more and more countries are expanding the kind of population

0:06:42.480 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 1>that should receive boosters. And what I think we should

0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:47.520
<v Speaker 1>see here in the United States, um, because we have

0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:50.160
<v Speaker 1>lagged behind Europe typically a bouye about four to six

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:54.520
<v Speaker 1>weeks UM, is that significant parts of that continent are

0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:57.880
<v Speaker 1>seeing a serious rise in cases. And so folks are

0:06:58.000 --> 0:07:00.600
<v Speaker 1>here in the United States on the fence about whether

0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:03.520
<v Speaker 1>or not they should pursue a booster for themselves. You know,

0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:05.520
<v Speaker 1>I think the evidence is quite good that booster shots

0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:07.839
<v Speaker 1>can really boost her immunity. Right as we get into

0:07:07.880 --> 0:07:10.320
<v Speaker 1>this period where folks are getting together over the holidays,

0:07:10.320 --> 0:07:12.760
<v Speaker 1>where the weather it's turning colder, it just makes good

0:07:12.760 --> 0:07:15.560
<v Speaker 1>sense from my perspective, for as many folks as possible

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:17.160
<v Speaker 1>to go out and get a booster shot. Kind of

0:07:17.200 --> 0:07:19.080
<v Speaker 1>like a no brainer. Just when it meant to the

0:07:19.120 --> 0:07:22.840
<v Speaker 1>headline crossing the CDC revising Japan COVID nineteen travel advisory

0:07:22.880 --> 0:07:25.080
<v Speaker 1>to the lowest risk level, and tim we're seeing a

0:07:25.120 --> 0:07:27.560
<v Speaker 1>lot of the back and forth between countries saying who

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:29.680
<v Speaker 1>can come in or reopening borders. Yeah, and where I

0:07:29.720 --> 0:07:31.200
<v Speaker 1>think we're going to see a lot more of that too,

0:07:31.400 --> 0:07:35.080
<v Speaker 1>where you gonna I'm laughing because you know, again Dr Ramirez,

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:37.320
<v Speaker 1>it's like, Okay, well we know that we should get boosters,

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:39.280
<v Speaker 1>but should people who got fviser get a visor shot

0:07:39.320 --> 0:07:41.200
<v Speaker 1>or people who got Maderna get a Maderna shots or

0:07:41.240 --> 0:07:43.400
<v Speaker 1>they mix and match. Again, it seems like there's no

0:07:43.480 --> 0:07:45.720
<v Speaker 1>clear guidance on this, tim and I keep going back

0:07:45.720 --> 0:07:47.240
<v Speaker 1>and forth, like, are you gonna get when you can

0:07:47.320 --> 0:07:49.800
<v Speaker 1>get your booster? Where you go different? When you apologies

0:07:49.840 --> 0:07:51.640
<v Speaker 1>to people who listen to our show regularly because that's

0:07:51.640 --> 0:07:54.800
<v Speaker 1>something I've been talking about for three weeks. Well, you're right,

0:07:54.840 --> 0:07:56.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, and needs of the same questions that I

0:07:56.160 --> 0:07:58.120
<v Speaker 1>get when I work in my in my clinical life

0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:01.400
<v Speaker 1>every day. Um, And I think at this point there

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:03.560
<v Speaker 1>is not a clear recommendation for people to try to

0:08:03.720 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 1>actively mix boosters except for people who received the Johnson

0:08:06.960 --> 0:08:09.800
<v Speaker 1>and Johnson as their first There it seems to be

0:08:09.920 --> 0:08:12.320
<v Speaker 1>fairly strong evidence that those folks should go out and

0:08:12.360 --> 0:08:15.160
<v Speaker 1>get an mr and a based booster. But the mixing

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:18.000
<v Speaker 1>studies between people who got fiser and who got madernas

0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:21.040
<v Speaker 1>shows that there's relatively little different in the immunity that's

0:08:21.040 --> 0:08:23.640
<v Speaker 1>brought on by mixing between those two categories, And so

0:08:23.760 --> 0:08:26.200
<v Speaker 1>right now there's not a firm recommendation to actively try

0:08:26.240 --> 0:08:28.840
<v Speaker 1>to mix between those two with the data shows is

0:08:28.880 --> 0:08:31.360
<v Speaker 1>that mixing them is safe and so people shouldn't be

0:08:31.360 --> 0:08:34.599
<v Speaker 1>concerned about side effects. Um, but the good news is

0:08:34.640 --> 0:08:36.560
<v Speaker 1>that if you've got fiser, you got a Fiser booster.

0:08:36.640 --> 0:08:38.559
<v Speaker 1>If you mix it with madernas, you're going to be

0:08:38.640 --> 0:08:41.040
<v Speaker 1>on the same level of immunity relatively speaking, if you

0:08:41.080 --> 0:08:43.840
<v Speaker 1>get a booster from any of those manufacturers. All right,

0:08:43.880 --> 0:08:47.199
<v Speaker 1>well that's good to know. Hey, just got about seconds here.

0:08:47.360 --> 0:08:50.480
<v Speaker 1>You are somebody who's worked within the administration, the Obama administration.

0:08:50.800 --> 0:08:53.120
<v Speaker 1>What are you hoping the current administration is doing to

0:08:53.240 --> 0:08:58.080
<v Speaker 1>plan for the next health pandemic? Well, I think you know,

0:08:58.120 --> 0:09:01.160
<v Speaker 1>as I said, I think there's there are concerns of

0:09:00.840 --> 0:09:04.120
<v Speaker 1>a wave of some magnitude that are coming this way.

0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:06.160
<v Speaker 1>And so what I hope the administration is really planning

0:09:06.200 --> 0:09:10.800
<v Speaker 1>for our good plans to position adequate supplies of monoclonal antibodies,

0:09:11.200 --> 0:09:13.560
<v Speaker 1>good supplies of PPE for folks, and as we get

0:09:13.720 --> 0:09:15.240
<v Speaker 1>you know a little bit later into this year when

0:09:15.280 --> 0:09:17.680
<v Speaker 1>we talked about the oral anti virals, I hope that

0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:20.440
<v Speaker 1>they're formulating a good plan for distribution so that folks

0:09:20.440 --> 0:09:24.400
<v Speaker 1>have access to those medications if they're approved because time

0:09:24.480 --> 0:09:26.480
<v Speaker 1>is really of the essence when it comes to starting

0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:29.680
<v Speaker 1>some of these new therapeutics, and just fifteen seconds testing

0:09:31.720 --> 0:09:35.079
<v Speaker 1>absolutely necessary, especially as we're gonna be mixing between states,

0:09:35.160 --> 0:09:38.600
<v Speaker 1>folks coming together with different families. Uh, it absolutely makes

0:09:38.600 --> 0:09:41.000
<v Speaker 1>sense to try and utilize those tools right now. Did

0:09:41.000 --> 0:09:43.079
<v Speaker 1>my test this morning? My weekly test? Oh? Yeah, I

