Speaker 1: Runt You by Bank of America Mary Lynch. With virtual reality,
Speaker 1: virtually everything will change. Discover opportunities in a transforming world.
Speaker 1: Be of a mL dot Com, slash VR, Mary Lynch,
Speaker 1: Pierced Fenner and Smith Incorporated. Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we
Speaker 1: bring you insight from the best of economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg phil
Speaker 1: and Powder joins us now here on Bloomberg eleven three
Speaker 1: oh Studios in New York, and great to have you
Speaker 1: with us. Suffice to say this was a bit of
Speaker 1: a surprise for for you, as it was for many people.
Speaker 1: I think, yes, clearly the lead had been narrowing spectacularly,
Speaker 1: but yes, to have actually a minority government and the
Speaker 1: tourists coming out of this much the minute, especially Mrs
Speaker 1: May is a surprise as you you piece together what
Speaker 1: happened here, what what you attributed to. I mean, these
Speaker 1: are these are early hours, yet we don't know a
Speaker 1: whole lot still about turnout, who voted, who didn't, vote, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But what you attributed to first this was not a
Speaker 1: brexit actually, uh, the British people, for better words, considered
Speaker 1: brexit done deal. They don't know what it means yet,
Speaker 1: but it's going to be out. So it became an
Speaker 1: issue about the kind of bris that they're on the
Speaker 1: living and apparently on a number of key issues Mrs
Speaker 1: May managed to push the wrong button, especially on the
Speaker 1: MENSA attacks and other social economic issues. What what happens
Speaker 1: from here? As you see it? I mentioned the negotiations
Speaker 1: that are taking place. We expect the Prime Minister to
Speaker 1: go to bucking In Palace. That indicates that she has
Speaker 1: gotten some commitment here that a coalition could could be formed.
Speaker 1: How tenuous a coalition would that bedia think? And what
Speaker 1: does it mean for for the negotiations over breaks that
Speaker 1: are scheduled to take place I think in just ten
Speaker 1: days time. It's it's very hard to say. Clearly, they
Speaker 1: have a majority three nineteen Conservatives, ten Democratic Unionists and
Speaker 1: so they can govern whether they will lost beyond the
Speaker 1: fall or whether w generary election, which of course, but
Speaker 1: the Tories wouldn't enter with Mrs May, Mrs making the
Speaker 1: leadership it's it's all possible. I think we're going to
Speaker 1: see the negotiations starting in a very different tone from
Speaker 1: the band that Mrs May hope to start with so
Speaker 1: confident with personal mandate. There is no mandate, and I
Speaker 1: think Britain will end up playing a lot nicer. Who's
Speaker 1: gonna Who's gonna set that tone? Is that going to
Speaker 1: be the the EU taking advantage here of of a
Speaker 1: change in dynamic? Is it going to be a chastened
Speaker 1: there reason May if in fact she continues to service
Speaker 1: as Prime Minister. Who's going to set the tone going
Speaker 1: forward here in those negotiations? Well, it's a two party negotiation, right,
Speaker 1: so I don't think that Mrs clearly Bill jointly determined
Speaker 1: the tone. But the tone is going to be, I think,
Speaker 1: very much less assertive and aggressive and no no deals
Speaker 1: better than a bad deal type of stuff that was
Speaker 1: in the air until not that long ago. You mentioned
Speaker 1: that it's it's it was not a Brexit vote. What
Speaker 1: are the kind of global ramifications of the vote that
Speaker 1: we had yesterday? Are they diminished as well? In other words,
Speaker 1: is the outcome from this going to have less of
Speaker 1: an effect than the outcome of the vote we had
Speaker 1: last last June. Well, what was interesting in UH where
Speaker 1: this election was that UH in Britain unlike in France,
Speaker 1: but like in Germany, the traditional two large parties are
Speaker 1: back right. This is the obviously don't happen in France,
Speaker 1: and it hasn't never been every add but here are
Speaker 1: two key European countries ready old sort of center left
Speaker 1: and center right dominant again old the minority parties UH
Speaker 1: flunked out. Let's come back to that. That's an important point.
Speaker 1: Film about her with US City. Good morning, David, you're back.
