Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays
Speaker 1: at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen
Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcast. Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm Amie Morris. This week we take a look at
Speaker 1: how global competition has forced local farmers to rethink their
Speaker 1: whole business model. We'll also look at a connection between
Speaker 1: the expulsion of two lawmakers in Tennessee and the gun
Speaker 1: culture in America. And they've changed some rules in baseball.
Speaker 1: What could that mean for the future of America's pastime.
Speaker 1: But we begin with inflation and the economy. Let's get started.
Speaker 1: Inflation in the US eased ever so slightly in March,
Speaker 1: fueling talk of FED rate cuts, but core inflation is
Speaker 1: still sticky and this might not last. Chicago Fed President
Speaker 1: Austin Goolsby is calling for a more judicious response. What
Speaker 1: I want us to think about is why I think
Speaker 1: that at moments of financial stress like this, the right
Speaker 1: monetary policy is really caution and watchfulness and prudence. But
Speaker 1: maybe the rest of us, the general public, might be
Speaker 1: taking the inflation surge a bit too lightly. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about it. Bloomberg opinion columnist Chris Bryant covers industrial companies
Speaker 1: in Europe and joins me. Now, and Chris, you mentioned
Speaker 1: in your column on the Bloomberg terminal, back in the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties, people would just take to the streets over inflation.
Speaker 1: They'd be protesting in front of grocery stores and department stores.
Speaker 1: Is it time to bring back that level of civil discourse. Yes,
Speaker 1: it sounds controversial, but I do think that consumers need
Speaker 1: to start pushing back a bit harder. And the reason
Speaker 1: is this that over the past couple of years, we've
Speaker 1: had a lot of shocks to the economy, a lot
Speaker 1: of surprises. People weren't used to inflation, and so when
Speaker 1: companies began raising prices over the last year or two,
Speaker 1: I think consumers general default view was, Okay, well, this
Speaker 1: seems all right. We need to go along with that.
Speaker 1: We should expect prices to go up. However, we have
Speaker 1: seen day to come out that suggests that actually companies
Speaker 1: have used the pandemic in order to increase their profit margins,
Speaker 1: suggesting that making rather too much money and that consumers
Speaker 1: could indeed afford to push back a bit more. Do
Speaker 1: you find people are starting to do that protesting in
Speaker 1: their own way, perhaps not painting signs and chanting in
Speaker 1: the streets, but yelp reviews, tweets, social media movements. Well,
Speaker 1: I think, you know, to start with, ultimately, consumers are
Speaker 1: going to start to face much more difficult conditions. Maybe
Speaker 1: some of the savings that they've built up during the
Speaker 1: early parts as pandemic had been eroded away, so simply
Speaker 1: they just don't have the capacity anymore to make some
Speaker 1: of the purchases of services or goods that they did earlier.
Speaker 1: But yes, I think there is growing irritation with some
Speaker 1: of the increases that we've seen. An Anecdotia had to
Speaker 1: Readers emailed me and say, look, yeah, somebody acts the
Speaker 1: other day for this deal and you know, without rage.
Speaker 1: And I went back to them and I said, hey,
Speaker 1: is that is that okay? And I think that's what
Speaker 1: we're talking about here. I'd like to see in effect
Speaker 1: to try and my own life sometimes maybe to question
Speaker 1: be as businesses about a bit more about the level
Speaker 1: of cost inflation they're facing. I think consumers are very
Speaker 1: understanding when a local business is facing lots of input
Speaker 1: costs increases that they of course need to pass on
Speaker 1: to customers in order to pay their bills. I think
Speaker 1: they're not understanding though, when businesses take advantage of, you know,
Speaker 1: the stresses that we've seen in the economy over the
Speaker 1: last couple of years in order to be further increase
Speaker 1: their their margins at the time when you know a
Speaker 1: lot of consumers are struggling. Yeah, how final line is that,
Speaker 1: how do you know when retailers hands or sharp's hands
Speaker 1: is tied. Their hands are tied, and there's not much
Speaker 1: that they can do no matter how hard you push
Speaker 1: back against inflation versus when they're just using this as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to make a little more cash on the side.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult, isn't it. I think you, as the customer,
Speaker 1: you don't always have a cire insight into some of
Speaker 1: the costs people are facing. Uh. You know, even when