0:09:43.080 --> 0:09:45.120
<v Speaker 1>haven't done. I do mind on Thursdays? Okay, I don't

0:09:45.120 --> 0:09:47.079
<v Speaker 1>know why I'm a Monday too. I don't know. It

0:09:47.160 --> 0:09:49.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of varies. But look, we are really lucky here

0:09:49.080 --> 0:09:51.160
<v Speaker 1>that we do have that opportunity because if you go

0:09:51.200 --> 0:09:52.840
<v Speaker 1>and buy try to buy a test in a store,

0:09:52.880 --> 0:09:55.560
<v Speaker 1>it's difficult to do. Those are also sometimes antigen tests,

0:09:55.640 --> 0:09:57.640
<v Speaker 1>not PCR tests, but there are plenty of places you

0:09:57.640 --> 0:09:59.560
<v Speaker 1>get tested right now, feel very spoiled that they make

0:09:59.600 --> 0:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>it so easy you here. Um certainly at Bloomberg. Hey,

0:10:02.000 --> 0:10:04.680
<v Speaker 1>thank you so much. Dr Mario Ramirez, matching director at

0:10:04.720 --> 0:10:08.640
<v Speaker 1>the national nonprofit organization Opportunity Lives, joining us on this Monday.

0:10:08.720 --> 0:10:13.680
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol

0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:18.079
<v Speaker 1>Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes. Tim Stinovic from Bloomberg Radio

0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:21.200
<v Speaker 1>tweets on selling shares again, sparing with the U. S.

0:10:21.200 --> 0:10:23.920
<v Speaker 1>Senator on Twitter. And then you've got famed investor Michael

0:10:23.960 --> 0:10:28.120
<v Speaker 1>Bury weighing in again on Elon Musk. Again. We've been

0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:32.440
<v Speaker 1>here before again Ditto, ditto, ditto. Keeping track of it all,

0:10:32.880 --> 0:10:35.440
<v Speaker 1>uh and keeping us focused on what really matters is

0:10:35.440 --> 0:10:38.440
<v Speaker 1>our Bloomberg technology reporter Dana Hall joining us via zoom

0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:40.800
<v Speaker 1>in San Francisco. So good to see you on zoom.

0:10:41.040 --> 0:10:43.480
<v Speaker 1>Um Man, I feel like, didn't we do this story

0:10:43.559 --> 0:10:49.600
<v Speaker 1>last week? Danna? Yeah, it's groundhold day. I mean yeah,

0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:51.920
<v Speaker 1>every you know, every I think that Elon Musk is

0:10:52.000 --> 0:10:54.160
<v Speaker 1>very shrewd about how social media works and how the

0:10:54.160 --> 0:10:56.240
<v Speaker 1>mainstream media works. Frankly, I mean he knows that on

0:10:56.240 --> 0:10:59.360
<v Speaker 1>a weekend when most newsrooms are thinly staffed, if you

0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:02.520
<v Speaker 1>want attention, and he could just start something and um,

0:11:02.840 --> 0:11:05.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, this weekend it was about sort of going

0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:08.040
<v Speaker 1>after Bernie Sanders, who has called for you know, billionaires

0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:10.160
<v Speaker 1>to pay their fair share. I would know that this

0:11:10.240 --> 0:11:13.240
<v Speaker 1>was not really a spat or sparring. I mean, Sanders

0:11:13.280 --> 0:11:15.719
<v Speaker 1>did not respond, So it's like this one sided conversation

0:11:15.760 --> 0:11:18.840
<v Speaker 1>where Musk keeps tweeting at Bernie Sanders, but as far

0:11:18.880 --> 0:11:20.440
<v Speaker 1>as I know, Bernie, I don't even know if Bernie

0:11:20.920 --> 0:11:22.760
<v Speaker 1>Man's his own Twitter account. I mean, it could be

0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:25.920
<v Speaker 1>Stafford and he doesn't reply to people, so it's a

0:11:25.920 --> 0:11:27.760
<v Speaker 1>bit one sided at this point. Well, we should know

0:11:27.800 --> 0:11:30.240
<v Speaker 1>that he didn't even call out Elon Musk and a tweet.

0:11:30.280 --> 0:11:32.560
<v Speaker 1>Here's what Bernie Sanders wrote, quote, we must demand that

0:11:32.880 --> 0:11:35.960
<v Speaker 1>the extremely wealthy pay their fair share, period And look,

0:11:35.960 --> 0:11:38.120
<v Speaker 1>it's fair to say that it was directed to people

0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:40.720
<v Speaker 1>like Elon Musk. After all, he is the wealthiest person

0:11:41.280 --> 0:11:45.880
<v Speaker 1>in the world. What do we know about Elon Musk

0:11:45.920 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 1>and taxes right now? Because you've been on there've been

0:11:47.800 --> 0:11:49.560
<v Speaker 1>on the program with us before, and you reminded us

0:11:49.559 --> 0:11:52.040
<v Speaker 1>that this is the guy who's moved from California to

0:11:52.480 --> 0:11:55.200
<v Speaker 1>Texas and moved the company's headquarters from California to Texas.

0:11:55.280 --> 0:11:58.160
<v Speaker 1>So what do we know, Well, the company headquarters have

0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:00.920
<v Speaker 1>not moved yet. I mean, Musk announced that Tesla will

0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:03.320
<v Speaker 1>move its headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin, but they

0:12:03.320 --> 0:12:05.079
<v Speaker 1>haven't moved yet. I mean I check you know, I

0:12:05.160 --> 0:12:07.680
<v Speaker 1>check out on the regular with the Texas Secretary of State.

0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:09.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if you look at all of the filings

0:12:09.360 --> 0:12:12.240
<v Speaker 1>for Musk's share sales. I mean the headquarters are still

0:12:12.240 --> 0:12:15.240
<v Speaker 1>in Palo Alto, but yeah, he himself has moved to Texas,

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:17.959
<v Speaker 1>and so as he exercises these tax options, it will

0:12:18.000 --> 0:12:21.560
<v Speaker 1>be interesting to see how much of a text how

0:12:21.600 --> 0:12:23.960
<v Speaker 1>much he owes to California, since the options were earned

0:12:24.000 --> 0:12:26.560
<v Speaker 1>when he was still living in California. But yeah, I

0:12:26.559 --> 0:12:29.480
<v Speaker 1>mean he has to pay taxes. Um. You know, some

0:12:29.559 --> 0:12:32.200
<v Speaker 1>members of Congress would like billionaires to pay more, but

0:12:32.360 --> 0:12:35.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean that's still all under debate. Unless I checked,

0:12:35.400 --> 0:12:37.800
<v Speaker 1>the sort of tax on billionaires was not part of

0:12:37.800 --> 0:12:41.680
<v Speaker 1>the reconciliation package. But I haven't seen the latest today.

0:12:41.720 --> 0:12:43.480
<v Speaker 1>I have no idea what the discussion is, but I

0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:47.319
<v Speaker 1>think that you know, Musk is very sensitive to taxes.