Speaker 1: I had a dream last night and you said on
Speaker 1: the runway Reagan Bloomberg surveillance this morning with all of
Speaker 1: our news flow and thanks to our team for really
Speaker 1: working truly around the clock over the last hours. I
Speaker 1: love your idea, Professor Powder. We've come full circle back
Speaker 1: to two parties, which I guess goes back to the
Speaker 1: seventies and the eighties, almost pre Thatcher. I would I
Speaker 1: would put it to where we are, where does labor
Speaker 1: fit into labor? I mean the unions. That's the big difference.
Speaker 1: The atomization of any labor market now makes it totally
Speaker 1: different than the nostalgia we have for another time. In yes,
Speaker 1: the Labor Party in terms of ideology at the moment
Speaker 1: is very much the leadership like the Labor Party of
Speaker 1: Michael Foot in the seventies. But clearly the role of
Speaker 1: the unions in the economy is much weak, and they
Speaker 1: still have a significant savers inside the Labor Party. But
Speaker 1: yet from that perspective we are not back where we
Speaker 1: where before, because as you say, the atomization of the
Speaker 1: labor market, the fact that organized labor is almost a
Speaker 1: contradiction in terms right, that really is a qualitative change
Speaker 1: that we see in this country, as indeed we see
Speaker 1: in continental Europe. A critical question on this morning, and
Speaker 1: I haven't had time to ask it with the news flow,
Speaker 1: is this a generational election or is it just another election?
Speaker 1: Is there a shift going on? Almost as in Japan.
Speaker 1: It's interesting in some way as usual, they all suggested, No,
Speaker 1: it's a generational election in the sense that Labor got
Speaker 1: voted in by the young. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: Labor's leadership inspires the young is very no past generation.
Speaker 1: So it is it's a it's a very strange concoction
Speaker 1: of youngsters going a ladders. Wow, there you go. Is
Speaker 1: there is their residence here, with what we saw as
Speaker 1: the residents here, with what we saw with with Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders in the US very much. Yes, How does Jeremy
Speaker 1: Corby murag from from all from all of this? He
Speaker 1: was the one where everyone had been talking about, who
Speaker 1: is he going to continue to lead his party? Is
Speaker 1: this a victory in some small light for for him?
Speaker 1: And absolutely? I mean, you know, he led his party
Speaker 1: into this election. People thought that he was go to
Speaker 1: bomb and he's done much better than expected. Though he
Speaker 1: gains from this personal level and his wing of the
Speaker 1: party gains from this. Yes, go ahead, no, go ahead,
Speaker 1: Please insist you're on the runway right yesterday? How how
Speaker 1: do you see treason a you know, a few months
Speaker 1: in here settling into this job as prime minister, we've
Speaker 1: now had occasion to listen to her, could deliver many
Speaker 1: important speeches, some of which were tied to two terrible events,
Speaker 1: terrorist events in the country. But how how do you
Speaker 1: see her in that role? How is she doing as
Speaker 1: prime minister in terms of the duties of the job
Speaker 1: of taking care of the country, of addressing national tragedies
Speaker 1: and big, big events, and of planning a path forward. Well, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we haven't seen any real ideas, initiatives, deep thoughts like
Speaker 1: brexit means brexit and enough is enough and not a
Speaker 1: substitute for policies, right, So I think she has to
Speaker 1: me got a lot to prove that you can actually
Speaker 1: lead by addressing concrete issues with concrete policies. And unless
Speaker 1: she does that, I don't think she lost long has
Speaker 1: her reactiveness been because of the fact that Brexit is
Speaker 1: so all consuming? Do you see it being that that
Speaker 1: she's myopic or shortsighted, or is she just dealing with
Speaker 1: what she has to do that being this is this
Speaker 1: is the overarching, biggest issue that this government has to do.
Speaker 1: And she comes from the background bitches home office of
Speaker 1: the pulpit of the Interior, if you are, and so
Speaker 1: international cross border issues simply not part of uh what's
Speaker 1: just all about? And it shows. But we're waiting at
Speaker 1: some point we may have comments from the Prime Minister
Speaker 1: of the United Kingdom. We've got all sorts of feeds
Speaker 1: into our world headquarters, into our radio operation. Here the
Speaker 1: jaguar waits outside of ten Downing Street, My great the Queen,
Speaker 1: I mean, rather the Prime Minister over to jaguar jaguar
Speaker 1: jaguar anyways, Uh it is silver uh and the cat
Speaker 1: is not separately North Nicole Sturgeon is taking questions and speaking.