Speaker 1: you look at some of the data which show now
Speaker 1: that you know, commodity prices for falling, things like agricultural
Speaker 1: prices of food are going down, and yet in the
Speaker 1: shops the cost of food is still going up. You
Speaker 1: as the consumer don't know whether the business is you know,
Speaker 1: really you know, price gouging, or whether they're simply passing
Speaker 1: on costs that you know they've locked in from a
Speaker 1: long time ago, or something like that. I think though, um,
Speaker 1: you know, consumers, you know, supermarkets for example, can be
Speaker 1: the friend of the consumer here and that they I think,
Speaker 1: do require their supplies often to lay out very clearly
Speaker 1: the kind of cost pressures they are facing and have
Speaker 1: at times pushed back. We had a good example in
Speaker 1: the UK last year when Tesco, the big supermarket, temporarily
Speaker 1: removed Hinds baked beans, you know, a famous British uh,
Speaker 1: you know, beloved product from their shelves because they argued
Speaker 1: the price was simply too much and didn't reflect the
Speaker 1: costs of the company was asking for. Are there signs
Speaker 1: have you seen in your research on this topic consumers
Speaker 1: are starting to reach that inflection point and demanding, I
Speaker 1: don't know, show your work, mister grocery store, show us
Speaker 1: where your costs are and why you're passing them along
Speaker 1: to us. Are you seeing more of that? I think
Speaker 1: we've had isolated cases. I mean, there was an example
Speaker 1: last year, for example, of the US beer companies where they,
Speaker 1: you know, they all increased prices by quite a lot,
Speaker 1: and then they did see a very big fall off
Speaker 1: in demand towards the latter part of the year. The
Speaker 1: new boss of Walt Disney, for example, he came in
Speaker 1: and he admitted openly that the company had perhaps been
Speaker 1: too aggressive in increasing prices at some of their parks,
Speaker 1: and of course that triggered, you know, beforehand, a lot
Speaker 1: of complaints from very loyal customers who felt they were
Speaker 1: being gouged. You know, they would love to go to Disney,
Speaker 1: but they felt that they were being charged too much.
Speaker 1: So I think a lot of companies often have a
Speaker 1: very sensitive ear for these kind of things, and therefore,
Speaker 1: you know, when consumers do start speaking up and pushing back,
Speaker 1: then they hear it. They do a lot of surveys,
Speaker 1: they know what their customers are saying, and so I think, yes,
Speaker 1: we are seeing these this pushback starting to happen. We
Speaker 1: see it also just in terms of, you know, the
Speaker 1: volume of good customers are buying. So while you see
Speaker 1: you know, the overall revenues that companies are making going up,
Speaker 1: you see that you know, part mostly that's because of
Speaker 1: price in the consumer sector in Europe now, and actually
Speaker 1: the actual volumes of goods that customers are buying us
Speaker 1: going down, suggesting that they have reached a limit. And
Speaker 1: we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Chris Bryant about
Speaker 1: inflation in the US and what the consumer can do
Speaker 1: about it. Chris, I wanted to ask a little bit
Speaker 1: more about that tipping point among consumers. When do we
Speaker 1: reach that tipping point? What does it look like? How
Speaker 1: do you know when we're there? I think you see
Speaker 1: it very obviously, when you know business begin to report,
Speaker 1: you know, shrinking volumes or when they start to see
Speaker 1: customers trading down and the kinds of goods that they're buying.
Speaker 1: A big tail win for businesses over the last two
Speaker 1: years when you know, they were able to sort of
Speaker 1: premiumize their products, essentially pushing consumers to buy luxury versions
Speaker 1: of the goods that they'd already bought, helped by the
Speaker 1: fact that customers had more money into their pocket. We
Speaker 1: could see a reversal of those trends now, particularly in
Speaker 1: the autosector for example, you know, people were paying well
Speaker 1: over sticker price for a new vehicle. We're starting now
Speaker 1: with more supply in the market to discounting return to
Speaker 1: the sector, which I think a lot of consumers were welcome. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: prices remained far higher than they were, particularly the use
Speaker 1: cars before the pandemic. And you say it really well
Speaker 1: in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal. What you say is,
Speaker 1: many of us will see the high price of a
Speaker 1: flight or a hotel room, we'll grumble about it, we'll
Speaker 1: buy it anyway, we go ahead and click, and we
Speaker 1: just move on and kind of throw up our hands.
Speaker 1: So we're not here yet. They're at that tipping point.