0:12:47.600 --> 0:12:49.480
<v Speaker 1>He also thinks that there's a lot of government waste,

0:12:49.559 --> 0:12:51.800
<v Speaker 1>and he should know. I mean, he's a government contractor, right,

0:12:51.840 --> 0:12:53.959
<v Speaker 1>I mean, SpaceX gets a lot of money from the

0:12:54.000 --> 0:12:57.160
<v Speaker 1>Defense Department for launches, and I think that he sees

0:12:57.200 --> 0:12:59.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot of waste and bloat in the federal government

0:12:59.240 --> 0:13:01.800
<v Speaker 1>in general. So another reason why he's, you know, not

0:13:01.880 --> 0:13:04.000
<v Speaker 1>so crazy about being taxed himself. He wants to know

0:13:04.040 --> 0:13:07.079
<v Speaker 1>where the money is spent. Okay, sees sees where the

0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:10.240
<v Speaker 1>waste is, but at the same time is the beneficiary

0:13:10.280 --> 0:13:13.480
<v Speaker 1>of that for SpaceX And also, as you have noted

0:13:13.480 --> 0:13:16.559
<v Speaker 1>in the past, UH, federal tax credits to subsidize the

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:21.199
<v Speaker 1>purchase of electronic vehicles have certainly helped the company Tesla absolutely,

0:13:21.280 --> 0:13:23.720
<v Speaker 1>I mean and Tesla Tesla got a really important Department

0:13:23.760 --> 0:13:26.640
<v Speaker 1>of Energy loan very early on and its founding Um,

0:13:26.679 --> 0:13:28.720
<v Speaker 1>you know that it paid back in full with interest,

0:13:28.800 --> 0:13:32.080
<v Speaker 1>But I mean, you know, it's it's just it's yeah,

0:13:32.080 --> 0:13:35.240
<v Speaker 1>it's an interesting conundrum, you know, being opposed to taxes

0:13:35.280 --> 0:13:37.920
<v Speaker 1>on your personal wealth, but being the beneficiary of tax

0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:40.280
<v Speaker 1>pay your subsidies for your companies. For sure. Can't wait

0:13:40.280 --> 0:13:43.000
<v Speaker 1>for the next round of government negotiations. Just quickly, Danna

0:13:43.120 --> 0:13:46.240
<v Speaker 1>kind of at thirty seconds, is there something like you's going, hey,

0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:48.040
<v Speaker 1>look at this flashy thing I'm doing on Twitter. Is

0:13:48.080 --> 0:13:50.480
<v Speaker 1>there something we should really be focusing on right now

0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:54.280
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to Tesla? Just quickly. I mean, I

0:13:54.280 --> 0:13:56.600
<v Speaker 1>think the supply chains shortage is still an issue for

0:13:56.640 --> 0:13:59.720
<v Speaker 1>all automakers. Tesla has spared better than most because it's

0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:02.320
<v Speaker 1>able a pivot quick fairly quickly and has a fairly

0:14:02.360 --> 0:14:06.079
<v Speaker 1>integrated supply chain. Um, you know, who know. I mean,

0:14:07.080 --> 0:14:09.520
<v Speaker 1>it's always the kudos like you know, zig werother zag.

0:14:09.600 --> 0:14:11.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean, just because he's tweeting about something doesn't mean,

0:14:12.080 --> 0:14:13.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, is it distraction or is it really was

0:14:13.880 --> 0:14:18.840
<v Speaker 1>on his mind? I just you know, just yeah, all right,

0:14:19.000 --> 0:14:21.880
<v Speaker 1>thank you as always really appreciated. Downa Hall technology reporter

0:14:21.880 --> 0:14:24.560
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg News via zoom from our San Francisco bureau.

0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:28.720
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and

0:14:28.840 --> 0:14:32.960
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovic on Bloomberg Radio. Well, when

0:14:33.000 --> 0:14:34.960
<v Speaker 1>this crossed the Bloomberg on Friday, we knew we wanted

0:14:34.960 --> 0:14:37.960
<v Speaker 1>to hear more from Bloomberg Business Week's Josh Green. What crossed,

0:14:38.000 --> 0:14:40.520
<v Speaker 1>of course, Friday, was the indictment by the Justice Department

0:14:40.560 --> 0:14:43.840
<v Speaker 1>of former Trump White House strategist Steve Bannon. Bloomberg Business

0:14:43.840 --> 0:14:46.320
<v Speaker 1>Week national correspondent Josh Green, joining us now on the

0:14:46.360 --> 0:14:49.320
<v Speaker 1>phone in Washington, DC, is the author of Devil's Bargain,

0:14:49.400 --> 0:14:53.520
<v Speaker 1>Steve Bannon, Donald Trump and the Nationalist Uprising, including other books,

0:14:53.840 --> 0:14:55.880
<v Speaker 1>also with us as Bloomberg Business weekender Joe Webber with

0:14:55.960 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 1>us on the remote access in Brooklyn, I have to

0:14:58.640 --> 0:15:00.040
<v Speaker 1>say we did. We're like Tim and I like, we

0:15:00.040 --> 0:15:03.800
<v Speaker 1>gotta talk to Josh here, Joe. Yeah, I mean, Josh

0:15:03.840 --> 0:15:07.200
<v Speaker 1>obviously wrote the Bandon book when when I didn't even

0:15:07.200 --> 0:15:08.960
<v Speaker 1>get a heads up from him that he was working

0:15:08.960 --> 0:15:11.240
<v Speaker 1>on this, and then I saw this the headline cross

0:15:11.240 --> 0:15:13.000
<v Speaker 1>and I was like, yeah, of course, Like, there's nobody

0:15:13.480 --> 0:15:16.640
<v Speaker 1>I want to hear more about um Bannon from right

0:15:16.640 --> 0:15:19.160
<v Speaker 1>now than than Josh. So so Josh, bring us up

0:15:19.200 --> 0:15:21.400
<v Speaker 1>to speed on on what what you wrote and kind

0:15:21.400 --> 0:15:24.720
<v Speaker 1>of where things stand on the band in Front. Well, basically,

0:15:24.760 --> 0:15:26.640
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the news was that Bannon was indicted by

0:15:26.680 --> 0:15:28.960
<v Speaker 1>the Justice Department, and this is the first time in

0:15:29.000 --> 0:15:32.840
<v Speaker 1>almost four decades that they pursued somebody for criminal contempt

0:15:33.000 --> 0:15:38.000
<v Speaker 1>Congress because of Bannon's refusal to testify to the January

0:15:38.040 --> 0:15:41.280
<v Speaker 1>six Commission. And I think what's interesting about the news

0:15:41.720 --> 0:15:43.400
<v Speaker 1>is sort of twofold. You know. What I write in

0:15:43.400 --> 0:15:45.960
<v Speaker 1>the piece is that both sides in this fight are

0:15:46.000 --> 0:15:49.000
<v Speaker 1>getting what they want. Um. The real news on Friday

0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:51.560
<v Speaker 1>was the Justice Department was going to issue this indictment

0:15:51.920 --> 0:15:54.400
<v Speaker 1>and answer a question that a lot of anxious Democrats

0:15:54.440 --> 0:15:57.600
<v Speaker 1>had about would Biden really go after this, or would

0:15:57.600 --> 0:15:59.920
<v Speaker 1>he take some kind of pretext of not wanting to

0:16:00.080 --> 0:16:02.520
<v Speaker 1>flame partisan passions and kind of let it go. We

0:16:02.640 --> 0:16:04.720
<v Speaker 1>have an answer to that, Justice Bartman is going to fight.