Speaker 1: I believe it's boothouse, Fuessor Bouder, b u t e
Speaker 1: beaute house. I think I am. I'm in Scotland, I'm
Speaker 1: the beautiful lot of jokes here mute but mute house.
Speaker 1: There it is. But she is speaking after the SMP
Speaker 1: was defeated, Alex Sanmon even losing his seat among other worthies.
Speaker 1: And the clear sight guys this morning is she will
Speaker 1: tilt away from an independence focus to an s MP brex,
Speaker 1: said Professor Bower. Within your wonderful understanding of the culture
Speaker 1: and politics of Europe and the United Kingdom, How does
Speaker 1: remain deal on this interesting morning? Remain in Northern Ireland,
Speaker 1: Remain in Scotland. How lonely are they this morning? Remain
Speaker 1: Have I have a lot of company? Now they've got
Speaker 1: company in England. You think there's been a shift back
Speaker 1: to remain well in a sense that d not the
Speaker 1: main but the from the desire for a softer breck
Speaker 1: shit then, but Mrs May seemed to be hinting at
Speaker 1: step away even from a no deal is UH is
Speaker 1: better than than a bad deal, so UM, I don't
Speaker 1: think regrettably the remains is an option. At this point
Speaker 1: the UK will have to leave the EEL before it
Speaker 1: kind of applied to rejoin. But I think the softer
Speaker 1: landing for all concerned is good news. The uber driver
Speaker 1: showed up, the uber driver the new normal in the
Speaker 1: UK six minutes feeling matter. What's tod that you? Yesterday
Speaker 1: the President of the e CV was in Estonia, not
Speaker 1: in in Frankfort, but in Estonia, delivering that new policy
Speaker 1: statement and taking questions from from reporters. What's that? What
Speaker 1: was the key headline for you of what Mr drug
Speaker 1: he said yesterday? Well, no surprises, A right, They're not
Speaker 1: going to cut rates, uh. It makes no sense to
Speaker 1: cut rates when you're at the zeroo abound unless you're
Speaker 1: going to get rid of cash, which they won't, and
Speaker 1: they will go easy on on the tapering of the
Speaker 1: of the balance sheet. There's both entirely expected. I think
Speaker 1: the fact that he is uh concern about the continuing
Speaker 1: weakness of inflation is also not a surprise. We have
Speaker 1: the flatters Philip skirls. Since you know Mr Philip invented
Speaker 1: and uh, there's no admission yet that they're out of AMMO,
Speaker 1: but they're clearly shame. You're not going to cut rates
Speaker 1: and the build taper more slowly or affect he es
Speaker 1: basically recognized reality that the ECB in terms of the
Speaker 1: ability to stimulate the economy is uh now a bit player.
Speaker 1: To let me pull back the surveillance, Curtiney, here a
Speaker 1: little bit that we take these press conferences after the
Speaker 1: policy statements renounce, and you and I listen and decide
Speaker 1: how long we're gonna we're gonna take it. We really
Speaker 1: take it in full. You were very engaged with what
Speaker 1: with Mark d saying, yeah, it started out dry as dust,
Speaker 1: you mean Bowder nodded off over his audience, and then seriously, Professor,
Speaker 1: it really clicked in. I mean he really went at
Speaker 1: it about how he does not have the fear that
Speaker 1: so many of the handwringers have. You mentioned this earlier
Speaker 1: this morning. You see it as a very stable process
Speaker 1: to do what he has to do on the balance
Speaker 1: sheet on normalizing rates. Oh, you got to give me
Speaker 1: a bigger answer on a Friday than yes, you can
Speaker 1: do that on Wednesday. The balance sheet isn't on the issue,
Speaker 1: but right from an economic technical perspective, a bit bit
Speaker 1: political issue because the central bank, especially on the asset
Speaker 1: side of his balance sheet, has all kinds of rubbish
Speaker 1: that central bank should not have the engage in credit
Speaker 1: policy increased a fiscal policy, and that's an issue from
Speaker 1: a technical point of view. As soon as they get
Speaker 1: away from the zeroo abound, they can play the interest
Speaker 1: rates again, even if the balance sheet is likely to
Speaker 1: GDP by then about twice the size that as the
Speaker 1: GDP of the fense balance sheet. Incidentally, not the the
Speaker 1: two day FED meeting next week, give us a bit
Speaker 1: of a preview for what you're looking for. Their seems