Speaker 1: We're just not feeling as much of a pinch as
Speaker 1: we need to feel because, for lack of a better term,
Speaker 1: it's just not expensive enough. Yet. Is that what has
Speaker 1: to happen? Well, I think we need to be careful
Speaker 1: who we're talking about. Of course, I mean poorer consumers
Speaker 1: that reach that limit long ago. And we're seeing you know,
Speaker 1: credit card balances you know, rise up, and delinquencies on
Speaker 1: loans and so forth, so you know, the poorer consumer
Speaker 1: is already really there. And yes, some people would say, well,
Speaker 1: the fact that prices continue to rise just suggest that
Speaker 1: the demand is there. Price is a function of supply
Speaker 1: and demand, and therefore, you know, essentially it just means
Speaker 1: that you know, those prices are justified. But when you
Speaker 1: listen to companies and how they talk about inflation off,
Speaker 1: and you know they're deliberately restricting the supply of goods
Speaker 1: into the sector, or they're capitalizing on the fact that
Speaker 1: you know, supply has remained so limited. So in the
Speaker 1: airline sector, for example, there's a host of reasons why
Speaker 1: companies have the airlines have struggled to restore the capacity
Speaker 1: that had before the pandemic, and indeed they needed a
Speaker 1: lot more now because the economy is bigger, and so
Speaker 1: they are taking advantage of these situations. And yes, I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of revenge spending going on, which
Speaker 1: you know, people wanting to have a good time after
Speaker 1: the pandemic. But you know that might well de sria
Speaker 1: as this year goes on, I think, and some of
Speaker 1: these high prices that people have been paying perhaps will
Speaker 1: become too much. What do you recommend? What should people do? Personally?
Speaker 1: I say, in my own life, I think I tried
Speaker 1: to speak up a little bit more now I think
Speaker 1: it's you know, okay, you know, I go into my
Speaker 1: local Bay Career for the you know, the other day,
Speaker 1: and another price increase had gone through it, you know,
Speaker 1: fifty percent more than I was paying, you know, a
Speaker 1: year ago or something. I think it's okay to at
Speaker 1: least speak up and say, hey, um, you know, I
Speaker 1: want to be a customer here, but you know, cut
Speaker 1: me some slack or at least explain why. And I
Speaker 1: think when customers start pushing back a bit more like
Speaker 1: like that, or indeed, you know, going elsewhere trading down,
Speaker 1: you know, in the supermarket sector, you might well find
Speaker 1: that people cross over to the lower price supermarkets when
Speaker 1: when their budgets are tested this then, yeah, businesses will
Speaker 1: have to respond. And you know, hopefully we are all
Speaker 1: seeing that happen already. You know, the inflation rate is
Speaker 1: coming down. Unfortunately, you know, core inflation, which is what
Speaker 1: the central banks look at, remains uncomfortably high. And so
Speaker 1: long as that's the case, there will be this temptation
Speaker 1: to respond to inflation with higher interest rates. And you know,
Speaker 1: my view in this columns, and it's shared by several
Speaker 1: economists I think, is that you know, interest rates are
Speaker 1: a very blunt tool. Yes, they can reduce inflation by
Speaker 1: reducing demand, but at the cost of you know, much
Speaker 1: higher unemployment and really hurting the economy and ultimately hurting consumers,
Speaker 1: the very people who have suffered with higher inflation. And
Speaker 1: my far better it would be I think if consumers
Speaker 1: spoke up more, push back more against prices, and therefore,
Speaker 1: you know, price levels drop that way, rather than having
Speaker 1: to raise rates so aggressively. Bloomberg Opinion column is Chris
Speaker 1: Bryant coming up. We're going to look at how one
Speaker 1: industry in the US is also fighting low cost competitors
Speaker 1: from overseas and it's struggling. And you might be surprised
Speaker 1: to hear which sector is taking the most heat. You're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg Opinion. You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast.
Speaker 1: Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business app,
Speaker 1: or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast. You're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris, and we've heard
Speaker 1: this before. A once dominant industry in the US now
Speaker 1: struggling because of low cost competitors from overseas. It's a
Speaker 1: familiar story, but this story has a twist. In this case,
Speaker 1: We're not just talking about a manufacturer. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the American farm. Adam Mentor is a Bloomberg opinion columnist
Speaker 1: covering Asia, technology and the environment, and he's an author.
Speaker 1: His latest book is Secondhand Travels in the New Global
Speaker 1: Garage Sale and Adam joins us. Now, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for taking the time with this today. Let's just get
Speaker 1: right into it. What is happening with US agriculture exports. Well,
Speaker 1: they're declining at least some of the key trends of
Speaker 1: corn and soy, which are two of the most important
Speaker 1: and largest commodity exports from the US overall, not just
Speaker 1: in terms of commodities, but in terms of all products,
Speaker 1: whether it be cars or semiconductors. They're slowing down because
Speaker 1: of greater foreign competition. Is that really what it is?