0:16:05.080 --> 0:16:08.480
<v Speaker 1>What's interesting is that Bannon wants to fight too, although

0:16:08.480 --> 0:16:11.120
<v Speaker 1>for entirely different reasons. What he is trying to do

0:16:11.240 --> 0:16:14.880
<v Speaker 1>here basically is to demonstrate his loyalty to Trump by

0:16:15.160 --> 0:16:19.240
<v Speaker 1>flaunting this congressional subpoena and you know, getting perp walked

0:16:19.240 --> 0:16:21.840
<v Speaker 1>into the courthouse today, which I'm sure everybody saw on TV.

0:16:22.640 --> 0:16:25.560
<v Speaker 1>Because he thinks this is the key to showing Trump

0:16:25.600 --> 0:16:30.120
<v Speaker 1>that he's loyal and increasing his power, meaning Bannon's power

0:16:30.200 --> 0:16:35.880
<v Speaker 1>in Trump circling in Republican politics. You know, go ahead,

0:16:35.920 --> 0:16:40.160
<v Speaker 1>please don't Josh, is it you know, if it's between

0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:45.200
<v Speaker 1>being loyal and going to jail or making a scene

0:16:45.200 --> 0:16:47.760
<v Speaker 1>and then kaving, what do you think? Which way do

0:16:47.760 --> 0:16:50.800
<v Speaker 1>you think Bannon's tilting? Well, so, I know from from

0:16:50.840 --> 0:16:52.760
<v Speaker 1>speaking to Bannon the last couple months, he doesn't really

0:16:52.840 --> 0:16:55.400
<v Speaker 1>quite see it. Is that clear a trade off? You know?

0:16:55.560 --> 0:16:59.360
<v Speaker 1>His his refusal to testify is based on the claim

0:16:59.440 --> 0:17:02.160
<v Speaker 1>that Trump as executive privilege, and that's something that the

0:17:02.200 --> 0:17:06.000
<v Speaker 1>courts have yet to litigate um So, his bet in

0:17:06.000 --> 0:17:07.720
<v Speaker 1>the short term is that he can do this and

0:17:07.760 --> 0:17:10.160
<v Speaker 1>not pay any kind of a price, because it could

0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:13.640
<v Speaker 1>be months or even years until courts decide, and maybe

0:17:13.680 --> 0:17:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court ends up deciding whether or not Trump

0:17:16.560 --> 0:17:19.639
<v Speaker 1>can claim executive privilege and whether or not Bannon is

0:17:19.680 --> 0:17:22.800
<v Speaker 1>subjected to that. Um I think the other part of

0:17:23.080 --> 0:17:25.800
<v Speaker 1>the timing thing here is that Bannon is betting that

0:17:25.880 --> 0:17:28.760
<v Speaker 1>Republicans gonna win back the House of Representatives next November

0:17:29.040 --> 0:17:32.560
<v Speaker 1>and shut down this investigation. That wouldn't necessarily get him

0:17:32.560 --> 0:17:36.119
<v Speaker 1>out of the clear with the Justice Department, but basically

0:17:36.119 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 1>this is a misdemeanor charge. He doesn't see any short

0:17:39.200 --> 0:17:42.480
<v Speaker 1>term penalty that he's paying, but in the meantime, it

0:17:42.600 --> 0:17:45.280
<v Speaker 1>enables him to make this very public display of loyalty

0:17:45.359 --> 0:17:48.680
<v Speaker 1>to Trump, And sure enough, on Friday afternoon, Trump sent

0:17:48.680 --> 0:17:53.439
<v Speaker 1>out a statement praising Bannon um for his obstinacy, which

0:17:53.680 --> 0:17:58.439
<v Speaker 1>is a market uh flip flop of where Trump was

0:17:58.680 --> 0:18:01.959
<v Speaker 1>on Bannon four years ago when he famously fired him

0:18:02.040 --> 0:18:05.280
<v Speaker 1>from his White House job and issued a crazy press

0:18:05.320 --> 0:18:09.320
<v Speaker 1>release referring to him as sloppy Steve um. So, Bannon,

0:18:09.400 --> 0:18:12.879
<v Speaker 1>at least as far as getting back in Trump's good graces. Uh,

0:18:13.040 --> 0:18:15.400
<v Speaker 1>seems to be using this to to kind of get

0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:17.480
<v Speaker 1>what he wants and not what Congress wants. Well, it's

0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:19.880
<v Speaker 1>interesting too, we were just talking about Larry Summer says

0:18:19.880 --> 0:18:23.720
<v Speaker 1>inflation risks bringing Donald Trump back to power. Uh, there's

0:18:23.760 --> 0:18:26.000
<v Speaker 1>just a lot of things already looking at you know,

0:18:26.040 --> 0:18:29.879
<v Speaker 1>the next presidential rate. Um, does Trump like Bannon? Still?

0:18:30.160 --> 0:18:34.040
<v Speaker 1>Would he bring him into the fold again? You know?

0:18:34.240 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that Trump likes or dislikes people like

0:18:36.960 --> 0:18:40.080
<v Speaker 1>ordinary human beings. Do. I think he has a vector

0:18:40.119 --> 0:18:43.520
<v Speaker 1>of is this person loyal and supportive and does he

0:18:43.600 --> 0:18:48.080
<v Speaker 1>praise me? Or is this person someone who Trump views

0:18:48.160 --> 0:18:51.480
<v Speaker 1>is disloyal and won't do his bidding, someone like my

0:18:51.640 --> 0:18:54.119
<v Speaker 1>pents who Trump has been has gone after quite a

0:18:54.119 --> 0:18:57.640
<v Speaker 1>bit the last six seven, eight months. I think that

0:18:58.080 --> 0:19:00.280
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the way Trump views the world world,

0:19:00.640 --> 0:19:05.480
<v Speaker 1>Bannon has clearly moved from the category of bad disloyal guy.