Speaker 1: like insensus we're gonna see rates when it comes to
Speaker 1: the balance sheet. What are you hoping to hear from
Speaker 1: from the Fed next week? Just um a clear statement
Speaker 1: that they are no looking at this very seriously, working
Speaker 1: on the communications strategy only to avoid recurrence of tape
Speaker 1: a tantum nonsense, and that they will do this in
Speaker 1: a way that will not upset especially the RMBS market,
Speaker 1: and that they'll do it slowly, gradually, and that there
Speaker 1: are no villan boarders. Thank you so much for your
Speaker 1: about surveillance greatly, greatly, Ship David. I'm I'm upset the
Speaker 1: first Lady, the former first Lady, Michelle Obama making an
Speaker 1: uproar about the president wearing his tucks for eight years,
Speaker 1: the same tux for eight years. Can I do a
Speaker 1: shout out this morning? I got my tux of trash
Speaker 1: and Vaudeville down in the East Village and that was
Speaker 1: like fourteen years ago, John Tucker, your tux goes back,
Speaker 1: you know, years, goes back like twenty three years, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got it from Jerry Mahoney. Anyways, I I think
Speaker 1: Mrs eight years is just breaking in a tuxedo. Stay
Speaker 1: with us worldwide. This is Bloomberg surveillance much more. Next
Speaker 1: right now, what a perfect guest to wrap up the week.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Rosenberg is at Blackrock and what he does is
Speaker 1: he brings a synthesis of what we do economics, financial
Speaker 1: investment with prodigious math skills out of Carnegie Mellon. Are
Speaker 1: we in a normal distribution, Jeffrey Rosenberg? Is this a
Speaker 1: normal environment we're in in terms of financial stability? Thanks
Speaker 1: Tom for that. Uh No, we're certainly not. And you know,
Speaker 1: just just to sort of talk about the distributional outcomes
Speaker 1: after the UK election. You know, one of the things
Speaker 1: that this has resulted in is is really raising the
Speaker 1: uncertainty around both sides of the distribution. Does this increase
Speaker 1: the odds of a hard breath Brexit possibly, does it
Speaker 1: increase the odds of a softer Bregxit. The change in
Speaker 1: the leadership that you just talked about and what might
Speaker 1: result from that has has shifted the distribution and and
Speaker 1: increased the uncertainty of over what this means for the bregsit.
Speaker 1: That's certainly one of the main takeaways this morning. I'm
Speaker 1: fairly confident they were paying attention to this on thread
Speaker 1: Needle Street. There's a b E B o E meeting
Speaker 1: next week in London. How are they processing what's transpired
Speaker 1: here over the last twenty four hours. So again, you know,
Speaker 1: the issue is what is the implications for the UK
Speaker 1: economy of the Brexit negotiations and what kind of uncertainty
Speaker 1: does that, along the way translate into for the currency,
Speaker 1: what does the currency due to inflation and inflation expectations
Speaker 1: and what does the uncertainty due to the performance of
Speaker 1: the economy. If anything, uncertainty here is going to keep
Speaker 1: the BOE more accommodative for a longer period of time
Speaker 1: as they as they watch what the exit negotiations mean
Speaker 1: for the fundamental performance the UK economy. Were looking forward
Speaker 1: to there being a limited amount of political risk after
Speaker 1: the elections in France just a couple of weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Does this add more political risk to political risk? Stay
Speaker 1: the same? How do you how do you view that?
Speaker 1: So you know, and and shameless plug here we we
Speaker 1: just published on the Black Ark website a whole treatise
Speaker 1: on on political risk and and and the rise of
Speaker 1: populism and and and some of the changes and certainly
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of the French election, the tide appears
Speaker 1: to be actually decreasing in terms of uh the kinds
Speaker 1: of political risk, particularly when we're focused on Europe that
Speaker 1: are associated with the breakup risk, you know, the kinds
Speaker 1: of risks. Look at the market reaction this morning about
Speaker 1: the UK. This is not systemic risk, this is not spillovers.
Speaker 1: This is important to the UK domestic economy, it's important
Speaker 1: to UK related assets, but it's having a very minor
Speaker 1: impact relative to the kinds of conversations we had when
Speaker 1: we were talking about political risk. Where really was affecting
Speaker 1: global market position global markets, So certainly there appears to
Speaker 1: be a bit of decline. We had had that risk
Speaker 1: around the lead up to the French elections, but the
Speaker 1: very surprising result appears to be dampening that some risks
Speaker 1: around that, certainly because you've got the potential early call
Speaker 1: for elections in in in Italy. But relative to the
Speaker 1: kinds of volatility politics have driven in terms of financial markets,
Speaker 1: today's events certainly seem much much lower. Well said, But
Speaker 1: the theme of the week away from all this follow
Speaker 1: a that we've been dealing with is the idea of
Speaker 1: an inflation vector going the wrong way? Does the politics
Speaker 1: subdue nominal GDP? Does it put a dampening on the
Speaker 1: animal spirit? And maybe we do get decent real GDP,
Speaker 1: but the inflation just isn't there. Is that an outcome
Speaker 1: that you and share yell and have to consider. So
Speaker 1: so it's a really interesting question around what the politics
Speaker 1: implies for the inflationary outlook because we've how to separate
Speaker 1: the time horizons over which we're talking about the the
Speaker 1: inflation going the other way. Tom that's the near term dynamic,
Speaker 1: that's the cp I figures. Next week, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a CPI report a lot of focus that's about the
Speaker 1: near term. What's one of the implications of the UK election.
Speaker 1: It's out in the tail of the distribution, but the win,
Speaker 1: according to the Labor Party UH is raising the odds
Speaker 1: of potentially a political shift towards more fiscal expansionary policies,
Speaker 1: more debt and deficit policies, which is inflationary and and
Speaker 1: is certainly an impact of greater issuance of government debt
Speaker 1: and potentially higher risk premium around that. It's not in
Speaker 1: the market today, it's not part of the whole conversation
Speaker 1: around near term impacts. But the shift towards more am accommodation,
Speaker 1: more fiscal policy expansion, more debt and deficits is a
Speaker 1: push towards higher inflationary environments. That's what you've seen here
Speaker 1: in the US vs of a fiscal policy, a lot
Speaker 1: of talk about it for a time, a lot of optimism.
Speaker 1: Optimism about it changed how you view the potential for
Speaker 1: it in other countries. Well, you know, we we we've
Speaker 1: had a big turnaround in terms of expectations around fiscal policy.
Speaker 1: The initial enthusiasm UH in the US, UH you know,
Speaker 1: certainly followed by an unwinding of that. You know, the
Speaker 1: fiscal policy is run by politicians, so the political uncertainty
Speaker 1: and the potential swings makes it harder for markets to
Speaker 1: price what those outcomes are relative to monetary policy run
Speaker 1: by technocrats, run under various forms of we don't want
Speaker 1: to get in the whole debate event how hard and
Speaker 1: fast they follow the rules. But there is a reaction
Speaker 1: function that monetary policy tries to show to the market,
Speaker 1: so that there's a little bit more predictability, if you will.
Speaker 1: On the fiscal policy side, very hard to predict that.
Speaker 1: And so the swings here and the UK, you know,
Speaker 1: again pivoting off of last night's results, the swings here
Speaker 1: are are really headspinning for financial marketing, and so it
Speaker 1: widens the scope of uncertainty. Markets have a hard time
Speaker 1: sort of pricing those outcomes. I get about eight more questions,
Speaker 1: but no time. Jeff Rosenberg, right, Well, we'll see your
Speaker 1: research note this weekend or into Monday as well. He
Speaker 1: is with black Rock uh this morning runch you by
Speaker 1: Bank of America Mary Lynch with virtual reality, virtually everything
Speaker 1: will change. Discover opportunities in a transforming world VI of
Speaker 1: a mL dot com slash VR, Mary Lynch, Pierced Fenner
Speaker 1: and Smith Incorporated. After what we saw yesterday, the bright lights,
Speaker 1: the show biz of the Comy testimony, how about a
Speaker 1: move back to reality. Listen to this sentence, folks. He
Speaker 1: strengthened priority programs to fight public corruption, transnational criminal enterprises
Speaker 1: and violent gangs, and work to protect our children. Uh
Speaker 1: and cherished civil rights. That would be an essay by
Speaker 1: Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, on one Chris Wecker
Speaker 1: as he left the FBI eleven years ago. Chris Wecker,
Speaker 1: good morning, Good morning. You worked with Mr Muller. There's
Speaker 1: this odd linkage now between the Special Council and the
Speaker 1: former acting director. How do you perceive that Mr Muller
Speaker 1: will move forward after the testimony yesterday? Yeah, Well, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: A couple of revelations yesterday and question marks were questions
Speaker 1: were answered in that the the Jim Comy's interactions with
Speaker 1: the President have are now in the hands are are
Speaker 1: are being examined by a special counsel Mueller. That was
Speaker 1: an open question until yesterday. So his note, his memos,
Speaker 1: they're all in the hands of former Director Mueller, that's
Speaker 1: one significant thing. Yeah, they know each other pretty well. Uh.