Speaker 1: Greater foreign competition and where is this coming from? Well,
Speaker 1: it is a greater foreign competition combined with a lack
Speaker 1: of new free trade agreements. The US Department of Agriculture
Speaker 1: recently took a look at what are the factors that
Speaker 1: are causing US agricultural exports to slip, and they pinpointed
Speaker 1: a few things. Certainly a strong dollar accounts for it
Speaker 1: as well, but the other key factor is that the
Speaker 1: US is no longer joining free trade agreements. Between two
Speaker 1: thousand and twelve and two thousand and twenty, the US
Speaker 1: didn't join any while the rest of the world is
Speaker 1: really partnering up. And when other countries partner up on
Speaker 1: free trade agreements, that makes it cheaper to export to
Speaker 1: the countries where those free trade agreements are covering. For example,
Speaker 1: regions of Africa which of fast growing middle classes, which
Speaker 1: would traditionally be opportunities for US farmers to export. The
Speaker 1: advantages that say Canada hasn't exporting to them because they
Speaker 1: have free trade agreements just don't exist for US farmers,
Speaker 1: at least over the last decade. You know, that really
Speaker 1: surprises me. I was thinking NAFTA covered most everything that
Speaker 1: we would be interested in, and other free trade agreements
Speaker 1: as well. Didn't we have those sorts of rules and
Speaker 1: regulations in place that would protect both the producer and
Speaker 1: the consumer. Well, traditionally we have been doing that. And
Speaker 1: it really goes back to the nineteen eighties when which
Speaker 1: was the last time US agricultural exports began eroding, also
Speaker 1: in part because of a strong dollar, but also because
Speaker 1: of the establishment of the European Union and other free
Speaker 1: trade agreements. The decision was made to create free trade
Speaker 1: agreements that benefit farmers and other workers, and we had
Speaker 1: that for many years. You know, when NAFTA was passed
Speaker 1: and enacted in nineteen ninety four, US agricultural exports overall
Speaker 1: we're about forty six billion dollars. This year they are
Speaker 1: up to almost two hundred billion dollars. So everything sounds
Speaker 1: very healthy of free trade has really benefited farmers, but
Speaker 1: it's slowing down. And in fact, this year we're actually
Speaker 1: going to the United States is actually going to have
Speaker 1: an actual agricultural trade deficit of about fourteen point five
Speaker 1: billion dollars. So that speaks to some of these issues,
Speaker 1: and it's one of the things that's motivating farmers and
Speaker 1: farm groups in particular to go to Congress and say
Speaker 1: we need help, we need free trade agreements. Adam, how
Speaker 1: long has this been coming? Have farmers and others been
Speaker 1: aware of this sort of gathering storm and the rest
Speaker 1: of us are just sort of figuring it out and
Speaker 1: catching on. Yeah, yes to an extent. I mean it's funny,
Speaker 1: you know, there's there's all kinds of stereotypes about f
Speaker 1: country and American farmers. But one thing you learned very
Speaker 1: quickly if you spend time in farm country is they
Speaker 1: are some of the biggest advocates for free trade you'll
Speaker 1: meet anywhere in the United States. And that's because they
Speaker 1: know what happened in the nineteen eighties when the US
Speaker 1: started looking to open up markets. You know, starting in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, mid two twenty teens, we really started to
Speaker 1: see some of the erosion and key American markets. That
Speaker 1: was the year that the US stop being the world's
Speaker 1: largest exporter of wheat. Instead it was being replaced started
Speaker 1: being replaced then by the EU, Russia, and Ukraine. Believe
Speaker 1: it or not, but twenty fourteen we saw the erosion
Speaker 1: of this traditional strong American export and that started ringing
Speaker 1: alarm bells in farm country. And then more recently, as
Speaker 1: trade wars under Trump were initiated and key American agricultural
Speaker 1: exports like soybeans to China began being impacted, you saw
Speaker 1: a more organization growing up around this issue in farm country.
Speaker 1: So it's been building for a while. In this year
Speaker 1: it's really come to a head with a lot of
Speaker 1: these farm groups going to Congress and saying we need
Speaker 1: to address this we are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist
Speaker 1: Adam Mentor about the future of farming in an age
Speaker 1: of global competition. Let's pick right up where you left off, Adam.