0:19:05.720 --> 0:19:08.600
<v Speaker 1>It's a good disloyal guy. And the key to having

0:19:08.640 --> 0:19:11.119
<v Speaker 1>any kind of power in Republican politics today is to

0:19:11.160 --> 0:19:15.000
<v Speaker 1>be seen as being in Trump's favor. I think Bannon Um,

0:19:15.000 --> 0:19:18.919
<v Speaker 1>by doing this so publicly, has put himself in that category. Well,

0:19:18.920 --> 0:19:20.960
<v Speaker 1>whether or not he pays any kind of a sentence

0:19:21.000 --> 0:19:23.720
<v Speaker 1>or does any kind of jail time eventually remains to

0:19:23.720 --> 0:19:25.880
<v Speaker 1>be seen. But in the short term, I think he's

0:19:25.880 --> 0:19:28.040
<v Speaker 1>achieved what he set out to. Josh. What could he

0:19:28.080 --> 0:19:30.040
<v Speaker 1>face though? What kind of jail time could he face?

0:19:31.240 --> 0:19:33.160
<v Speaker 1>I think he's facing. You know, it could be as

0:19:33.240 --> 0:19:36.359
<v Speaker 1>much as thirty days to a year in prison to find,

0:19:36.920 --> 0:19:38.560
<v Speaker 1>but I think it's a real doubt that it would

0:19:38.560 --> 0:19:41.320
<v Speaker 1>be uh that much. I mean, he's looking at as

0:19:41.359 --> 0:19:44.159
<v Speaker 1>I understand it, a misdemeanor charge, So this isn't something

0:19:44.240 --> 0:19:46.680
<v Speaker 1>where you know, he's staring down any kind of a

0:19:46.760 --> 0:19:49.399
<v Speaker 1>lengthy Jailson's I mean. The other thing that occurs to

0:19:49.440 --> 0:19:51.840
<v Speaker 1>me is if this drags on long enough, it seems

0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:56.959
<v Speaker 1>entirely possible that a President Trump, after election where he'd win,

0:19:57.040 --> 0:19:59.520
<v Speaker 1>could just turn around and pardon Bannon the way he's

0:19:59.520 --> 0:20:04.720
<v Speaker 1>done once ready. So so Josh, uh, we we talked

0:20:04.720 --> 0:20:06.920
<v Speaker 1>about banning here for a bit um In the most

0:20:06.960 --> 0:20:10.119
<v Speaker 1>recent issue of the magazine. You also write about some

0:20:10.240 --> 0:20:12.840
<v Speaker 1>developments in the E t F space, which is near

0:20:13.280 --> 0:20:15.400
<v Speaker 1>near and dear to me as co host of Trillions.

0:20:15.960 --> 0:20:19.040
<v Speaker 1>We also had you on the podcast, but Uh, you know,

0:20:19.080 --> 0:20:21.480
<v Speaker 1>they're kind of related a little bit here, right, because

0:20:21.560 --> 0:20:24.080
<v Speaker 1>the E T s that you're writing about UM are

0:20:24.200 --> 0:20:27.679
<v Speaker 1>actually this sort of like anti woke, anti E s

0:20:27.760 --> 0:20:31.280
<v Speaker 1>G thing talked to us about the people behind them. Yeah,

0:20:31.320 --> 0:20:32.520
<v Speaker 1>but you know it's funny. I hadn't thought of the

0:20:32.520 --> 0:20:34.240
<v Speaker 1>two stories related, but I think they are. I mean,

0:20:34.240 --> 0:20:36.360
<v Speaker 1>what I wrote about in the magazine this week was

0:20:36.760 --> 0:20:39.600
<v Speaker 1>this uh you know, kind of small but growing wave

0:20:39.880 --> 0:20:44.240
<v Speaker 1>of right leaning exchange traded funds uh and related financial

0:20:44.240 --> 0:20:47.200
<v Speaker 1>products as the Trump's back, there's the Trump non fungible

0:20:47.240 --> 0:20:50.440
<v Speaker 1>tokens and uh you know, the desire or the aim

0:20:50.520 --> 0:20:53.080
<v Speaker 1>of of some conservatives in the financial world to try

0:20:53.080 --> 0:20:56.800
<v Speaker 1>and profit off the MAGA masses by offering them uh

0:20:56.840 --> 0:20:59.840
<v Speaker 1>financial products. In this case products was fairly high sees

0:21:00.520 --> 0:21:04.480
<v Speaker 1>UM to try and win a customer base based essentially

0:21:04.480 --> 0:21:07.520
<v Speaker 1>on their affiliation to Trump or their desire to kind

0:21:07.520 --> 0:21:11.000
<v Speaker 1>of stick it to the kind of woke capitalist companies

0:21:11.040 --> 0:21:14.000
<v Speaker 1>that Trump and other conservative rail about. So that's gonna

0:21:14.000 --> 0:21:15.800
<v Speaker 1>be one of the interesting things going forward, is to

0:21:15.880 --> 0:21:19.680
<v Speaker 1>see everything else in American life has become so polarized

0:21:19.720 --> 0:21:22.879
<v Speaker 1>around politics. Will E T F too. There are a

0:21:22.920 --> 0:21:25.080
<v Speaker 1>lot of conservatives out there who would like for that

0:21:25.200 --> 0:21:30.080
<v Speaker 1>to happen and make some money off it. That name

0:21:30.240 --> 0:21:33.879
<v Speaker 1>of that company's second vote advisors, and how how is

0:21:33.920 --> 0:21:37.960
<v Speaker 1>it going so far? Because politics and ETFs don't typically mix,

0:21:39.560 --> 0:21:42.720
<v Speaker 1>that's right, I mean for for for a long time. Um,

0:21:42.760 --> 0:21:45.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, various people have kind of tried to do

0:21:45.440 --> 0:21:48.000
<v Speaker 1>some version of this. There was a h E t

0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:52.480
<v Speaker 1>F for the Cigaret Maga that launched in tween. So far,

0:21:52.560 --> 0:21:55.359
<v Speaker 1>they really haven't managed to amass a lot of money.

0:21:55.520 --> 0:21:57.800
<v Speaker 1>None of the none of the funds that I looked at,

0:21:58.080 --> 0:22:02.080
<v Speaker 1>had managed to collect more than thirty five million dollars,

0:22:02.160 --> 0:22:04.639
<v Speaker 1>which you know in an e t F industry that

0:22:04.720 --> 0:22:07.840
<v Speaker 1>had I think about seven and twenty billion dollars in

0:22:07.920 --> 0:22:11.440
<v Speaker 1>inflow and inflow so much this year isn't very much,

0:22:11.760 --> 0:22:13.359
<v Speaker 1>you know. On the other hand, the bet that I

0:22:13.440 --> 0:22:15.680
<v Speaker 1>think a lot of these people are making that there's

0:22:15.720 --> 0:22:18.000
<v Speaker 1>going to be a backlash to e f G funding

0:22:18.080 --> 0:22:21.080
<v Speaker 1>and that right leaning funds like this, uh we'll have

0:22:21.119 --> 0:22:23.680
<v Speaker 1>a bright future. Well, interesting to see what's going on. Hey,

0:22:23.800 --> 0:22:25.920
<v Speaker 1>Joe Weber, thank you so much, editor of Bloomberg Business

0:22:25.960 --> 0:22:28.040
<v Speaker 1>weekn of course, that last voice was Josh Green National

0:22:28.040 --> 0:22:31.040
<v Speaker 1>correspondent of Bloomberg Business Week. Check out his stories online

0:22:31.080 --> 0:22:35.320
<v Speaker 1>and in the magazine room. Yeah, I bet you let

0:22:35.400 --> 0:22:37.760
<v Speaker 1>me drive. Oh no, no, no no. This is not

0:22:37.800 --> 0:22:42.840
<v Speaker 1>a toy home all night. Please, I'll do the riding gravels.