Speaker 1: At one time, Robert Mueller as director the FBI reported
Speaker 1: to Jim Comey as the Deputy Attorney General. That's the
Speaker 1: reporting hierarchy. Uh and still is was and is. So
Speaker 1: they certainly know each other. But I will say that
Speaker 1: former Director Mueller has the blinders on. He he knows
Speaker 1: a lot of people in those circles. It's not unusual
Speaker 1: for these people be very familiar with each other. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to affect him one bit that
Speaker 1: he knows Jim Comey, and I think Jim Comey has
Speaker 1: will cooperate fully with that investigation. That's about the best, uh,
Speaker 1: the thing that you can say about that relationship. Chris,
Speaker 1: let me ask you. There was a comment from the
Speaker 1: House Speaker yesterday that we've seen some missteps here by
Speaker 1: this president because he's new to the job. I'm paraphrasing there,
Speaker 1: but that was the thrust of what the House Speaker
Speaker 1: had to say. Contrast that with what we saw and
Speaker 1: heard yesterday from James Comby. He is somebody who, during
Speaker 1: the course of that almost three hour hearing, really came
Speaker 1: across as somebody who knows about the way government works,
Speaker 1: knows about the way separation of powers and agencies works.
Speaker 1: There were indications here that he did some things deliberately
Speaker 1: so that we could see a special council tell us
Speaker 1: a bit more about that. The way that James Coby
Speaker 1: knows how to maneuver and make his way through the
Speaker 1: system down in Washington, well, that was a big reveal
Speaker 1: yesterday that he basically manipulated the system to get a
Speaker 1: special counsel appointed. But I think what what he also
Speaker 1: have to consider is that Jim Comey laid out his
Speaker 1: own failings yesterday. And I'm a big fan of his,
Speaker 1: We've worked together. I think he has total integrity. I
Speaker 1: don't think he lies. I think he tells the truth.
Speaker 1: But he also showed how weak he was and not
Speaker 1: pushing back at the President when he felt like something
Speaker 1: inappropriate was going on. That's one thing I would have
Speaker 1: expected much much more courage and fortitude and decisiveness on
Speaker 1: his part. And secondly, he's now painting a picture of
Speaker 1: a mandate from the president or directed from the President,
Speaker 1: to to derail the Flint investigation, and if that were
Speaker 1: the case, he should have referred that he should have
Speaker 1: refused himself as a potential witness and referred that to
Speaker 1: his number two or number three as to whether a
Speaker 1: preliminary inquiries should have been opened up under the Attorney
Speaker 1: General guidelines. And that's a fairly low bar, but instead
Speaker 1: he stuck it in the corner of his desk and
Speaker 1: for later use. Chris, let me ask you. You you
Speaker 1: mentioned the respect that you have for the former FBI director.
Speaker 1: Talk about the significance of who accompanied him or went
Speaker 1: to this hearing with him. It was remarkable to see
Speaker 1: Hart to sixteen, that big hearing room packed to the
Speaker 1: gills with reporters. He saw the tables in the back
Speaker 1: of the room. There weren't a whole lot of seats
Speaker 1: behind him. But my understanding is a number of FBI agents,
Speaker 1: a number of his now former colleagues, made their way
Speaker 1: there of their own volition to sit behind him at
Speaker 1: the here And what did that signify to you? Well,
Speaker 1: it's well known that Director Comey had a lot of
Speaker 1: empathy for the agents he got to Everage Field office. Uh.
Speaker 1: He was very personable, you know. And Director Muller I
Speaker 1: served under him. He was more business like. He was
Speaker 1: more he was all about business. And there weren't a
Speaker 1: lot of personal relationships developed, but I have utmost respect
Speaker 1: for Mueller and the way he handled his job. Comey
Speaker 1: was just basically won over the agents in the office.
Speaker 1: I think there was there was quite a bit of dissension, however,
Speaker 1: about how he handled a lot of things the further
Speaker 1: you go out from his inner circle, but I do
Speaker 1: think they appreciate the fact he gotta see them and
Speaker 1: he and he really loved being director of the FBI.
Speaker 1: Chris Bucker, great to speak with you. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much for the time here as we continue to analyze
Speaker 1: the hearing yesterday before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Speaker 1: at James coming there in two sessions open and closed yesterday.
Speaker 1: Chris Wecker, former Assistant Director of the Federal View of Investigation,
Speaker 1: joining us on our phone line, David Gura and Tom
Speaker 1: Keene in New York in our Bloomberg eleven three oh studios.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Surveillance on Bloomberg Radio from here in
Speaker 1: New York. We're paying attention to what's going on in
Speaker 1: London in the US looking over to the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: That's something that Thomas Wright does day in and day
Speaker 1: out as a director of the Project on International Order
Speaker 1: and Strategy at the Brookings Institution. He's the author of
Speaker 1: All Measures Short of War, The Contest for the twenty
Speaker 1: three Century, and the Future of American Power. Thomas Right,
Speaker 1: great to speak with you once again. Congratulations on the
Speaker 1: new book, and I want to start with the opinion
Speaker 1: piece that Gary Cohen, the director of the National Economic
Speaker 1: Council UH and H. R. McMaster, the President's National Security advisor,
Speaker 1: wrote for the Wall Street Journal just a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago. That piece, America first doesn't mean America alone.
Speaker 1: Those two men wrote about the arena in America's role
Speaker 1: in the arena. What does the arena look like to
Speaker 1: you today? Yeah, it's a great question coming just you know,
Speaker 1: hours after another sort of astonishing um election results in
Speaker 1: the UK. I guess we can get onto that in
Speaker 1: a minute. But one that really know and had had predicted.
Speaker 1: And I think what what what I try to argue
Speaker 1: in the book, and it is that I think this
Speaker 1: post co war order that we saw where the world
Speaker 1: was converging on a sort of single model of an
Speaker 1: open global economy, no international institutions, respect for borders, um,
Speaker 1: sort of very centril type of politics that that has
Speaker 1: come to an end and is unraveling, and around the
Speaker 1: world we sort of see the return of a more
Speaker 1: nationalist deo, politically competitive, even a cantilist world, and I
Speaker 1: think that the British election was the latest example of that.
Speaker 1: Last night, the sort of another rejection of the establishment
Speaker 1: on the col McMaster op ed that was I thought
Speaker 1: a very curious piece because it was really their effort
Speaker 1: to try to um co opt in a way the
Speaker 1: Trump America First policy and show that it was um
Speaker 1: not you know, as radical as some people make out.
Speaker 1: But I thought it was came in for an awful
Speaker 1: lot of criticism because they did sort of deride this
Speaker 1: idea of the global community and they said the world
Speaker 1: is an inherently competitive place. And I think they didn't
Speaker 1: really give much assurance to US allies and that the
Speaker 1: US will continue to play the role that has played
Speaker 1: since War two. How long does it take Thomas Right
Speaker 1: for a president to develop a doctrine? You you read
Speaker 1: what those two men wrote, and you can think that
Speaker 1: perhaps what they're doing is try to lay the paper
Speaker 1: the belief system when it comes to foreign policy. This
Speaker 1: administration has. When you look to history, how quickly can
Speaker 1: a policy perspective, a policy platform change and how much
Speaker 1: staying power does it have. Well, it usually takes quite
Speaker 1: some time if it appears at all. I mean there's
Speaker 1: all a sort of an elusive search for the doctrine
Speaker 1: of whatever president is in power, you know, the Obama
Speaker 1: doctor and really I think chuck well into the second
Speaker 1: term for people to you know, identify it as sort
Speaker 1: of this desire for restraint and the pullback from the
Speaker 1: Middle East. And the reason is is that in the
Speaker 1: early period of any administration, there's lots of contradictory actions
Speaker 1: and decisions that sort of cut neater directions. So if
Speaker 1: you remember with President Obama, you know, in his first
Speaker 1: year he didn't mini search to Afghanistan, so that didn't
Speaker 1: very much look, that didn't really look like a strategy
Speaker 1: of restraint or pulling back. So I think it often
Speaker 1: takes time, but I think this time it would be
Speaker 1: much more difficult because there's an inherent sort of contradiction
Speaker 1: at the heart of this administration, which is the president
Speaker 1: has one set of ideas and it's unique I think
Speaker 1: in his ideology and his temperament, in the way he
Speaker 1: processed this information, and then his cabinet are actually much
Speaker 1: more traditional in the mainstream, and that's never going to
Speaker 1: be resolved. I think that's right where he wanted to go.
Speaker 1: What's magical about your book? Time all measures short of war?
Speaker 1: As you take us back to the real add event
Speaker 1: of the modern liberal thought on how America acts in
Speaker 1: the world. This goes back to Harry Truman and Dean Atchison,
Speaker 1: among I mean others. They invented a liberal theme coming
Speaker 1: out of World War two. Is it dead? I don't
Speaker 1: think it's dead. I think it's under serious stress, you know.
Speaker 1: I think it's been rejected by the current president. But um,
Speaker 1: the case I try to make in the book is
Speaker 1: if you look at it and sort of try to
Speaker 1: look at it objectively, it actually still offers a much
Speaker 1: better way of protecting America's interest from really the interest
Speaker 1: in most countries in the world over the alternatives. Because
Speaker 1: any sort of any you know, state of affairs has
Speaker 1: to be dude relative to the to the alternatives. And
Speaker 1: in this case, you know, the alternative is a sturge
Speaker 1: of influence order that's much more sort of nineteenth century style,
Speaker 1: where the major powers are competing and and will really
Speaker 1: be not cooperating, possibly on the verge of conflict with
Speaker 1: each other. Um. You know, the global economy will be
Speaker 1: damaged by that, the be less trade, less openness, and
Speaker 1: I think in the long run that's something that I
Speaker 1: think people will will be very uncomfortable with. After the
Speaker 1: the US elected via its president to withdraw from the
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement, Scott PRUITTT, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Speaker 1: spoke to reporters and addressed the issue of whether or
Speaker 1: not the US would have occasion to come back to
Speaker 1: the table to renegotiate that particular deal, and he said,
Speaker 1: we'll always have a seat at the table where the
Speaker 1: United States. How do you you process what he said there?
Speaker 1: And in light of what we've seen here over the
Speaker 1: last four or five months, how reparable is the damage
Speaker 1: that we've seen to the trans atlantic relationship, to a
Speaker 1: relationship with NATO allies? How how can you how successfully
Speaker 1: do you think the US can reverse some of that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a great question. It's won't've been trying to think
Speaker 1: about recently, because you know, a lot of what the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is doing can be reversed. You know, Paris
Speaker 1: is a good example the US isn't technically out of
Speaker 1: Paris until which is after the next election, because there's
Speaker 1: a three or where waiting time period in the in
Speaker 1: the accord um, so a future president could reverse that.
Speaker 1: And of course the future president can you know, if
Speaker 1: there was a new Obama or somebody like that, come
Speaker 1: in and recome in America to the world and undo
Speaker 1: a lot of the damage. But the interesting question I
Speaker 1: think is how what could happen if the reversible you know,
Speaker 1: what could break that can't be fixed. And I particularly
Speaker 1: worried about the NATO comments in that regard because I think,
Speaker 1: you know, if an alliance is discredited, it's impossible to
Speaker 1: put back together. And I think on climate there are
Speaker 1: worries that we're going to lose time, you know, very
Speaker 1: valuable time to need to deal with these problems. And
Speaker 1: there you know, as you saw in the Middle East
Speaker 1: last week, we're cutter in Saudi Arabia. You know, there's
Speaker 1: the potential of sort of a side conflict that could
Speaker 1: erupt that would have major implications because of sort of
Speaker 1: US disinterest. So there's many things that I think could break,
Speaker 1: some of them that are probably are reversible. Great to
Speaker 1: speak with you once again, Thomas Right, the author of
Speaker 1: All Measures or If We're the Contest for the twenty
Speaker 1: one Century and the Future of American Power, his new book.
Speaker 1: He is the director of the Project on International Order
Speaker 1: and Strategy at the Brookings Institution. And thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer.
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene. David Gura is at
Speaker 1: David Gura. Before the podcast, you can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio. Runch you by Bank of America Mary Lynch.
Speaker 1: With virtual reality, virtually everything will change. Discover opportunities in
Speaker 1: a transforming world. Be of a mL dot Com, slash VR,
Speaker 1: Mary Lynch, Pierced Fenner and Smith Incorporated.