Speaker 1: When they go to Congress and they talk about this
Speaker 1: and they try to get some sort of response, when
Speaker 1: might we see change. Certainly it can't be a partisan
Speaker 1: issue helping out the American farmer, No, no, I can.
Speaker 1: It really requires a bipartisan consensus on this issue. You know,
Speaker 1: sort of the traditional polarizations that we've become accustomed to
Speaker 1: are a little bit mixed up. You know, we've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of the anti free trade talk in recent
Speaker 1: years coming from the Republican side, But on this issue,
Speaker 1: we're actually seeing quite a bit of support in Congress
Speaker 1: from the Republican side, from especially farm state Republicans who
Speaker 1: want to see new free trade agreements. And the opposition
Speaker 1: is I mean, really from the Biden administration, which has
Speaker 1: made it quite clear to farm groups that it's not
Speaker 1: open to the idea of negotiating free trade agreements because
Speaker 1: they believe that it could hurt manufacturing. They would like
Speaker 1: to instead if they can create sort of one to
Speaker 1: one agreements that aren't formal but understandings with American trading
Speaker 1: partners that will hopefully open up markets to US farm exports.
Speaker 1: But but there's a lot of skepticism to that approach
Speaker 1: because it's it's not if you will written down, it's
Speaker 1: not signed. And so thus the pressure from farm farmers
Speaker 1: and from farm state legislators to get something done, to
Speaker 1: get something started at least, so an informal agreement, a
Speaker 1: sort of weekend and nudge is not going to do it.
Speaker 1: They need some pen on paper, They need some promise
Speaker 1: if you yeah exactly. They want to they want to give.
Speaker 1: I mean, in particular, what farm groups would like to
Speaker 1: see is what led to NAFTA and what led to
Speaker 1: some of our other free trade agreements is what's called
Speaker 1: fast track authority, and Congress had this also for TPP,
Speaker 1: if we were call, which was the Transpacific Partnership, which
Speaker 1: was supposed to be a multi country free trade agreement
Speaker 1: between the US and primarily Asian countries and countries that
Speaker 1: trade into Asia. The Trump administration scuttled that fast track authority,
Speaker 1: which would allow the administration to negotiate an agreement and
Speaker 1: then get an up or down vote on it in Congress.
Speaker 1: They want to see if farm groups want to see
Speaker 1: that kind of fasts track authority given to this administration
Speaker 1: and have this administration aggressively pursue these kinds of agreements,
Speaker 1: especially with emerging market countries, because traditionally the places where
Speaker 1: the US has grown farm exports are countries that are
Speaker 1: developing middle classes that are moving up the food chain,
Speaker 1: want better food, want better quality food, and so you
Speaker 1: see growth in those places. So places like Africa, places
Speaker 1: like Southeast Asia, that's where that's where they would like
Speaker 1: to see these agreements forged. What would be the risk
Speaker 1: if we played this out and just took it as
Speaker 1: status quo and it continued year after year with the
Speaker 1: numbers that you were quoting and the deficit that they
Speaker 1: are experiencing when it comes to the exports. What's the
Speaker 1: endgame here? What's the risk? Well, the endgame is is
Speaker 1: that especially on the two key US agricultural exports right now,
Speaker 1: corn and soybean, Argentina and Brazil, and Brazil is growing
Speaker 1: very quickly, they basically edge the US out of current
Speaker 1: markets and emerging markets. So current markets places like China,
Speaker 1: which is a complicated story. It's not just free trade
Speaker 1: agreements with China, but also places in Southeast Asia and
Speaker 1: Africa that the US loses the opportunity to export into
Speaker 1: those regions because our product is just too expensive. Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Opinion columnist Adam Mentor joining us there and don't forget.
Speaker 1: We are also available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: or your favorite podcast platform. Earlier this month, two black
Speaker 1: lawmakers were expelled from the state legislature in Tennessee. The
Speaker 1: reason they were protesting, along with their constituent, calling for
Speaker 1: stricter gun control measures after a shooting at a Nashville school. Now.
Speaker 1: One of those expelled, Representative Justin Jones, spoke out about
Speaker 1: the controversy after he was reappointed to his seat just
Speaker 1: days after his expulsion. I want to welcome democracy back
Speaker 1: to the People's House. Then, on last Thursday, members of
Speaker 1: this body tribe to crucify democracy. But today we stand
Speaker 1: as a witness of a resurrection of a movement of
Speaker 1: a multiracial democracy that no unjust decision will stand. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: there was a mass shooting in Louisville. The governor of Kentucky,
Speaker 1: Andy Basher, speaking out about that. I have a very
Speaker 1: close friend that didn't make it today, and I have
Speaker 1: another close friend who didn't either, and one who's at
Speaker 1: the hospital that I hope is going to make it through.