0:22:43.880 --> 0:22:51.639
<v Speaker 1>I want to drive. It's good question to drive. This

0:22:52.119 --> 0:22:56.360
<v Speaker 1>is the drive to the globe. Well Dr Rod Down

0:22:56.760 --> 0:23:00.480
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Radio. All right, So just about forty minutes

0:23:00.560 --> 0:23:03.080
<v Speaker 1>left in today's trading session, and we've seen some pressure

0:23:03.080 --> 0:23:07.000
<v Speaker 1>on equities technically weighing down, although I really look at things.

0:23:07.000 --> 0:23:09.440
<v Speaker 1>The NASTAC one hundred or NASTAC excuse me, just down

0:23:09.480 --> 0:23:12.640
<v Speaker 1>about six seven points as we speak, Dal off about

0:23:12.680 --> 0:23:14.600
<v Speaker 1>twenty and the S and P five hundred. Call it

0:23:14.640 --> 0:23:17.080
<v Speaker 1>little change, I mean little changed overall, but we're definitely

0:23:17.080 --> 0:23:19.560
<v Speaker 1>off our highs that we saw earlier in the session.

0:23:19.720 --> 0:23:22.680
<v Speaker 1>Katerina Simonetti a senior vice president and private wealth advisor

0:23:22.680 --> 0:23:25.600
<v Speaker 1>at Morgan Stanley Private Wealth Management. She joins us on

0:23:25.640 --> 0:23:29.560
<v Speaker 1>the phone once again from Philadelphia. Katerina, how are you, good,

0:23:29.920 --> 0:23:32.359
<v Speaker 1>tim and Carol, thank you for having me on the show. Okay,

0:23:32.359 --> 0:23:34.919
<v Speaker 1>so help us make sense of not only what's happening today,

0:23:34.960 --> 0:23:38.560
<v Speaker 1>but a time where We're starting to get calls from

0:23:38.800 --> 0:23:42.000
<v Speaker 1>large banks about what they see as prudent investments for

0:23:42.040 --> 0:23:46.680
<v Speaker 1>the year two, and I'm wondering what our audience should

0:23:46.680 --> 0:23:51.280
<v Speaker 1>be thinking about when it comes to investing. Well, tim

0:23:51.359 --> 0:23:55.919
<v Speaker 1>We're in a bit of a transition, transition period and uh,

0:23:56.400 --> 0:24:01.879
<v Speaker 1>this economic outload is very un sir. And all of

0:24:01.960 --> 0:24:04.480
<v Speaker 1>the things that we were kind of just looking for

0:24:05.200 --> 0:24:10.000
<v Speaker 1>and expecting to be affecting the market, like higher material

0:24:10.160 --> 0:24:14.520
<v Speaker 1>costs and labor shortages um and that that should have

0:24:14.560 --> 0:24:18.080
<v Speaker 1>been translated into the negative earning trovisions are not quite

0:24:18.119 --> 0:24:22.040
<v Speaker 1>happening yet. And that coupled with the fact did the

0:24:22.440 --> 0:24:27.080
<v Speaker 1>market is so supported by retail investors that are want

0:24:27.160 --> 0:24:29.840
<v Speaker 1>to stay fully invested, excited about this market as a

0:24:29.840 --> 0:24:32.760
<v Speaker 1>matter of fact, almost you know, worried about missing out

0:24:32.840 --> 0:24:35.280
<v Speaker 1>on the growth of this market. You know, this raises

0:24:35.359 --> 0:24:40.000
<v Speaker 1>some concerns about valuation, and in our view, this is

0:24:40.000 --> 0:24:44.639
<v Speaker 1>the perfect time to be transitioning and preparing the portfolios

0:24:44.640 --> 0:24:48.560
<v Speaker 1>for uncertainty that inevitably, maybe a little bit later than

0:24:48.640 --> 0:24:51.679
<v Speaker 1>we thought, is going to work itself into the negative

0:24:51.720 --> 0:24:55.879
<v Speaker 1>earnings trovisions and more volatility that we are expecting in

0:24:55.880 --> 0:24:58.880
<v Speaker 1>the first quarter of next year. So you agree then

0:24:58.920 --> 0:25:01.400
<v Speaker 1>with the broader I know there's a research no DOT

0:25:01.400 --> 0:25:04.600
<v Speaker 1>from Morgan Stanley Strategy teams today which essentially says stay

0:25:04.600 --> 0:25:06.679
<v Speaker 1>away from US stocks and bonds next year. SEECAP had

0:25:06.680 --> 0:25:09.040
<v Speaker 1>a returns in Europe in Japan. Are you on board

0:25:09.080 --> 0:25:13.359
<v Speaker 1>with that? Well, I think there is still growth in

0:25:13.400 --> 0:25:16.560
<v Speaker 1>the US. I am absolutely on board with the fact

0:25:16.600 --> 0:25:18.639
<v Speaker 1>that there is going to be growth in Europe and

0:25:18.680 --> 0:25:22.240
<v Speaker 1>there's going to be growth in Japan. And undoubtedly US

0:25:22.320 --> 0:25:26.879
<v Speaker 1>market is overvalued, and we ignored the international sector for

0:25:26.960 --> 0:25:29.440
<v Speaker 1>such a long time because there were so many exciting

0:25:29.480 --> 0:25:33.199
<v Speaker 1>opportunities here in the US. But with that said, US

0:25:33.400 --> 0:25:36.360
<v Speaker 1>by no means is done. We just have to pivot

0:25:36.400 --> 0:25:40.600
<v Speaker 1>towards some of the more defensive sectors, sectors like healthcare,

0:25:40.680 --> 0:25:44.439
<v Speaker 1>like financials, like you know, perhaps non cyclical parts of

0:25:44.520 --> 0:25:49.679
<v Speaker 1>technology that are more protective, more defensive, better positions for

0:25:49.800 --> 0:25:53.440
<v Speaker 1>next year. And if we do this with emphasis on quality,

0:25:53.720 --> 0:25:59.800
<v Speaker 1>strategious positioning, and overall valuations UM security selections here makes

0:25:59.800 --> 0:26:01.960
<v Speaker 1>a lot of sense. So we see opportunities in the

0:26:02.040 --> 0:26:04.879
<v Speaker 1>US as well, not just what's interesting too is and

0:26:05.080 --> 0:26:07.199
<v Speaker 1>I wonder how what your take is on this that

0:26:07.359 --> 0:26:10.600
<v Speaker 1>what's going to have a bigger impact on global financial markets.