Speaker 1: So when we talk about praying, I hope people will
Speaker 1: Mass shootings happening just about every day in this country now.
Speaker 1: Frank Wilkinson has been following this. He has a Bloomberg
Speaker 1: opinion columnist. He covers US politics and policy. Frank, thank
Speaker 1: you for taking the time. I just wanted to ask
Speaker 1: you about the exis between gun violence and the removal
Speaker 1: of the representatives Justin Jones and Justin Pearson from the House.
Speaker 1: Why explained that connection to me? Well, it's a pretty
Speaker 1: complicated connection with a lot of history behind it. But
Speaker 1: if you look at the history of the United States
Speaker 1: and guns, it's primarily been a history of white people
Speaker 1: with the right to guns and black people not with
Speaker 1: the right to guns. But in the case of the
Speaker 1: removal of the two legislators in Tennessee, that too has
Speaker 1: a long history. We have, you know, for instance, in reconstruction,
Speaker 1: which is a time when blacks were not allowed to
Speaker 1: carry guns, they had guns removed from them, for instance.
Speaker 1: They were also blacks in legislatures in the South in
Speaker 1: those days, for instance, Tunis Campbell was the lead black
Speaker 1: legislator in Georgia. He was simply removed during after reconstruction
Speaker 1: from his seat because the white powers of the state
Speaker 1: did not want to have black legislators. Is that what
Speaker 1: stood out for you when this happened in the Tennessee legislature,
Speaker 1: when these two men were removed, My first question was
Speaker 1: that seemed to be a fast escalation. Why not just
Speaker 1: censure them. I think what we're seeing in a lot
Speaker 1: of legislatures and a lot of governor's offices in the
Speaker 1: United States right now is a pretty severe reaction. The
Speaker 1: Red States are really clamping down on rights. They are
Speaker 1: clamping down on voting rights, they're clamping down on other
Speaker 1: types of rights. Abortion obviously, and what we saw was
Speaker 1: really a kind of heightened reaction, but it's not inconsistent
Speaker 1: with the other types of behavior we're seeing, where a
Speaker 1: reassertion of white conservative power at a time when there
Speaker 1: is a very serious challenge across the country to that power.
Speaker 1: And just to make the point clear, there were actually
Speaker 1: three people who were protesting, the two gentlemen and a
Speaker 1: white woman, and she was not removed. That's correct, And
Speaker 1: you know, obviously, if you're going to remove two and
Speaker 1: you can parse, well, geez, you know, the two who
Speaker 1: were removed were louder or something than the other one.
Speaker 1: But it was a pretty clear racial message. I thought that,
Speaker 1: you know, we're targeting the black guys and not the
Speaker 1: white wall. In your column on the Bloomberg terminal, you
Speaker 1: say this was a quote that stood out for me.
Speaker 1: For all the condescension on display, fear seemed to be
Speaker 1: driving the day, fear of what well, look what we've
Speaker 1: seen over the last fifteen years say, or to be
Speaker 1: perfectly honest, since the election of Barack Obama is a reaction.
Speaker 1: First of all, we had the Tea Party, right. The
Speaker 1: Tea Party was supposedly all about spending. Well, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: came in and spent more, you know, had a bigger
Speaker 1: debt than any president in the history of the United States.