0:26:10.720 --> 0:26:14.680
<v Speaker 1>Is it going to be central banks taking their feed

0:26:14.720 --> 0:26:17.000
<v Speaker 1>off the gas pedals and putting the brakes when it

0:26:17.040 --> 0:26:20.440
<v Speaker 1>comes to stimulus, or is it going to be UM

0:26:20.480 --> 0:26:23.280
<v Speaker 1>what we're going to see in terms of public programs

0:26:23.320 --> 0:26:29.280
<v Speaker 1>globally budget cuts after unprecedented spending during the pandemic. Will

0:26:29.359 --> 0:26:33.320
<v Speaker 1>that not necessarily have a bigger broader impact on the

0:26:33.320 --> 0:26:38.680
<v Speaker 1>world economy and then ultimately financial markets, Carol, the environment

0:26:39.160 --> 0:26:41.960
<v Speaker 1>is going to be such than interest rates are going higher.

0:26:42.040 --> 0:26:45.800
<v Speaker 1>We know that taxes are going higher UM, and our

0:26:45.880 --> 0:26:48.960
<v Speaker 1>concern is that the demand levels that we're currently see

0:26:49.359 --> 0:26:54.199
<v Speaker 1>are going to decline and the UM consumers ability to

0:26:54.320 --> 0:26:56.920
<v Speaker 1>purchase goods and services at the levels that we're seeing

0:26:57.040 --> 0:26:59.879
<v Speaker 1>right now is going to be declining. And we are

0:27:00.000 --> 0:27:04.879
<v Speaker 1>concerned about the the decreasing levels of personal savings, you know,

0:27:04.880 --> 0:27:08.240
<v Speaker 1>which seems to be a pattern. So all of these

0:27:08.240 --> 0:27:12.040
<v Speaker 1>things in combination are going to lead us to a

0:27:12.119 --> 0:27:17.440
<v Speaker 1>more difficult environment, the environment of higher volatility, but still

0:27:17.560 --> 0:27:20.280
<v Speaker 1>not the bear market. It's just going to be a

0:27:20.320 --> 0:27:25.720
<v Speaker 1>more volatile number of corrections that can be absolutely expected, UM,

0:27:26.000 --> 0:27:28.119
<v Speaker 1>and this is where we need to be strategic and

0:27:28.160 --> 0:27:31.760
<v Speaker 1>pay attention to valuations, and pay attention to quality and

0:27:31.920 --> 0:27:35.760
<v Speaker 1>individual security selections more than ever. So, Caterine or I

0:27:35.800 --> 0:27:37.120
<v Speaker 1>just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

0:27:37.119 --> 0:27:40.080
<v Speaker 1>Are you saying that consumer purchasing power for Americans will

0:27:40.119 --> 0:27:45.120
<v Speaker 1>decline because of inflation? Well, inflation for quite some time

0:27:45.200 --> 0:27:48.800
<v Speaker 1>came right, was was viewed throughout this entire year. We

0:27:48.800 --> 0:27:52.399
<v Speaker 1>were having debates on whether it's transitory in nature or not.

0:27:52.880 --> 0:27:55.480
<v Speaker 1>And the big narrative from Federal Reserve was that it

0:27:55.600 --> 0:27:58.119
<v Speaker 1>is that that the inflation numbers that we're seeing as

0:27:58.160 --> 0:28:01.960
<v Speaker 1>direct result of this whole COVID environment in our of you,

0:28:02.200 --> 0:28:06.320
<v Speaker 1>perhaps it's not quite as transitory as it appears. Perhaps

0:28:06.359 --> 0:28:09.160
<v Speaker 1>the inflation levels that we're seeing are here to stay,

0:28:09.440 --> 0:28:12.120
<v Speaker 1>and we just have to adjust to this new normal

0:28:12.520 --> 0:28:16.119
<v Speaker 1>of operating in the environment of higher costs and higher inflation,

0:28:16.359 --> 0:28:18.280
<v Speaker 1>which is going to be a pretty big shock on

0:28:18.320 --> 0:28:20.800
<v Speaker 1>the system and on the consumers and their ability to

0:28:21.240 --> 0:28:23.359
<v Speaker 1>kind of just just get the basket of goods and

0:28:23.400 --> 0:28:28.000
<v Speaker 1>services as that are accustomed to. Well, So, what is

0:28:28.000 --> 0:28:32.639
<v Speaker 1>your advice to investors at this point? Our advice to

0:28:32.720 --> 0:28:36.000
<v Speaker 1>investors is to take a very close look at their

0:28:36.040 --> 0:28:39.840
<v Speaker 1>investment portfolios. And definitely this is the time to gravitate

0:28:39.880 --> 0:28:43.360
<v Speaker 1>towards the defensive way. For anybody who has not take

0:28:43.680 --> 0:28:47.000
<v Speaker 1>taken profits yet, this is the time to take a

0:28:47.000 --> 0:28:49.840
<v Speaker 1>close look at the affid allocation. Take some money off

0:28:49.920 --> 0:28:52.680
<v Speaker 1>the table in some broad indexes like it since five

0:28:52.760 --> 0:28:55.960
<v Speaker 1>hundreds and Rustle two thousands. Take some money of the table,

0:28:56.000 --> 0:28:59.440
<v Speaker 1>for example, for anybody who is overvalued in US, and

0:28:59.560 --> 0:29:04.760
<v Speaker 1>route some to international exposure, and focus on the sectors

0:29:04.840 --> 0:29:08.640
<v Speaker 1>like healthcare, like certain parts of technology, like financials that

0:29:08.680 --> 0:29:13.920
<v Speaker 1>are positively worldly. That's uh to writing interestly like reads.

0:29:13.960 --> 0:29:17.520
<v Speaker 1>We really like consumer stables, and this is the sector

0:29:17.600 --> 0:29:20.440
<v Speaker 1>that generally does well in this environment. We tend to

0:29:20.480 --> 0:29:23.000
<v Speaker 1>avoid consumer goods at the moment, you know, but we

0:29:23.120 --> 0:29:26.160
<v Speaker 1>still like services. So we see a lot of opportunity,

0:29:26.200 --> 0:29:28.920
<v Speaker 1>a lot of really exciting opportunities in this market. But

0:29:29.000 --> 0:29:31.280
<v Speaker 1>this is not the type of market where you can

0:29:31.440 --> 0:29:34.160
<v Speaker 1>just kind of go on auto pilot and expect investment

0:29:34.200 --> 0:29:37.920
<v Speaker 1>profolius to do well. This is the time to be strategic. Caterinea,

0:29:37.960 --> 0:29:40.479
<v Speaker 1>help us understand long term here when you say that

0:29:40.560 --> 0:29:44.760
<v Speaker 1>investors need to get defensive and start pulling a little

0:29:44.760 --> 0:29:47.200
<v Speaker 1>bit of money from those areas that you talked about,

0:29:47.240 --> 0:29:50.880
<v Speaker 1>how long does that last? So I think there's general

0:29:50.920 --> 0:29:55.240
<v Speaker 1>misconception between defensiveness and staying woll We invested, and a

0:29:55.280 --> 0:29:57.920
<v Speaker 1>lot of times investors kind of just see that pool

0:29:58.040 --> 0:30:01.080
<v Speaker 1>for being defensive as selling out of their equity is

0:30:01.120 --> 0:30:04.400
<v Speaker 1>going into cash, which is always a mistake, and especially

0:30:04.400 --> 0:30:08.240
<v Speaker 1>in the environment of higher inflation, where the cash it

0:30:08.400 --> 0:30:11.880
<v Speaker 1>really becomes the losing asset clause. You know, this is

0:30:11.920 --> 0:30:15.640
<v Speaker 1>really the time for being defensive within the equity sector,

0:30:16.040 --> 0:30:20.160
<v Speaker 1>where certain parts of the equities that had the art

0:30:20.240 --> 0:30:25.200
<v Speaker 1>of unproportionately higher returns that that generally should be expected

0:30:25.280 --> 0:30:28.040
<v Speaker 1>last year, or maybe just seen a strategic thinking when

0:30:28.040 --> 0:30:32.480
<v Speaker 1>we look at the price, flexibility, strategic positioning of this company,

0:30:32.520 --> 0:30:36.280
<v Speaker 1>they're a competitive advantage in the respective space. Maybe this

0:30:36.360 --> 0:30:39.520
<v Speaker 1>is the time to improve the overall quality of equity

0:30:39.840 --> 0:30:43.400
<v Speaker 1>exposure and fix income exposure for that. For the matter

0:30:43.440 --> 0:30:46.160
<v Speaker 1>of fact, this is going to be challenging times for

0:30:46.320 --> 0:30:49.640
<v Speaker 1>bonds and portfolios all around. Well, it certainly feels that way.

0:30:49.680 --> 0:30:52.080
<v Speaker 1>I mean, isn't it challenging just generally overall? I mean,

0:30:52.120 --> 0:30:54.600
<v Speaker 1>to be fair, and we've said this many time on

0:30:54.720 --> 0:30:56.800
<v Speaker 1>air that for the Federal Reserve. It's very easy to

0:30:56.880 --> 0:30:59.520
<v Speaker 1>understand what policy moves to take when the world is

0:30:59.560 --> 0:31:02.240
<v Speaker 1>following up hard. It's also very easy to figure out

0:31:02.240 --> 0:31:05.040
<v Speaker 1>what policy moves to take when everything is gang bugs

0:31:05.080 --> 0:31:08.840
<v Speaker 1>gangbusters and going well. But we're in this really weird

0:31:09.840 --> 0:31:13.320
<v Speaker 1>environment where it's maybe still a little unclear why people

0:31:13.320 --> 0:31:16.160
<v Speaker 1>aren't coming back to the labor market. Uh, it's a

0:31:16.160 --> 0:31:20.160
<v Speaker 1>little unclear exactly what's happening with the supply chain. We understand,

0:31:20.840 --> 0:31:25.280
<v Speaker 1>you know, um, the bottlenecks, but the continuation and what's

0:31:25.320 --> 0:31:28.000
<v Speaker 1>really the cause. I think it's fair to say, despite

0:31:28.000 --> 0:31:30.320
<v Speaker 1>lots of conversations we had about it and even inflation,

0:31:30.320 --> 0:31:32.160
<v Speaker 1>we see the numbers going up and we can explain

0:31:32.240 --> 0:31:35.440
<v Speaker 1>stories away. But it just seems a little mind boggling

0:31:35.480 --> 0:31:37.760
<v Speaker 1>that there are still so many questions and it's hard

0:31:37.800 --> 0:31:41.160
<v Speaker 1>to say what happens when global central banks start to

0:31:41.240 --> 0:31:45.200
<v Speaker 1>alter policy, what happens when global government back off on

0:31:45.560 --> 0:31:48.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, all these as systems that they provided their

0:31:48.160 --> 0:31:51.680
<v Speaker 1>global citizens over the last eight, nine twenty months. Uh,

0:31:51.800 --> 0:31:54.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot of questions out there, and it's very easy

0:31:54.160 --> 0:31:56.600
<v Speaker 1>that we could see some kind of policy misstep now

0:31:58.080 --> 0:32:01.640
<v Speaker 1>absolutely kind of life. Really do want to present um.

0:32:01.720 --> 0:32:05.040
<v Speaker 1>The one benefit that we have is the Federal Reserve

0:32:05.280 --> 0:32:09.760
<v Speaker 1>that has been very careful about their messaging about setting

0:32:09.840 --> 0:32:15.160
<v Speaker 1>expectations and delivering this very carefully kind of crossed messaging

0:32:15.240 --> 0:32:18.640
<v Speaker 1>to so the general investing public note what to expect.

0:32:19.040 --> 0:32:21.720
<v Speaker 1>So at this point in time, we know that they're

0:32:21.760 --> 0:32:25.480
<v Speaker 1>going to taper the asset purchases and we can expect

0:32:26.400 --> 0:32:29.840
<v Speaker 1>really types next year, perhaps one or two increases, but

0:32:29.920 --> 0:32:33.280
<v Speaker 1>we know they're not going to take any drastic measures.

0:32:33.320 --> 0:32:36.680
<v Speaker 1>They're going to avoid shocking the system. They're still extremely

0:32:36.720 --> 0:32:40.520
<v Speaker 1>supportive of the economy, which is growing, but inflation is

0:32:40.560 --> 0:32:44.080
<v Speaker 1>becoming a concern, and it's not just concerned to us

0:32:44.160 --> 0:32:47.360
<v Speaker 1>as consumers. This is concerned to the Federal Reserve, and

0:32:47.400 --> 0:32:49.600
<v Speaker 1>this is probably, you know, one of the numbers that

0:32:49.640 --> 0:32:54.480
<v Speaker 1>are looking at, you know, more than anything else. Utterina Seminetti,

0:32:54.520 --> 0:32:57.240
<v Speaker 1>Senior vice president and private wealth Advisor, and Morgan Stanley

0:32:57.280 --> 0:32:59.640
<v Speaker 1>Private Wealth Management, joining us once again on the phone

0:32:59.680 --> 0:33:02.520
<v Speaker 1>from Philadelphia. Katerina, thank you so much for taking the time.

0:33:03.440 --> 0:33:06.320
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast

0:33:06.360 --> 0:33:09.320
<v Speaker 1>on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com, and you can

0:33:09.360 --> 0:33:11.480
<v Speaker 1>also listen to our radio show at two pm Eastern

0:33:11.520 --> 0:33:14.160
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg Radio, or watch us on YouTube. Search to

0:33:14.200 --> 0:33:15.360
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Global News