Speaker 1: There were no Tea Party protests about Donald Trump. When
Speaker 1: researchers went in and really looked at this academic researcher
Speaker 1: researchers looked at what was going on with the Tea Party,
Speaker 1: it was what they found was very similar to what
Speaker 1: they found when they looked at the MAGA movement. And
Speaker 1: who was you know, supporting Donald Trump. The base of
Speaker 1: the movement. This doesn't mean every person, but the base
Speaker 1: of the movement is a racially resentful white audience that
Speaker 1: is very upset about assertions of black power and non
Speaker 1: white power in general, and changing morays, changing cultural attitudes,
Speaker 1: and so what you see time and again in the
Speaker 1: last few years is this kind of political reaction to
Speaker 1: what is going on culturally and politically in this country. Now.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear about your column specifically, because
Speaker 1: we started off with the idea of gun violence and
Speaker 1: what happened in Tennessee and the removal of the two
Speaker 1: black representatives from the Tennessee House, and we were finding
Speaker 1: a nexus there. But you aren't saying that all gun
Speaker 1: violence is based in race and discord there. What you
Speaker 1: are saying is that the need to keep those guns
Speaker 1: and to keep those laws in place and to not
Speaker 1: necessarily hear what the constituents are saying about protecting them
Speaker 1: from gun violence, is based in that fear. I think
Speaker 1: there is a very large racial component to that, yes,
Speaker 1: but you know, once again, to be careful. It's it's
Speaker 1: a reminder that this controversy in Tennessee initiated because children
Speaker 1: and other protesters came to the state capital saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we need protection. We need to stop this madness where
Speaker 1: anybody is allowed to buy a gun, anybody is allowed
Speaker 1: to carry a gun, and it's just you know, promoting this,
Speaker 1: this this view that everyone should have a gun at
Speaker 1: all times. And so the legislature, rather than deal with that,
Speaker 1: which is another fear by the way, that's another fear
Speaker 1: based politics, which is we're afraid of getting killed. Instead
Speaker 1: of dealing with that, the legislature turned on the black
Speaker 1: legislators who were part of that protest. So there is
Speaker 1: a nexus between the gun violence and the racial politics.
Speaker 1: Does this get worse? Can it get better? I think
Speaker 1: the current trajectory is more likely to get worse because
Speaker 1: I think once you've left the realm of rational policymaking,
Speaker 1: and I think we left that realm a good bit
Speaker 1: ago in terms of gun politics, once you've left that realm,
Speaker 1: and data no longer means anything, and facts no longer
Speaker 1: mean anything. And you have, you know, a judiciary, conservative
Speaker 1: judges saying well, I'm going to base this ruling about
Speaker 1: gun laws based on history and tradition. But I'm only
Speaker 1: going to take the parts of history and tradition that's
Speaker 1: pork my view, and I'll leave all the other pieces
Speaker 1: of history and tradition out of that. Because the history
Speaker 1: of guns in the United States is very complicated. It'd
Speaker 1: be very hard to say, oh, the United States has
Speaker 1: always had gun regulation extensively throughout the country. It's equally
Speaker 1: hard to say, oh, the United States has always you know,
Speaker 1: everybody's always been able to have a gun. Neither of
Speaker 1: those are true. It's a very mixed and complicated legacy.
Speaker 1: So when you have judges saying, oh, look, I looked
Speaker 1: at the history here and it all says where everybody
Speaker 1: should have a gun and there were no inhibitions on
Speaker 1: having guns, that's just not grounded in reality. So what's
Speaker 1: the answer then, Well, you know, politics is difficult and
Speaker 1: culture is difficult, and this is a piece of political
Speaker 1: and cultural business that is very unresolved in the United States.
Speaker 1: It's a bit where there is a very impassioned contest
Speaker 1: and people have very powerful passions about it. And you know,
Speaker 1: it's a bit where a lot of other factors, race
Speaker 1: is only one of them, come in to play in
Speaker 1: how people feel about it. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Frank Wilkinson
Speaker 1: want to thank you for taking the time with us,
Speaker 1: and stay with us. Bloomberg Opinion continues with a closer
Speaker 1: look at Major League Baseball. Well, look at the new
Speaker 1: rules and what it means for the future of America's pastime.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast.
Speaker 1: Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, the I Heart Radio app, and the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Well.
Speaker 1: Baseball maybe America's pastime, but we evidently don't have the
Speaker 1: attention span for it anymore. So Major League Baseball has
Speaker 1: changed some rules to help speed up play and encourage
Speaker 1: more action within games. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Connorson joins us
Speaker 1: now with his take. Connor, thanks for joining us. What
Speaker 1: is the most significant change that you've seen? So, if
Speaker 1: you're going to a game, the thing you're going to
Speaker 1: notice the most is how much shorter a game is
Speaker 1: due to the introduction of a pitch clock, which limits
Speaker 1: how much time pitchers and hitters have to stall. So
Speaker 1: that's going to reduce the time of games by twenty
Speaker 1: or thirty minutes, and we've seen that in spring training
Speaker 1: and the early game so far. But in terms of
Speaker 1: gameplay and strategy, the biggest change is how much easier
Speaker 1: it is to steal a base and what that means
Speaker 1: for managerial and roster strategies down the road. You right
Speaker 1: that it will take years to see the impact of
Speaker 1: these new rules. Why is that because the players and
Speaker 1: the rosters that we have playing today we're constructed based
Speaker 1: on the rules of years and years and years ago,
Speaker 1: So it becomes that much easier to steal a base today. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe you signed a player to a seven year contract
Speaker 1: and you can't change that player is stuck on your
Speaker 1: team for the next seven years. Maybe they're not very
Speaker 1: good at stealing bases, maybe they're good at other things
Speaker 1: that were valued more in the past. So to the
Speaker 1: extent that steals are worth more now, it's going to
Speaker 1: take a while for that to be reflected in the market.
Speaker 1: So is it a foregone conclusion we are going to
Speaker 1: see more stolen bases in baseball. We've seen it so far,
Speaker 1: and traditionally, or over the past several years, the success
Speaker 1: rate for steals was in the low seventies, like seventy
Speaker 1: two percent, and early in the season it's been more
Speaker 1: like eighty five percent, which sounds like just a modest increase,
Speaker 1: but it actually means that sort of the expected value
Speaker 1: of the stolen base has tripled because you're much more
Speaker 1: likely to succeed than fail. And they're sort of dynamics
Speaker 1: related to that is that because of the larger bases,
Speaker 1: it's larger bases, it's that pitchers can only throw over
Speaker 1: to first base twice unsuccessfully before it counts as a back.
Speaker 1: And then it's also the pitch clock. So if you're
Speaker 1: a runner run first, you know that the pitch are
Speaker 1: only has eight seven six seconds to throw and you
Speaker 1: can game that in time at better time your jump.
Speaker 1: Are these changes here to stay? Is our life? Now?
Speaker 1: I think that baseball has shown it's finally willing to
Speaker 1: change its long standing rules and not be stuck with
Speaker 1: the game that we had thirty forty fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: So to the extent that things aren't quite right this year,
Speaker 1: there's now the opportunity to make tweaks down the road. Okay,
Speaker 1: so does that mean they're open to debate over how
Speaker 1: to find new approaches to America's pastime. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: it sounds kind of fresh and new and different, And
Speaker 1: on the other hand, hey, get your hands off my
Speaker 1: baseball game exactly. And I think that's what I find
Speaker 1: fun about this whole thing is that we're no longer
Speaker 1: just stuck with what we had before. We can now
Speaker 1: debate what makes the best version of baseball? Is this
Speaker 1: change a good thing or a bad thing? Should we
Speaker 1: eliminate the runner on second base and extra innings because
Speaker 1: games are now shorter? Is it too easy to steal bases?
Speaker 1: Should we make it even easier to steal bases? These
Speaker 1: are all now discussion that the baseball fans can have.
Speaker 1: Is this a discussion now as as to ten years
Speaker 1: ago or maybe twenty years ago? Because our attention spans
Speaker 1: are so small? I mean, I was kind of joking
Speaker 1: a little bit at the top of this interview, But
Speaker 1: now that I think about it, is that why these
Speaker 1: changes are necessary? Because the game got really long and
Speaker 1: we just couldn't sit there all day. Yeah. I think
Speaker 1: it's the combination of our attention spans got shorter and
Speaker 1: the games got longer, and the games weren't getting longer
Speaker 1: because of more action. It was more dead time, so
Speaker 1: players stepping out and adjusting their batting gloves, pitcher stepping
Speaker 1: off the mound and gathering their thoughts. And it's as
Speaker 1: a fan watching a game or in the seats, it's
Speaker 1: just kind of slow. And what we have now is
Speaker 1: just as much action as we had before, if not more,
Speaker 1: but a game that lasts two and a half hours
Speaker 1: instead of three. Any other changes might be coming down
Speaker 1: the pike or are we going to settle down for now?
Speaker 1: I think it's too early to say. We'll have to
Speaker 1: see how this goes. But it's encouraging that baseball is
Speaker 1: willing to respond to perceived problems with the game and
Speaker 1: make it better. And now fans can get more engaged
Speaker 1: in terms of is this working better in the past.
Speaker 1: These are the fights the baseball fans love, and we
Speaker 1: finally have them again. Sounds terrific. Thanks so much for
Speaker 1: your insight. This is going to be fun to watch.
Speaker 1: Thank you for taking the time. Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Connorson is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion and that does
Speaker 1: it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by
Speaker 1: Eric Mallow, and you can find all of these columns
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 1: or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us today's top
Speaker 1: stories and global business headlines coming up. I'm Amy Morris.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg.