WEBVTT - Real Economic Growth Is a 2% Number Going Forward, Gross Says

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:02.920
<v Speaker 1>Brought you by Bank of America Mary Lynch. Investing in

0:00:03.000 --> 0:00:07.840
<v Speaker 1>local communities, economies and a sustainable future. That's the power

0:00:08.080 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>of global connections, Mary Lynch, Pierce Fenner and Smith Incorporated

0:00:12.760 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>Member s I p C. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.

0:00:26.440 --> 0:00:29.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you

0:00:29.960 --> 0:00:34.800
<v Speaker 1>insight from the best of economics, finance, investment, and international relations.

0:00:35.240 --> 0:00:40.760
<v Speaker 1>Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com,

0:00:40.800 --> 0:00:48.120
<v Speaker 1>and of course on the Bloomberg. Joining us now in

0:00:48.159 --> 0:00:50.599
<v Speaker 1>Paris is Jean flu Crich. He doesn't really need much

0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:53.920
<v Speaker 1>of an introduction. Former ECP President and honorary chairman of

0:00:54.120 --> 0:00:56.480
<v Speaker 1>the Group of Thirty. Also with us in New York

0:00:56.800 --> 0:01:00.000
<v Speaker 1>is Villain Bout, Chief Economist of City, Mr Triche, Well,

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:02.560
<v Speaker 1>come to the program. Thank you so much for coming on.

0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:05.840
<v Speaker 1>Let's assume that the polls are right. Let's assume that

0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:09.640
<v Speaker 1>so we get something like six for President mccron on Sunday.

0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:13.280
<v Speaker 1>What happened next? What kind of message does the President

0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:17.280
<v Speaker 1>mccorn give to France and Europe. I think, first of all,

0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:21.000
<v Speaker 1>we have to wait for the election. As Mr mccorn

0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>said himself. Of course it's never done in advance. It's

0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:29.800
<v Speaker 1>not a dumb deal. The polls are very positive and

0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:35.440
<v Speaker 1>I think really that Macon will have probably a very

0:01:35.480 --> 0:01:39.240
<v Speaker 1>powerful mandate to reform the country because it was his own,

0:01:39.400 --> 0:01:44.320
<v Speaker 1>you know view, since he started to engage in politics.

0:01:44.720 --> 0:01:47.120
<v Speaker 1>But fancy that it's a man who was not known

0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:49.840
<v Speaker 1>by the French only two years and a half ago

0:01:50.440 --> 0:01:55.880
<v Speaker 1>and is perhaps the next future president and perhaps we'll

0:01:55.920 --> 0:01:59.600
<v Speaker 1>have a majority according to certain survey and poles that

0:01:59.680 --> 0:02:03.280
<v Speaker 1>we have on the parliamentary election. It is absolutely clear

0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:07.680
<v Speaker 1>that if he has this togument date, he will have

0:02:07.800 --> 0:02:10.440
<v Speaker 1>a majority in the parliament in my view, and then

0:02:10.480 --> 0:02:14.160
<v Speaker 1>of course all kinds of reforms that are overdue in

0:02:14.240 --> 0:02:17.760
<v Speaker 1>France could start. So we'll talk about deficits and budget

0:02:17.800 --> 0:02:20.320
<v Speaker 1>fiscal rules in a second. But why do the French

0:02:20.400 --> 0:02:24.079
<v Speaker 1>not recognize themselves anymore in the old parties in the

0:02:24.440 --> 0:02:29.519
<v Speaker 1>classic right versus left, or they have they become too centrists.

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:38.560
<v Speaker 1>Well again, the damage that a large deal of public

0:02:38.600 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 1>spendings on top of the average of the G seven countries,

0:02:42.919 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 1>on top of the average of the European countries, is

0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:50.160
<v Speaker 1>something which is not considered by a lot of of

0:02:50.200 --> 0:02:55.160
<v Speaker 1>political parties as absolutely negative for friends and for job creation.

0:02:55.720 --> 0:03:00.480
<v Speaker 1>So the debate which we had but between mc and

0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:04.679
<v Speaker 1>marian lpen showed very clearly that Macron was attached to

0:03:04.919 --> 0:03:09.720
<v Speaker 1>sound policies, was attached to finance everything that would be spent,

0:03:10.200 --> 0:03:13.919
<v Speaker 1>and was certainly with the intention of respecting the rules.

0:03:14.400 --> 0:03:17.399
<v Speaker 1>And I trust that it is something which is very important.

0:03:17.880 --> 0:03:20.840
<v Speaker 1>Mr Uche, good morning from New York. As we look

0:03:20.919 --> 0:03:24.160
<v Speaker 1>at this sea change and the culture, the generational change

0:03:24.560 --> 0:03:27.600
<v Speaker 1>in France, can we get a France that's a little

0:03:27.600 --> 0:03:32.480
<v Speaker 1>more fiscally responsible? You and Mr Deutsenberg and ECB had

0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:35.720
<v Speaker 1>to worry about a France that would spend too much money,

0:03:35.720 --> 0:03:38.520
<v Speaker 1>where the government was too big, too big for all

0:03:38.600 --> 0:03:43.040
<v Speaker 1>of France. Can they get more responsible with the President mccron,

0:03:43.680 --> 0:03:45.839
<v Speaker 1>I think so. Frankly speaking, it's a pleasure, of course

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:48.840
<v Speaker 1>to it to talk to you, I really think so.

0:03:49.040 --> 0:03:53.480
<v Speaker 1>I think that the message that Macon gave was that

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:57.320
<v Speaker 1>we have to respect the rules. Of course, he's Cody

0:03:57.360 --> 0:04:00.200
<v Speaker 1>Molso for reform, and I think he's right. It's link

0:04:00.240 --> 0:04:02.520
<v Speaker 1>for a Ministo of finance of the AU area. I

0:04:02.640 --> 0:04:05.560
<v Speaker 1>myself and in full agreement with that is coding for

0:04:07.080 --> 0:04:11.280
<v Speaker 1>new reforms as regards also the budget of the euro

0:04:11.400 --> 0:04:15.240
<v Speaker 1>Area that would be created. But respecting the rule, we

0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:18.080
<v Speaker 1>have the stability and both back and it is important

0:04:18.120 --> 0:04:23.760
<v Speaker 1>of course that France applies in his own interests. It

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:28.160
<v Speaker 1>is not a question of you know, pleasing partners. It's

0:04:28.200 --> 0:04:31.160
<v Speaker 1>a question of being sure that we do all what

0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:35.720
<v Speaker 1>we can to create jobs and and grow. And I

0:04:35.760 --> 0:04:40.719
<v Speaker 1>think that we can be reasonably confident that there has

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:45.159
<v Speaker 1>been a change in the overall position of public opinion

0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:48.239
<v Speaker 1>in France. But we will see, and nothing is done yet.

0:04:48.760 --> 0:04:52.919
<v Speaker 1>What can we do about a better trade policy for France,

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:56.039
<v Speaker 1>not only trade with the rest of the continent, but

0:04:56.160 --> 0:04:58.400
<v Speaker 1>trade with the rest of the world, and even I

0:04:58.480 --> 0:05:01.240
<v Speaker 1>may suggest trade with the United in Kingdom. What can

0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:06.840
<v Speaker 1>be a new trade policy for France? Well, as you know,

0:05:06.960 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 1>the trade policy is influenced by each particular government, of course,

0:05:13.120 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>but is done at the level of the Single Market

0:05:16.160 --> 0:05:19.679
<v Speaker 1>and of the Area and of course the European Union

0:05:19.720 --> 0:05:23.359
<v Speaker 1>as a whole. So from that standpoint, I expect France

0:05:23.760 --> 0:05:28.000
<v Speaker 1>to be open, of course, as was said very very clearly,

0:05:28.400 --> 0:05:31.880
<v Speaker 1>to global trade, and of course you open trade that

0:05:31.960 --> 0:05:36.320
<v Speaker 1>being said, of course, with the appropriate influence for the

0:05:36.440 --> 0:05:39.880
<v Speaker 1>deals to be fair. And it is clearly what what

0:05:40.000 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 1>has been said. It seems to me very very openly

0:05:43.880 --> 0:05:47.919
<v Speaker 1>and frankly in particular in the debate but also in

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:52.760
<v Speaker 1>the various declaration of the candidate paper. Right, the reforms

0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:56.080
<v Speaker 1>are strong. But what has changed since alone promised the

0:05:56.120 --> 0:05:59.799
<v Speaker 1>same fiscal rule changes back in is you're really ready

0:05:59.839 --> 0:06:02.200
<v Speaker 1>to sit down at the table and say, you know,

0:06:02.279 --> 0:06:04.440
<v Speaker 1>let's start from scratch and think exactly what we want

0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:08.080
<v Speaker 1>to do on fiscal Well again, we will see exactly

0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:11.240
<v Speaker 1>what is the policy of the new president and of

0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:14.000
<v Speaker 1>the new government, because we will leve also a government,

0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:16.039
<v Speaker 1>so a lot of things have to be done. What

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:19.480
<v Speaker 1>is clear is that there is a very very powerful

0:06:19.640 --> 0:06:24.080
<v Speaker 1>will on the side of the new possible French government

0:06:24.080 --> 0:06:27.080
<v Speaker 1>and president, and on the side of the German partners

0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:30.720
<v Speaker 1>also and the other partners in Europe to discuss and

0:06:30.960 --> 0:06:34.919
<v Speaker 1>not to discuss our need to settle the present, but

0:06:35.080 --> 0:06:37.440
<v Speaker 1>also to have a view of the future and of

0:06:37.560 --> 0:06:40.360
<v Speaker 1>the reform that are at stake and of the new

0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:43.760
<v Speaker 1>course of action for Europe as a whole. So from

0:06:43.800 --> 0:06:47.400
<v Speaker 1>that standpoint, I think that we are in circumstances that

0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:50.600
<v Speaker 1>are probably the best since quite a long period of time,

0:06:50.839 --> 0:06:53.719
<v Speaker 1>because you remember at the very beginning of the Alarmed

0:06:54.080 --> 0:06:59.000
<v Speaker 1>Mandate there was not not such a close relationship potentially

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:02.280
<v Speaker 1>close relationship beween Germany and France and the other partners. Well,

0:07:02.360 --> 0:07:04.359
<v Speaker 1>let me bring in our partner from the Netherlands with

0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:08.520
<v Speaker 1>us Jan Clauche today, Folks is Villain Pouder. He is

0:07:08.560 --> 0:07:10.840
<v Speaker 1>professor of the London School of Economics and the course

0:07:10.880 --> 0:07:14.200
<v Speaker 1>head of all economics at City Group. Professor. Question from

0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:19.880
<v Speaker 1>Mr Trichet, Please yes, Tricia, France still spends well over

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:24.800
<v Speaker 1>fifty GDP in the public sector. With all the talk

0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:28.440
<v Speaker 1>about pension former Raby market reform, that number has to

0:07:28.520 --> 0:07:33.200
<v Speaker 1>get much closer to for France to become a dynamic economy.

0:07:33.360 --> 0:07:35.680
<v Speaker 1>Do you see any chance that there will be a

0:07:35.680 --> 0:07:39.360
<v Speaker 1>coalition in France that will not be frustrated by the

0:07:39.400 --> 0:07:43.560
<v Speaker 1>losers of such a drastic reduction desized the public sector.

0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>Is there any hope that the France will not look

0:07:47.920 --> 0:07:50.720
<v Speaker 1>like Scandinavia and the public spending but more like the

0:07:50.720 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 1>Euro Area average. Well, we again, I think that you're

0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:58.920
<v Speaker 1>absolutely right. This is one of the dimension of reform

0:07:58.960 --> 0:08:01.840
<v Speaker 1>which is very important. Diminished the public spendings and the

0:08:01.840 --> 0:08:05.320
<v Speaker 1>proportion of GDP, which are much higher than the average.

0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:09.000
<v Speaker 1>And second we have also these structural reforms and the

0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:13.840
<v Speaker 1>liberal market appropriate reform, and we also have the cost

0:08:13.880 --> 0:08:16.640
<v Speaker 1>competitiveness of the country, of course, of the economy. But

0:08:16.760 --> 0:08:20.280
<v Speaker 1>on the first point, I think that this idea that

0:08:20.360 --> 0:08:24.120
<v Speaker 1>it is of course a progressive march in the direction

0:08:24.240 --> 0:08:28.280
<v Speaker 1>of diminishing public spendings and the proportion of GDP, as Sweden,

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:32.360
<v Speaker 1>for instance, did a number of countries proved that it

0:08:32.440 --> 0:08:35.920
<v Speaker 1>was possible. Of course, it cannot be done overnight. But

0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:42.120
<v Speaker 1>the winners in such an orientation are the unemployed, because

0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:45.560
<v Speaker 1>it's absolutely clear that the weight of this uh public

0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:50.160
<v Speaker 1>spendings is much too high and hamper the appropriate competitiveness

0:08:50.160 --> 0:08:52.840
<v Speaker 1>of the economy. So the winners will be the unemployed,

0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:57.480
<v Speaker 1>young people and also all the unemployed in France. Thank

0:08:57.480 --> 0:09:00.560
<v Speaker 1>you so much for now the former recently Prince angel

0:09:00.640 --> 0:09:17.000
<v Speaker 1>and Bowker, Bloomberg, Surveillance, David Gerr and Tom Keene. Of course,

0:09:17.080 --> 0:09:19.720
<v Speaker 1>much to talk about here. Jim Glassman and Bill gross

0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:22.719
<v Speaker 1>will join us, and always Alan Krueger joins us from

0:09:22.760 --> 0:09:26.439
<v Speaker 1>Princeton University, and Alan, we must take a moment on

0:09:26.520 --> 0:09:29.800
<v Speaker 1>the passing UH in the last day. The death of

0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:36.400
<v Speaker 1>William Bauma of Princeton University absolutely definitive, the giant of

0:09:36.520 --> 0:09:41.000
<v Speaker 1>what I would call entrepreneurial economics. His book, his textbook

0:09:41.040 --> 0:09:45.839
<v Speaker 1>with Alan Blinder, is truly classic. Uh. What did he

0:09:46.000 --> 0:09:50.240
<v Speaker 1>mean for the students of Princeton University. I was mesmerized

0:09:50.600 --> 0:09:54.559
<v Speaker 1>at how gentle and yet how distinct in assertive his

0:09:54.720 --> 0:09:59.200
<v Speaker 1>lecturing was well. Obama was a giant in the field

0:09:59.240 --> 0:10:02.719
<v Speaker 1>of economics, and he was truly a renaissance man. He

0:10:02.840 --> 0:10:06.599
<v Speaker 1>was five years old. He moved at the end of

0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:08.959
<v Speaker 1>his career from Princeton to n y U. So it's

0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:13.599
<v Speaker 1>more a loss for the Yuan. That's true for n

0:10:13.720 --> 0:10:17.439
<v Speaker 1>y U. But he is forever associated with your in.

0:10:19.120 --> 0:10:22.040
<v Speaker 1>He was Uh. He was at Princeton forty two years.

0:10:22.320 --> 0:10:26.319
<v Speaker 1>I interviewed him tom in two thousand one UM in

0:10:26.400 --> 0:10:29.520
<v Speaker 1>the Journal of Economic Perspectives, which I tweeted out yesterday

0:10:29.679 --> 0:10:31.400
<v Speaker 1>in case people wanted to read. He was truly a

0:10:31.440 --> 0:10:36.160
<v Speaker 1>remarkable man, remarkable career, made lasting contributions to economics. I

0:10:36.320 --> 0:10:39.199
<v Speaker 1>was inspired by his words. A humility was wonderful. He

0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:42.400
<v Speaker 1>was a master student at LSC and Lionel Robbins. I

0:10:42.480 --> 0:10:44.720
<v Speaker 1>believe I may be wrong in this, but I believe

0:10:44.760 --> 0:10:48.840
<v Speaker 1>the story is Robbins, the giant of Elisi, personally intervened

0:10:49.120 --> 0:10:52.240
<v Speaker 1>to make him a PhD candidate. He was so good

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:56.400
<v Speaker 1>at speaking well. In this interview he told that story

0:10:56.440 --> 0:10:58.559
<v Speaker 1>where he first applied and they had never heard of

0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:01.120
<v Speaker 1>City College. So he was turned down, and he applied

0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:03.520
<v Speaker 1>a second time and Ladle Robbins intervened. He said, this

0:11:03.600 --> 0:11:05.559
<v Speaker 1>man really wants to come here, and the end of

0:11:05.640 --> 0:11:07.959
<v Speaker 1>three weeks they had him joined the faculty. Yeah. I

0:11:08.040 --> 0:11:11.200
<v Speaker 1>mean that was the giant sense of it. His spirit

0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:13.000
<v Speaker 1>to me, and there's so many things, but almost cost

0:11:13.080 --> 0:11:16.480
<v Speaker 1>disease and the rest of it, and works Tobin and others.

0:11:16.600 --> 0:11:21.240
<v Speaker 1>To me, it was his fearlessness about don't forget the entrepreneur,

0:11:21.600 --> 0:11:25.000
<v Speaker 1>which dovetails into your work on labor economics. How did

0:11:25.040 --> 0:11:30.400
<v Speaker 1>he describe where the entrepreneur fits in to price and firm? Well,

0:11:30.720 --> 0:11:34.400
<v Speaker 1>his contributions and industrial organization, I think we're quite significant.

0:11:34.760 --> 0:11:36.920
<v Speaker 1>The work he did on contestable markets where you have

0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:41.120
<v Speaker 1>a natural monopoly, yet you still want government regulation so

0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:44.840
<v Speaker 1>that you have the degree of competition that's optimal um

0:11:45.320 --> 0:11:50.440
<v Speaker 1>and that enabled I think many many firms to develop

0:11:50.520 --> 0:11:54.000
<v Speaker 1>new technology because often the technology was the barrier to entry.

0:11:54.840 --> 0:11:57.800
<v Speaker 1>He worked on ways for firms to collaborate on R

0:11:57.880 --> 0:12:04.199
<v Speaker 1>and D without colluding, uh to um monopolize the market. UM. So,

0:12:04.360 --> 0:12:07.400
<v Speaker 1>I think every American is benefiting from the work that

0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:10.520
<v Speaker 1>he did. The work he did on cost disease, which

0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:12.800
<v Speaker 1>you mentioned is relevant today for healthcare reform. You know

0:12:12.920 --> 0:12:15.400
<v Speaker 1>he was involved in in the mid nineties and the

0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:18.760
<v Speaker 1>Clinton health care effort, and he explained that the reason

0:12:18.800 --> 0:12:21.280
<v Speaker 1>why healthcare costs are growing so quickly is that there's

0:12:21.320 --> 0:12:25.679
<v Speaker 1>been faster productivity growth outside of healthcare. UH. And when

0:12:25.760 --> 0:12:28.439
<v Speaker 1>impact of his model or implication of his model is

0:12:28.480 --> 0:12:30.760
<v Speaker 1>that the government services that are provided, which tend to

0:12:30.800 --> 0:12:33.240
<v Speaker 1>have slower productivity growth, are going to become more costly

0:12:33.320 --> 0:12:38.079
<v Speaker 1>over time. William Bauma did, of course speak soon to

0:12:38.200 --> 0:12:41.679
<v Speaker 1>Alan Blinder of Princeton, who was so associated with a

0:12:41.800 --> 0:12:46.400
<v Speaker 1>professor Obama's effort and education Alan Krueger very quickly here

0:12:46.679 --> 0:12:51.480
<v Speaker 1>Obamacare trump Care. Does it matter to our listeners? Well,

0:12:51.520 --> 0:12:54.240
<v Speaker 1>I think it matters to all Americans. Certainly matters to

0:12:54.320 --> 0:12:56.959
<v Speaker 1>the twenty four million Americans who would lose their health

0:12:57.040 --> 0:12:59.800
<v Speaker 1>insurance under the bill that passed the House yesterday. But

0:12:59.880 --> 0:13:02.480
<v Speaker 1>it matters, uh to everyone else, because it will affect

0:13:02.520 --> 0:13:06.160
<v Speaker 1>our costs um And you know, the estimates are for

0:13:06.480 --> 0:13:09.160
<v Speaker 1>a large number of Americans the net cost of health

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:11.719
<v Speaker 1>insurance would be situately higher under this bill. Do you

0:13:11.800 --> 0:13:14.520
<v Speaker 1>presume on first blush that the CBO scoring will be

0:13:14.640 --> 0:13:18.440
<v Speaker 1>remarkably like the previous CBO scoring. I don't see how

0:13:18.480 --> 0:13:20.280
<v Speaker 1>it could be all that different, and what I understand

0:13:20.320 --> 0:13:23.079
<v Speaker 1>that the bill they're quite similar. Yeah, let's come back

0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:25.000
<v Speaker 1>Alan Krueger with us. Thank you so much for those

0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:28.920
<v Speaker 1>comments on Professor Bama. That's one of those special things

0:13:28.960 --> 0:13:32.440
<v Speaker 1>about surveillance, folks, is our guest quality is so good

0:13:32.480 --> 0:13:37.000
<v Speaker 1>that when someone dies within the realm of economics, financial investment,

0:13:37.040 --> 0:13:39.839
<v Speaker 1>it's amazing the perspective we hope to deliver to you

0:13:39.920 --> 0:13:43.240
<v Speaker 1>when we hear uh this news. If you have kids,

0:13:43.600 --> 0:13:46.400
<v Speaker 1>this is the most important conversation of the day. Alan

0:13:46.440 --> 0:13:50.319
<v Speaker 1>Krueger is at Princeton University and he has been eclectic

0:13:50.440 --> 0:13:54.000
<v Speaker 1>writing on terrorism, has acclaim with David Carter on the

0:13:54.080 --> 0:13:57.160
<v Speaker 1>minimum wage, and Professor Krueger. Here's a single sentence. I

0:13:57.280 --> 0:13:59.920
<v Speaker 1>take it from Jeff go over to the Washington Poe

0:14:00.160 --> 0:14:05.160
<v Speaker 1>Professor Krueger finds of male prime age labor force dropouts

0:14:05.559 --> 0:14:08.800
<v Speaker 1>say they took pain medication the day prior. Your work

0:14:08.880 --> 0:14:11.839
<v Speaker 1>on opioid is not a lot of political broather. It

0:14:12.000 --> 0:14:16.239
<v Speaker 1>is careful and accurate analysis of the drugs and dropouts

0:14:16.559 --> 0:14:20.040
<v Speaker 1>in America. What's the policy prescription to get us away

0:14:20.120 --> 0:14:23.760
<v Speaker 1>from heroin and the opioids that are destroying so much,

0:14:23.840 --> 0:14:27.720
<v Speaker 1>particularly of the Midwest. First of all, I think I

0:14:27.800 --> 0:14:29.920
<v Speaker 1>might use that as a title for a paper that

0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:34.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm writing, Dropouts. We'll take the surveillance royalty from that place.

0:14:35.880 --> 0:14:39.800
<v Speaker 1>Brookings will hand that right over to you. Um. You know,

0:14:39.880 --> 0:14:42.120
<v Speaker 1>there's not an easy answer. There are I think many

0:14:42.160 --> 0:14:45.120
<v Speaker 1>components the answer. The first is to prevent the problem

0:14:45.160 --> 0:14:47.600
<v Speaker 1>in the first place. And if we could keep people

0:14:47.600 --> 0:14:49.560
<v Speaker 1>in the labor force, that we can keep them engaged.

0:14:49.640 --> 0:14:51.720
<v Speaker 1>If we can keep the unemployed searching for a job,

0:14:51.800 --> 0:14:54.760
<v Speaker 1>If we can help those who are on the margins

0:14:54.760 --> 0:14:57.320
<v Speaker 1>of the labor market to even volunteer so that they

0:14:57.840 --> 0:15:01.480
<v Speaker 1>are learning new skills and staying engaged than networking, I

0:15:01.560 --> 0:15:04.560
<v Speaker 1>think that's one important step to prevent the problem from

0:15:04.600 --> 0:15:08.400
<v Speaker 1>growing where the problem exists, especially for those who are

0:15:08.400 --> 0:15:13.400
<v Speaker 1>on disability insurance and receiving medicare. Something like forty of

0:15:13.560 --> 0:15:16.640
<v Speaker 1>them receive opioid prescriptions during the course of the year.

0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:19.600
<v Speaker 1>I think we need to use rehabilitation, we need to

0:15:19.680 --> 0:15:23.280
<v Speaker 1>use treatment, We need physical therapy. But the jobs do

0:15:23.600 --> 0:15:26.840
<v Speaker 1>you have in your history going to Lynden, Lyndon, Maines, Johnson,

0:15:27.400 --> 0:15:30.800
<v Speaker 1>frank and Dolor, Roosevelt and others. Is there a incentive

0:15:30.880 --> 0:15:37.160
<v Speaker 1>prescription to create investment for lower education goods producing jobs

0:15:37.440 --> 0:15:39.840
<v Speaker 1>in America. They're not going to go to Princeton. They're

0:15:39.880 --> 0:15:43.000
<v Speaker 1>not gonna work for pick your accounting firm or legal firm.

0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:45.360
<v Speaker 1>They're not going to do radio here in New York.

0:15:45.840 --> 0:15:49.080
<v Speaker 1>Where does that policy prescription come to help people in

0:15:49.200 --> 0:15:54.000
<v Speaker 1>West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and westward. This is why it's

0:15:54.040 --> 0:15:57.040
<v Speaker 1>a tragedy. We weren't able to invest more in infrastructure

0:15:57.080 --> 0:15:59.440
<v Speaker 1>in America. We need to rebuild our roads and our

0:15:59.480 --> 0:16:02.920
<v Speaker 1>highways bridges. President Obama tried for eight years to ramp

0:16:03.040 --> 0:16:06.720
<v Speaker 1>up in and I wish him luck and succeeding in

0:16:06.760 --> 0:16:08.480
<v Speaker 1>that because I think that will help our country and

0:16:08.560 --> 0:16:12.120
<v Speaker 1>I think it will improve our competitiveness in the future.

0:16:12.240 --> 0:16:15.240
<v Speaker 1>And just as importantly, help this demographic that you're discussing.

0:16:15.840 --> 0:16:17.640
<v Speaker 1>When you when you look at the field of economics

0:16:17.680 --> 0:16:21.480
<v Speaker 1>and the field of policy today, make a Venn diagram

0:16:21.560 --> 0:16:24.080
<v Speaker 1>of politics and policy, how much crossover is there? Having

0:16:24.160 --> 0:16:26.960
<v Speaker 1>gone through this fight recently here over healthcare reform, you

0:16:27.040 --> 0:16:30.160
<v Speaker 1>talked to doctors, you talk to people in health insurance,

0:16:30.160 --> 0:16:33.760
<v Speaker 1>talk to people at health companies, healthcare companies. There's a

0:16:33.800 --> 0:16:36.280
<v Speaker 1>sense that policy isn't driving it. How do you get

0:16:36.320 --> 0:16:38.680
<v Speaker 1>back to a point where the conversation in Washington is

0:16:38.760 --> 0:16:40.880
<v Speaker 1>less focused on the politics and more on the policy.

0:16:41.200 --> 0:16:43.800
<v Speaker 1>Well today, the overlap in the Venn diagrams is an

0:16:43.840 --> 0:16:46.400
<v Speaker 1>old set. And I once went back and I went

0:16:46.440 --> 0:16:48.000
<v Speaker 1>through all of the issues I worked on when I

0:16:48.040 --> 0:16:50.680
<v Speaker 1>worked for President Obama, and I reviewed what evidence did

0:16:50.760 --> 0:16:52.960
<v Speaker 1>we look at, what type of evidence was it relevant?

0:16:53.440 --> 0:16:57.600
<v Speaker 1>And it was quite an impressive list. The current administration

0:16:57.720 --> 0:17:01.200
<v Speaker 1>seems to be intimidated by experts. Experts aren't always right,

0:17:01.240 --> 0:17:03.560
<v Speaker 1>but I think we do have something to add. I

0:17:03.600 --> 0:17:06.840
<v Speaker 1>think it's unfortunate the way that President Trump has criticized

0:17:07.119 --> 0:17:12.560
<v Speaker 1>federal statistics. The impartial civil servants who toil away earned

0:17:12.720 --> 0:17:15.000
<v Speaker 1>too little. In my view, they're overworked. In my view,

0:17:15.359 --> 0:17:18.600
<v Speaker 1>they do the best job they can. Yet attacking the

0:17:18.720 --> 0:17:23.560
<v Speaker 1>unemployment rate, um other economic measures I think is very

0:17:23.640 --> 0:17:29.120
<v Speaker 1>counterproductive and I think it's uh symbolic of the disdain

0:17:29.760 --> 0:17:33.359
<v Speaker 1>for using evidence and policy development. Thomas a very important

0:17:33.400 --> 0:17:35.560
<v Speaker 1>question about young people and drug addiction. How about just

0:17:35.960 --> 0:17:39.320
<v Speaker 1>stepping back from that more broadly, Uh, you teach you

0:17:39.359 --> 0:17:42.160
<v Speaker 1>to college, you you interact with a lot of young people.

0:17:42.160 --> 0:17:44.720
<v Speaker 1>How does the labor market look for the young men

0:17:44.800 --> 0:17:46.600
<v Speaker 1>and women who will be graduating school here over these

0:17:46.640 --> 0:17:49.399
<v Speaker 1>next few weeks. I think the job market has clearly

0:17:49.480 --> 0:17:51.840
<v Speaker 1>picked up over the last seven years, and I think

0:17:51.880 --> 0:17:55.000
<v Speaker 1>we're seeing many manifestations of that. One is that more

0:17:55.080 --> 0:17:57.119
<v Speaker 1>students are going directly to work instead of on too

0:17:57.160 --> 0:18:01.280
<v Speaker 1>graduate school. Uh. First. For older workers, however, I think

0:18:01.280 --> 0:18:04.520
<v Speaker 1>they're still struggling. And where we're seeing I think, uh

0:18:05.240 --> 0:18:09.639
<v Speaker 1>tremendous difficulty are workers in their fifties early sixties who

0:18:09.680 --> 0:18:11.879
<v Speaker 1>lose a job and they're finding a lot of difficulty

0:18:11.920 --> 0:18:15.560
<v Speaker 1>getting a W two traditional job. And many of them

0:18:15.600 --> 0:18:18.680
<v Speaker 1>are hanging up their own shingle, which can have some benefits,

0:18:19.000 --> 0:18:21.879
<v Speaker 1>but they're not necessarily prepared for being their own boss.

0:18:22.640 --> 0:18:25.760
<v Speaker 1>In hindsight, when you look at tax revenue as a

0:18:25.880 --> 0:18:29.159
<v Speaker 1>percentage GDP. And let's not get carried away. It's the

0:18:29.320 --> 0:18:32.800
<v Speaker 1>chart is clear, folks, it's elevated, but not that much.

0:18:33.840 --> 0:18:37.680
<v Speaker 1>We're taxes raised too much within the era of Obama.

0:18:38.200 --> 0:18:41.840
<v Speaker 1>Could they tweak it a little bit lower? Well, you know,

0:18:42.640 --> 0:18:45.359
<v Speaker 1>I think taxes should be as low as possible, but

0:18:46.119 --> 0:18:48.640
<v Speaker 1>high enough to pay for the services that the public demands.

0:18:49.160 --> 0:18:51.440
<v Speaker 1>And the public demands a lot of services. But trend.

0:18:51.520 --> 0:18:54.359
<v Speaker 1>If I'm a Republican sitting here like the two congressmen

0:18:54.400 --> 0:18:57.760
<v Speaker 1>I interviewed in Washington, the fact of the matter is, Professor,

0:18:57.840 --> 0:19:00.720
<v Speaker 1>we're off trend. We're We're right, we're elevan needed were

0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:03.720
<v Speaker 1>We're certainly not in an outlier position to create to

0:19:03.760 --> 0:19:05.920
<v Speaker 1>our history. And Tom, the proof of the pudding is

0:19:05.960 --> 0:19:08.320
<v Speaker 1>in the economic recovery. You know, people said that the

0:19:08.359 --> 0:19:11.240
<v Speaker 1>tax increases, that Obamacare would destroy jobs. Well what about

0:19:11.280 --> 0:19:13.359
<v Speaker 1>those fifteen and a half million jobs that were created

0:19:13.400 --> 0:19:18.399
<v Speaker 1>over the last taxes to create more jobs? Saying I

0:19:18.600 --> 0:19:21.160
<v Speaker 1>get get Mike, can you get Mike red Hat please

0:19:21.280 --> 0:19:23.480
<v Speaker 1>bring it in here, you know. But by the way, Tom,

0:19:23.520 --> 0:19:25.640
<v Speaker 1>I fought for years for corporate tax reform. I think

0:19:25.680 --> 0:19:28.879
<v Speaker 1>our corporate tax system is very uh inefficient. So can

0:19:28.960 --> 0:19:31.960
<v Speaker 1>we say that Krueger and Trump are on common ground here? Well,

0:19:32.200 --> 0:19:33.920
<v Speaker 1>I think we're in common around and that we say

0:19:33.960 --> 0:19:36.119
<v Speaker 1>that we should have corporate tax reform. Now, the nature

0:19:36.160 --> 0:19:38.200
<v Speaker 1>of the reform is a bit different, and I think

0:19:38.240 --> 0:19:42.280
<v Speaker 1>we can reform our system and remain revenue neutral. What

0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:45.080
<v Speaker 1>did you make of the one pager, as it's called,

0:19:45.160 --> 0:19:48.520
<v Speaker 1>the White House handed out after a hundred days in office,

0:19:48.600 --> 0:19:51.440
<v Speaker 1>the plan the principles for tax reform. Uh. You know,

0:19:51.520 --> 0:19:54.040
<v Speaker 1>you say there's this commonality of you and the administration

0:19:54.080 --> 0:19:55.760
<v Speaker 1>being in favor of corporate taxes from did you see

0:19:55.760 --> 0:19:58.639
<v Speaker 1>anything in the detail? I'm not gonna say it with

0:19:58.680 --> 0:20:01.840
<v Speaker 1>granular detail in the detail that sheet where you think

0:20:01.920 --> 0:20:04.520
<v Speaker 1>that the administration has head in the right direction? Look,

0:20:04.600 --> 0:20:07.040
<v Speaker 1>that was rushed out, and I felt sorry for the

0:20:07.600 --> 0:20:13.480
<v Speaker 1>professional career employees at the Treasury Department. Um, it's not

0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:16.760
<v Speaker 1>the type of work product they're accustomed to producing. UM.

0:20:17.280 --> 0:20:20.200
<v Speaker 1>I think, Uh, the idea of lowering the corporate tax

0:20:20.320 --> 0:20:23.320
<v Speaker 1>rate and getting rid of some of the preferences that

0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:25.440
<v Speaker 1>we have to pay for that, I think that makes

0:20:25.440 --> 0:20:29.040
<v Speaker 1>a lot of sense. Tax rate for past through companies

0:20:29.080 --> 0:20:33.960
<v Speaker 1>I think would be extremely abused. So I had a

0:20:34.000 --> 0:20:37.240
<v Speaker 1>lot of concerns. Um, there were no budget numbers that

0:20:37.359 --> 0:20:40.160
<v Speaker 1>came along with the proposal, which is which is kind

0:20:40.160 --> 0:20:43.840
<v Speaker 1>of remarkable. Um, how is one supposed to consider a

0:20:43.920 --> 0:20:47.960
<v Speaker 1>proposal which would probably, you know, add trillions and trillions

0:20:48.000 --> 0:20:51.040
<v Speaker 1>of dollars to the deficit without having the administration do

0:20:51.160 --> 0:20:52.960
<v Speaker 1>that type of analysis. I don't know how they could

0:20:53.000 --> 0:20:56.800
<v Speaker 1>in good faith say that this is their proposal, that

0:20:56.840 --> 0:20:59.119
<v Speaker 1>they haven't done that type of analysis. And if they

0:20:59.160 --> 0:21:01.040
<v Speaker 1>did that type of an elsis, why wouldn't they share

0:21:01.040 --> 0:21:03.119
<v Speaker 1>it with the American people so we could evaluate it.

0:21:03.600 --> 0:21:05.000
<v Speaker 1>Let me get back here to job stay in the

0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:07.200
<v Speaker 1>last couple of minutes we have with you. I spoke

0:21:07.240 --> 0:21:09.040
<v Speaker 1>with the Secretary of Commerce Earliver this week, and he

0:21:09.160 --> 0:21:12.399
<v Speaker 1>was very proud to talk about the efforts the administration

0:21:12.520 --> 0:21:15.400
<v Speaker 1>is working on when it comes to training. Going back

0:21:15.400 --> 0:21:17.320
<v Speaker 1>to that meeting with Chancellor Lamerko when she was at

0:21:17.320 --> 0:21:19.480
<v Speaker 1>the White House, the trip that Devanka Trump, daughter and

0:21:19.520 --> 0:21:21.680
<v Speaker 1>advisor to the President, took to Germany to meet with

0:21:22.119 --> 0:21:24.920
<v Speaker 1>German executives to see how they train workers and keep

0:21:24.960 --> 0:21:27.800
<v Speaker 1>workers at those companies. Is that a step in the

0:21:27.920 --> 0:21:30.040
<v Speaker 1>right direction? Do you think what's been the biggest hurdle

0:21:30.119 --> 0:21:33.679
<v Speaker 1>to getting training programs built into our corporate structures here

0:21:33.720 --> 0:21:35.960
<v Speaker 1>in the U s. As they are in Germany. I

0:21:36.040 --> 0:21:37.760
<v Speaker 1>think it is a step in the right direction, But

0:21:37.920 --> 0:21:40.879
<v Speaker 1>Germany also mandates that companies spend a certain share of

0:21:40.920 --> 0:21:43.160
<v Speaker 1>their budget on training, and I don't see the current

0:21:43.160 --> 0:21:46.480
<v Speaker 1>administration interested in that type of an idea. Also, in

0:21:46.520 --> 0:21:49.920
<v Speaker 1>the president's budget outline wasn't really a budget proposal. He

0:21:50.040 --> 0:21:53.320
<v Speaker 1>cuts job training. So I think there are many things

0:21:53.359 --> 0:21:55.160
<v Speaker 1>we can do. I would like to see a much

0:21:55.240 --> 0:21:59.680
<v Speaker 1>better school to work training program where students who are

0:21:59.840 --> 0:22:01.840
<v Speaker 1>not at the time college bound they might be college

0:22:01.880 --> 0:22:05.399
<v Speaker 1>bound later on, can apprentice with companies, can learn skills

0:22:05.440 --> 0:22:07.800
<v Speaker 1>while they're going to school. I think that strengthens both

0:22:07.840 --> 0:22:10.520
<v Speaker 1>their school work and their ability to navigate the job market.

0:22:11.600 --> 0:22:14.080
<v Speaker 1>Alan Krueger, thank you so much, particularly for those kind

0:22:14.200 --> 0:22:17.919
<v Speaker 1>comments on his colleague at Princeton, William BAUMO now at

0:22:17.960 --> 0:22:29.640
<v Speaker 1>New York University. Uh uh. This day brought you by

0:22:29.920 --> 0:22:33.600
<v Speaker 1>Bank of America Mary Lynch, dedicated to bringing our clients

0:22:33.720 --> 0:22:37.840
<v Speaker 1>insights and solutions to meet the challenges of a transforming world.

0:22:38.359 --> 0:22:42.200
<v Speaker 1>That's the power of global connections. Mary Lynch Pierce Federan

0:22:42.280 --> 0:22:51.800
<v Speaker 1>Smith Incorporated Member s I p C. There's something new

0:22:51.880 --> 0:22:55.239
<v Speaker 1>from Bloomberg. It's called Lens. Starting right now, you can

0:22:55.359 --> 0:22:59.800
<v Speaker 1>use the Bloomberg iosa off your iPhone or iPad or

0:23:00.200 --> 0:23:04.000
<v Speaker 1>our new Google Chrome extension to read any news story

0:23:04.160 --> 0:23:08.119
<v Speaker 1>on any website, scan it, and then instantly see the

0:23:08.200 --> 0:23:12.760
<v Speaker 1>news stories relevant market data from Bloomberg. In addition, see

0:23:12.800 --> 0:23:16.119
<v Speaker 1>all the bios of the key people mentioned in the story.

0:23:16.640 --> 0:23:19.560
<v Speaker 1>It's called Lens, and it is just that, a lens

0:23:19.720 --> 0:23:23.080
<v Speaker 1>into the people and the data of any story you

0:23:23.200 --> 0:23:26.800
<v Speaker 1>may be reading. Again, Lens brings you the power of

0:23:26.840 --> 0:23:30.080
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg's news and data. Download or io s app or

0:23:30.160 --> 0:23:33.840
<v Speaker 1>search for the Bloomberg extension at the Chrome Store to

0:23:34.000 --> 0:23:38.040
<v Speaker 1>try lens out. Learn more at Bloomberg dot com, slash lens,

0:23:42.800 --> 0:23:46.639
<v Speaker 1>Chip Lastsman of Northwestern and JP Morgan with us today.

0:23:46.920 --> 0:23:50.600
<v Speaker 1>We're just speaking with Alan Krueger about the death of

0:23:50.720 --> 0:23:54.960
<v Speaker 1>William Boma of Princeton University in New York University and

0:23:55.080 --> 0:23:58.960
<v Speaker 1>his professor. Krueger. Of course, Riley mentioned his work is

0:23:59.119 --> 0:24:02.320
<v Speaker 1>front and center in your work and Frankie, the work

0:24:02.359 --> 0:24:06.560
<v Speaker 1>of every politician in Washington on healthcare. It's called bombs,

0:24:06.840 --> 0:24:10.920
<v Speaker 1>cost disease, and it's where you you raise wages because

0:24:10.960 --> 0:24:14.040
<v Speaker 1>you've got to raise wages, but there's no productivity gain

0:24:14.440 --> 0:24:16.639
<v Speaker 1>and bad things happen. Is there where we are right now?

0:24:17.119 --> 0:24:18.439
<v Speaker 1>I don't think so. I think that's where we were

0:24:18.440 --> 0:24:21.119
<v Speaker 1>in the nineteen seventies and early nineteen eighties. But I

0:24:21.200 --> 0:24:23.560
<v Speaker 1>think people we live in a more competitive world, so

0:24:23.720 --> 0:24:27.520
<v Speaker 1>companies aren't as quick to grant wage increases that they

0:24:27.560 --> 0:24:30.680
<v Speaker 1>can't be matched by productivity improvement. So I don't really

0:24:30.720 --> 0:24:34.120
<v Speaker 1>think that's our problem today, but it is a problem

0:24:34.160 --> 0:24:37.120
<v Speaker 1>for the worker because it is productivity that really lifts

0:24:37.160 --> 0:24:41.240
<v Speaker 1>our living standards. And I talked to Ben Bernanke, and

0:24:41.359 --> 0:24:43.840
<v Speaker 1>let me ask you the same question. Which part of

0:24:43.920 --> 0:24:47.440
<v Speaker 1>productivity are we most challenged by? Is a capital dynamics,

0:24:47.920 --> 0:24:51.040
<v Speaker 1>labor dynamics, or is it something unknowable like all this

0:24:51.200 --> 0:24:54.120
<v Speaker 1>technology we're dealing with each and every day. I think

0:24:54.160 --> 0:24:57.560
<v Speaker 1>it's unknowable because here here we have a massive amount

0:24:57.560 --> 0:25:00.560
<v Speaker 1>of innovation going on in the technology sector, and in fact,

0:25:00.600 --> 0:25:03.040
<v Speaker 1>we all think that they're not really measuring that properly.

0:25:03.080 --> 0:25:05.159
<v Speaker 1>But then on the other hand, we're not seeing the

0:25:05.600 --> 0:25:08.320
<v Speaker 1>productivity gains that you expect from innovation. I have a

0:25:08.359 --> 0:25:11.840
<v Speaker 1>feeling it's just really volatile and random and it takes

0:25:11.880 --> 0:25:14.359
<v Speaker 1>time for us to sort of milk the benefits of

0:25:14.400 --> 0:25:16.520
<v Speaker 1>all this innovation, and there's so much going on. Maybe

0:25:16.600 --> 0:25:20.240
<v Speaker 1>that's that's part of the issue. But um, I wouldn't

0:25:20.240 --> 0:25:23.000
<v Speaker 1>be writing oh bits yet for productivity because I think

0:25:23.520 --> 0:25:26.520
<v Speaker 1>looking around it just feels like we're living at a

0:25:26.600 --> 0:25:29.680
<v Speaker 1>time of rapid innovation and it just know whether that

0:25:29.720 --> 0:25:31.240
<v Speaker 1>show you know, how long does that take to show up?

0:25:31.280 --> 0:25:33.479
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. It could be a decade. Chris Rupie

0:25:33.520 --> 0:25:36.200
<v Speaker 1>writing yesterday that the productivity read was a big ouch

0:25:36.280 --> 0:25:38.560
<v Speaker 1>for the economic right, big ouch for the economy plainly

0:25:38.600 --> 0:25:41.320
<v Speaker 1>sputtering in the first quarters we we start the year.

0:25:42.080 --> 0:25:45.359
<v Speaker 1>Uh yeah, but that's all because of the bizarre not

0:25:45.560 --> 0:25:49.000
<v Speaker 1>to be believed GDP estimate that the things slow down

0:25:49.119 --> 0:25:52.920
<v Speaker 1>practical Transtorp, I don't even think it's transitory. Frankly, I

0:25:53.000 --> 0:25:56.600
<v Speaker 1>think it's fake slowdown, because the truth is, if there's

0:25:56.600 --> 0:26:00.280
<v Speaker 1>a seasonal distortion, as the b e A and everybody things,

0:26:00.400 --> 0:26:03.840
<v Speaker 1>including the FED, then it's not really transitory. It's mismeasurement

0:26:04.160 --> 0:26:06.560
<v Speaker 1>of the quarterly GDP figures. And I think that's what's

0:26:06.600 --> 0:26:08.879
<v Speaker 1>so useful about the labor market data. You sort of

0:26:08.920 --> 0:26:11.840
<v Speaker 1>have two different perspectives on the economy. And interestingly, the

0:26:11.960 --> 0:26:16.359
<v Speaker 1>labor market data suggested that things accelerated at least through February.

0:26:16.400 --> 0:26:18.760
<v Speaker 1>We had a soft March paywall figure. But the employment

0:26:18.800 --> 0:26:22.080
<v Speaker 1>picture looks quite good. The GDP figure figure is not

0:26:22.400 --> 0:26:25.440
<v Speaker 1>and this is, by the way, probably going to be corrected.

0:26:25.720 --> 0:26:28.119
<v Speaker 1>When you look at the second quarter or third quarter GDP,

0:26:28.600 --> 0:26:30.520
<v Speaker 1>we'll see everything kind of line up again in the

0:26:30.680 --> 0:26:33.680
<v Speaker 1>in the panoply of economic data, giving you some indication

0:26:33.720 --> 0:26:36.160
<v Speaker 1>of growth in this economy. How much does GDP matter

0:26:36.240 --> 0:26:38.760
<v Speaker 1>to you? Given that, uh, it can beast to volo.

0:26:38.880 --> 0:26:41.480
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't matter at all to me. Quarterly figures I

0:26:41.760 --> 0:26:43.600
<v Speaker 1>don't really pay attention to. The one thing I pay

0:26:43.680 --> 0:26:46.879
<v Speaker 1>most attention to is jobless claims because they are the

0:26:47.000 --> 0:26:50.160
<v Speaker 1>most accurate indicator we have of the pulse of the economy.

0:26:50.480 --> 0:26:52.840
<v Speaker 1>It only tells you what's going on with the businesses

0:26:52.880 --> 0:26:55.280
<v Speaker 1>that are operating and what we've seen so far in

0:26:55.320 --> 0:26:57.879
<v Speaker 1>the first quarter. Uh, the trends. You know, it's a

0:26:57.880 --> 0:27:00.159
<v Speaker 1>steady economy and in fact, if anything, it feels like

0:27:00.200 --> 0:27:02.640
<v Speaker 1>the economy is still growing a little faster than trend,

0:27:02.840 --> 0:27:05.880
<v Speaker 1>thank god, because we still have some populations of people

0:27:05.920 --> 0:27:08.480
<v Speaker 1>out there who dropped out, there were discouraged, and they're

0:27:08.520 --> 0:27:10.199
<v Speaker 1>coming back in. We need we need a little bit

0:27:10.280 --> 0:27:12.720
<v Speaker 1>more above trend growth to get everybody back to work.

0:27:12.800 --> 0:27:14.840
<v Speaker 1>What you're talking with the professor Kruger just a moment

0:27:14.880 --> 0:27:18.879
<v Speaker 1>ago about job opportunity for new graduates of colleges and universities,

0:27:18.880 --> 0:27:20.920
<v Speaker 1>a lot of them facing that crude reality. And just

0:27:21.000 --> 0:27:23.240
<v Speaker 1>a couple of weeks here, let me go beyond the

0:27:23.320 --> 0:27:25.760
<v Speaker 1>headline numbers just a little bit here as well. You

0:27:25.800 --> 0:27:28.119
<v Speaker 1>look at employment among African Americans, say, it's still you

0:27:28.160 --> 0:27:30.560
<v Speaker 1>know what, upwards of eight percent. Why have we not

0:27:30.720 --> 0:27:34.360
<v Speaker 1>been able to target smaller sectors or parts of the economy,

0:27:34.600 --> 0:27:37.879
<v Speaker 1>different demographic groups. Now that this recovery has continued for

0:27:37.920 --> 0:27:39.680
<v Speaker 1>as long as it has been, where where is that

0:27:39.800 --> 0:27:43.080
<v Speaker 1>deficit come from? Well, it always happens, right if you

0:27:43.160 --> 0:27:50.119
<v Speaker 1>look at unemployment by level of education or um ethnic background,

0:27:50.440 --> 0:27:52.359
<v Speaker 1>what you always see that pattern. And I think that

0:27:52.480 --> 0:27:54.520
<v Speaker 1>that's why the best thing that we can do, I mean,

0:27:54.560 --> 0:27:56.119
<v Speaker 1>the only thing that we can really do is make

0:27:56.160 --> 0:28:01.119
<v Speaker 1>sure that the macro economy continue is to recover and

0:28:01.240 --> 0:28:03.080
<v Speaker 1>I think a lot of those problems start to get fixed.

0:28:03.119 --> 0:28:06.359
<v Speaker 1>But but the truth is looking deeper, it's really about

0:28:06.640 --> 0:28:11.480
<v Speaker 1>education and lack of education, lack of skills UM and

0:28:11.520 --> 0:28:13.920
<v Speaker 1>a lot of those jobs are not in the urban

0:28:13.960 --> 0:28:16.840
<v Speaker 1>areas where people need the jobs. Is the problem. It's

0:28:16.880 --> 0:28:19.040
<v Speaker 1>tough to it's tough to commute to the jobs. So

0:28:19.119 --> 0:28:21.480
<v Speaker 1>I think this is a chronic problem and a problem

0:28:21.520 --> 0:28:25.359
<v Speaker 1>that we always have uh in every cycle wait for uce.

0:28:25.560 --> 0:28:28.480
<v Speaker 1>This goes back to Laurence Summer's idea of secular stagnation,

0:28:28.640 --> 0:28:33.320
<v Speaker 1>which is a secular view versus a cyclical view. Are

0:28:33.400 --> 0:28:38.560
<v Speaker 1>we conflating the two ideas too much? Probably because the yeah,

0:28:38.640 --> 0:28:41.120
<v Speaker 1>because the demographics. You know, the problem is the very

0:28:41.200 --> 0:28:43.640
<v Speaker 1>negative view that everybody had about the economy comes from

0:28:43.680 --> 0:28:46.240
<v Speaker 1>this slow growth. We're doing getting well. The slow growth

0:28:46.280 --> 0:28:48.360
<v Speaker 1>didn't prevent us from getting back on our feet, and

0:28:48.440 --> 0:28:51.320
<v Speaker 1>it hasn't prevented the US living standard from rising. We're

0:28:51.320 --> 0:28:54.560
<v Speaker 1>now a record levels. The problem is, um, the slow

0:28:54.640 --> 0:28:57.760
<v Speaker 1>growth is not really it's about demographics a lot of it,

0:28:58.360 --> 0:29:02.000
<v Speaker 1>and so it's very easy to can use the cycle

0:29:02.560 --> 0:29:05.160
<v Speaker 1>strains with all the other stuff that's going on, the

0:29:05.960 --> 0:29:10.200
<v Speaker 1>disruption from innovation the globalization, the demographic shift, and I

0:29:10.240 --> 0:29:12.560
<v Speaker 1>think that's the problem that we were still thinking, well,

0:29:12.600 --> 0:29:16.360
<v Speaker 1>this is about the cycle. Truth is, we're pretty much recovered.

0:29:16.760 --> 0:29:19.440
<v Speaker 1>We're not fully recovered, but we're pretty much there. Most

0:29:19.520 --> 0:29:21.800
<v Speaker 1>people have a job for a half percent unemployment is

0:29:21.840 --> 0:29:24.520
<v Speaker 1>not bad. There's still our pockets of unemployed. But the

0:29:24.600 --> 0:29:27.240
<v Speaker 1>truth is the cycle is behind us, and now we're

0:29:27.520 --> 0:29:29.680
<v Speaker 1>The stresses that we're feeling are more related to these

0:29:29.720 --> 0:29:32.640
<v Speaker 1>things I've been going on long before the downturn in

0:29:32.720 --> 0:29:35.840
<v Speaker 1>two thousand eight. Let's ask about the economic promise here

0:29:35.880 --> 0:29:38.320
<v Speaker 1>after the election, and we're talking with them about at

0:29:38.320 --> 0:29:41.080
<v Speaker 1>the top of the show about trumponomics and what we

0:29:41.160 --> 0:29:43.440
<v Speaker 1>can read into trumponomics from what we saw on Capitol

0:29:43.480 --> 0:29:46.200
<v Speaker 1>Hill this week the vote on another iteration of of

0:29:46.280 --> 0:29:50.400
<v Speaker 1>healthcare reform. Uh. You note in a recent recent note

0:29:50.440 --> 0:29:52.320
<v Speaker 1>that equity investors have been patient. Why do you think

0:29:52.320 --> 0:29:54.240
<v Speaker 1>they've been so patient here? And how long do you

0:29:54.400 --> 0:29:55.920
<v Speaker 1>do you do you expect they will be? Yeah? You know,

0:29:55.920 --> 0:29:58.520
<v Speaker 1>if that's interesting because I I think what we're learning

0:29:58.560 --> 0:30:01.240
<v Speaker 1>in the markets is that the this is not so

0:30:01.400 --> 0:30:04.360
<v Speaker 1>easy coming up with all these grand ideas tax reform

0:30:04.440 --> 0:30:07.320
<v Speaker 1>and infrastructure spending, healthcare reform. We could barely get it

0:30:07.360 --> 0:30:09.160
<v Speaker 1>out of the House. I think what's going on the

0:30:09.200 --> 0:30:11.840
<v Speaker 1>empty market, though, is it's not that they're counting so

0:30:12.000 --> 0:30:14.960
<v Speaker 1>much on something specific to the legislided process. It's more

0:30:15.000 --> 0:30:18.040
<v Speaker 1>of that they feel that the mindset in Washington is

0:30:18.080 --> 0:30:21.040
<v Speaker 1>turning more pro growth. I imagine that must be what's

0:30:21.040 --> 0:30:23.520
<v Speaker 1>going on, and so if that's the case, I think

0:30:23.600 --> 0:30:26.360
<v Speaker 1>their patients it's probably longer than we think. I don't know,

0:30:26.960 --> 0:30:28.360
<v Speaker 1>you know, I think after a year or so, if

0:30:28.400 --> 0:30:30.480
<v Speaker 1>you don't see any more progress, maybe that's an issue.

0:30:31.160 --> 0:30:33.160
<v Speaker 1>What are you gonna look for today? I mean, we're

0:30:33.160 --> 0:30:35.440
<v Speaker 1>supposed to do this in the next section. We've got

0:30:35.480 --> 0:30:37.800
<v Speaker 1>so many distractions going What do you look for? Yeah,

0:30:38.040 --> 0:30:40.520
<v Speaker 1>somewhere between a hundred seenty five and two hundred thousand.

0:30:41.200 --> 0:30:44.120
<v Speaker 1>The last month was weird, and particularly in contrast to

0:30:44.200 --> 0:30:46.240
<v Speaker 1>a dB I don't get I don't really I don't

0:30:46.240 --> 0:30:48.360
<v Speaker 1>really know what's going on. People think it's whether I

0:30:48.440 --> 0:30:50.800
<v Speaker 1>don't know, is it? Because and we're back to forty

0:30:50.880 --> 0:30:54.440
<v Speaker 1>five dollars a barrel, the oil hunk of the American

0:30:54.520 --> 0:30:58.880
<v Speaker 1>economy gets in the way of all the smoothness, the vectors,

0:30:58.960 --> 0:31:01.160
<v Speaker 1>the gradients, that you want to deal with. You know,

0:31:01.240 --> 0:31:03.400
<v Speaker 1>it could down the road. It's only very recently that

0:31:03.520 --> 0:31:06.040
<v Speaker 1>oils pulled back, and that's sort of leaving a cloud

0:31:06.040 --> 0:31:08.080
<v Speaker 1>over the market. But the truth is the oil sectors

0:31:08.160 --> 0:31:10.880
<v Speaker 1>still has been picking up quite a bit and until

0:31:11.000 --> 0:31:13.320
<v Speaker 1>very recently. I think if oil prices don't sort of

0:31:13.360 --> 0:31:15.640
<v Speaker 1>get back to like that fifty dollar range, maybe this

0:31:15.760 --> 0:31:18.040
<v Speaker 1>is gonna be a drag. The odd thing about oil, though,

0:31:18.160 --> 0:31:20.600
<v Speaker 1>is we all tend to react to it like this

0:31:20.760 --> 0:31:22.800
<v Speaker 1>is a bad thing for the US economy. When oil

0:31:22.800 --> 0:31:25.560
<v Speaker 1>prices go down, it's a bad thing for the energy sector,

0:31:25.840 --> 0:31:28.240
<v Speaker 1>it's a good thing for Americans, and in fact, we

0:31:28.360 --> 0:31:31.040
<v Speaker 1>as a country still used twice as much oil as

0:31:31.080 --> 0:31:33.560
<v Speaker 1>we produce. So the problem is it's hard to see

0:31:33.600 --> 0:31:36.240
<v Speaker 1>what consumers are doing, how they're spending their windfall. And

0:31:36.360 --> 0:31:39.280
<v Speaker 1>I think that's why equity investors, when they see oil

0:31:39.320 --> 0:31:42.040
<v Speaker 1>prices go down, they think negative because they can't quite

0:31:42.080 --> 0:31:46.320
<v Speaker 1>see where the beef offsetting benefits are. Jim Lastman was

0:31:46.320 --> 0:31:48.320
<v Speaker 1>this year on Jobs Day. We're just a few minutes

0:31:48.360 --> 0:31:50.880
<v Speaker 1>away from getting that data from the Labor Department, and

0:31:51.160 --> 0:31:54.120
<v Speaker 1>always value the perspective of Professor Krueger. Jim Glassman. Bill

0:31:54.120 --> 0:31:56.120
<v Speaker 1>Gross will join us in just a little while. Are

0:31:56.160 --> 0:31:58.560
<v Speaker 1>really lucky here? What very lucky? I come off the

0:31:58.600 --> 0:32:00.720
<v Speaker 1>TV set this morning to the top of the shows,

0:32:00.720 --> 0:32:02.560
<v Speaker 1>the usual suspects, but we are very honored to have

0:32:02.920 --> 0:32:04.280
<v Speaker 1>each and every one of them here with us. I

0:32:04.360 --> 0:32:06.560
<v Speaker 1>come off the TV. So just to give you a vignette, folks,

0:32:06.640 --> 0:32:08.920
<v Speaker 1>it's uh, you know, they take me down and they

0:32:09.000 --> 0:32:11.880
<v Speaker 1>give me my walker to get you over the radio.

0:32:12.920 --> 0:32:15.520
<v Speaker 1>There's Philip but he's standing with Edward Morris, and I go,

0:32:15.640 --> 0:32:17.920
<v Speaker 1>how good is this? We get to talk to the

0:32:18.000 --> 0:32:20.080
<v Speaker 1>smart people from JP Morgan as we get to talk

0:32:20.120 --> 0:32:23.000
<v Speaker 1>to John Tucker. I mean, you know, there's no there's

0:32:23.040 --> 0:32:27.280
<v Speaker 1>no he's bringing the for the he's the downer with

0:32:27.360 --> 0:32:30.920
<v Speaker 1>the traffic flow. Yeah, well he's we're working on it. Uh.

0:32:31.080 --> 0:32:33.520
<v Speaker 1>This morning, we're joined by James Glassman here in our

0:32:33.520 --> 0:32:36.760
<v Speaker 1>studios at head Economists for Commercial Banking at JP Morgan Chase.

0:32:36.800 --> 0:32:38.440
<v Speaker 1>We talked a lot about uncertainty and the degree to

0:32:38.440 --> 0:32:40.800
<v Speaker 1>which that's weighing on investors, how it's weighing on the

0:32:40.880 --> 0:32:43.640
<v Speaker 1>economy generally. How about the labor market. Are there are

0:32:43.680 --> 0:32:45.960
<v Speaker 1>there people reluctant to hire because they don't know what's

0:32:46.000 --> 0:32:48.720
<v Speaker 1>going to happen with regulation or with taxes, said, I

0:32:48.760 --> 0:32:51.720
<v Speaker 1>don't think so, you know, uh, I frankly, we're always

0:32:51.760 --> 0:32:53.520
<v Speaker 1>doing anything with uncertainty. I don't know a time that

0:32:53.600 --> 0:32:56.080
<v Speaker 1>we weren't dealing with uncertainty. And I think what's happening

0:32:56.200 --> 0:32:59.720
<v Speaker 1>is when work, when employers see what's going on in

0:32:59.720 --> 0:33:02.600
<v Speaker 1>the job market. Everybody has noticed we're getting job growth

0:33:02.640 --> 0:33:05.000
<v Speaker 1>a pretty decent up sixteen million in the last several years,

0:33:05.440 --> 0:33:07.560
<v Speaker 1>the last eight years. So what that's doing is this

0:33:07.680 --> 0:33:10.120
<v Speaker 1>making people realize they need to get ahead of their

0:33:10.480 --> 0:33:13.280
<v Speaker 1>staff needs. And so I think regardless of the uncertainty,

0:33:13.680 --> 0:33:15.800
<v Speaker 1>they realize that it's getting gonna get harder and harder

0:33:15.800 --> 0:33:18.440
<v Speaker 1>to find people, and so it makes people want to

0:33:18.560 --> 0:33:20.640
<v Speaker 1>look harder for folks. So I think that's really been

0:33:20.640 --> 0:33:23.840
<v Speaker 1>a real change in attitude about hiring. And maybe and

0:33:23.880 --> 0:33:25.840
<v Speaker 1>maybe we're that maybe that's one reason why we're getting

0:33:25.840 --> 0:33:27.400
<v Speaker 1>a little more hiring than you might expect. What the

0:33:27.480 --> 0:33:29.280
<v Speaker 1>kind of growth we get. What can you tell from

0:33:29.320 --> 0:33:31.720
<v Speaker 1>looking at layoffs? Average number of layoffs? What does that

0:33:31.760 --> 0:33:34.920
<v Speaker 1>figure tell you about the economy. They're just about as

0:33:35.000 --> 0:33:36.800
<v Speaker 1>low as I've ever seen them, and relative to the

0:33:36.840 --> 0:33:39.760
<v Speaker 1>size of the labor force. UH nothing going on the

0:33:39.880 --> 0:33:44.200
<v Speaker 1>jobless claims trend. UH is telling you that there's nothing

0:33:44.240 --> 0:33:46.280
<v Speaker 1>bad going on in the economy. Then, in fact, if anything,

0:33:46.520 --> 0:33:49.080
<v Speaker 1>we're still probably growing fastive in our trend. If there

0:33:49.160 --> 0:33:51.840
<v Speaker 1>was a problem somewhere, you would see layoffs picking up

0:33:51.840 --> 0:33:54.280
<v Speaker 1>a little bit. And you know, we're we're it's a

0:33:54.440 --> 0:33:58.080
<v Speaker 1>it's a really spectacular view of a very flattering view

0:33:58.080 --> 0:33:59.920
<v Speaker 1>of the economy. What you see from the from the

0:34:00.040 --> 0:34:03.959
<v Speaker 1>layoff story. When you look at this labor market as

0:34:04.000 --> 0:34:05.880
<v Speaker 1>a whole, what are the pockets are the corners of

0:34:05.960 --> 0:34:09.719
<v Speaker 1>it that are still lagging? Be that demographic, be that

0:34:09.880 --> 0:34:13.120
<v Speaker 1>in terms of educational timent, what still needs improvement? Well,

0:34:13.120 --> 0:34:16.520
<v Speaker 1>there's two things. Really, There still are just a few

0:34:16.560 --> 0:34:19.160
<v Speaker 1>folks who are working, a few folks more of a

0:34:19.200 --> 0:34:21.759
<v Speaker 1>normal who are working part time involuntarily. That problem is

0:34:21.880 --> 0:34:24.480
<v Speaker 1>rapidly disappearing, though. I think that's a story about family

0:34:24.520 --> 0:34:27.399
<v Speaker 1>owned businesses. And then and then the young people from

0:34:28.440 --> 0:34:31.080
<v Speaker 1>five year old people in their prime working years. A

0:34:31.120 --> 0:34:33.680
<v Speaker 1>lot of folks got discouraged during the recession. About three

0:34:33.719 --> 0:34:36.600
<v Speaker 1>million dropped out. That number has now come down to

0:34:36.600 --> 0:34:38.759
<v Speaker 1>about one and a half million. So people are coming

0:34:38.800 --> 0:34:40.440
<v Speaker 1>back in. But I would say we still have a

0:34:41.000 --> 0:34:43.799
<v Speaker 1>year's worth of good job growth. We need to get

0:34:43.840 --> 0:34:46.000
<v Speaker 1>all those people back in. About a million and a

0:34:46.080 --> 0:34:48.360
<v Speaker 1>half young people still to come back and living with

0:34:48.520 --> 0:34:51.400
<v Speaker 1>family against still in school. Maybe yeah, but they claimed

0:34:51.480 --> 0:34:55.759
<v Speaker 1>James Glassman power point which is treasured and captain Mr.

0:34:56.239 --> 0:34:59.759
<v Speaker 1>My favorite notes is the invisible unemployment. What do you

0:34:59.800 --> 0:35:03.359
<v Speaker 1>mean by invisible unemployment? The folks who just gave up,

0:35:03.800 --> 0:35:07.600
<v Speaker 1>dropped out and did something else. The smart ones went

0:35:07.640 --> 0:35:09.919
<v Speaker 1>back to school for special job skills. They don't show

0:35:09.960 --> 0:35:12.000
<v Speaker 1>up as unemployed because if I give up looking for

0:35:12.040 --> 0:35:14.800
<v Speaker 1>a job, I'm not gonna show up. So if a

0:35:14.840 --> 0:35:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Trump and Goose of nominal GDP of fifty basis points

0:35:18.239 --> 0:35:21.040
<v Speaker 1>half a percentage point, does that mean anything that you're

0:35:21.080 --> 0:35:24.399
<v Speaker 1>invisible helps to pull them back? You think? So? Yeah.

0:35:24.920 --> 0:35:26.479
<v Speaker 1>They wake up in the morning and I go, jeez,

0:35:26.520 --> 0:35:29.080
<v Speaker 1>I feel better. I just well, I got a tweet.

0:35:29.920 --> 0:35:32.040
<v Speaker 1>Their friends are telling him, hey, there's a job here, um,

0:35:32.800 --> 0:35:35.879
<v Speaker 1>And I think that's how it happens. The kids find

0:35:35.920 --> 0:35:38.359
<v Speaker 1>out that there's opportunities. And you're starting to see that happen.

0:35:38.680 --> 0:35:41.520
<v Speaker 1>The participation of young people now because coming back in

0:35:41.719 --> 0:35:44.960
<v Speaker 1>the farthest west tenth Avenue. You actually traveled, do you

0:35:45.000 --> 0:35:46.879
<v Speaker 1>see a lot of you see a lot of help want?

0:35:47.520 --> 0:35:50.640
<v Speaker 1>They do? Actually? Uh? And in places that I always wondering,

0:35:50.680 --> 0:35:53.080
<v Speaker 1>how do you how would you find somebody here? Uh?

0:35:53.160 --> 0:35:54.840
<v Speaker 1>That there? You know, And the fact that you're posting

0:35:54.880 --> 0:35:57.280
<v Speaker 1>help wanted means it must be you must be desperate,

0:35:57.640 --> 0:36:01.080
<v Speaker 1>because there's many ways of finding job. Is desperation translating

0:36:01.080 --> 0:36:03.279
<v Speaker 1>to higher wages? In other words, of this an employees

0:36:03.360 --> 0:36:07.400
<v Speaker 1>market in technology In some markets that there there are stories,

0:36:07.440 --> 0:36:10.080
<v Speaker 1>but overall not yet, not on tenth Avenue, not in

0:36:10.120 --> 0:36:12.480
<v Speaker 1>the bodeg on tenth Avenue. You've been to tenth Avenue

0:36:12.520 --> 0:36:19.800
<v Speaker 1>till twice. Let me ask you how manufacturing. There is

0:36:19.880 --> 0:36:22.879
<v Speaker 1>this clarion from this administration about bringing manufacturing jobs back.

0:36:22.960 --> 0:36:25.440
<v Speaker 1>How does the manufacturing sector look in this country at

0:36:25.480 --> 0:36:27.560
<v Speaker 1>this point in terms of it's it's relative health. Well,

0:36:27.600 --> 0:36:29.360
<v Speaker 1>it's been hit by the all that was going on

0:36:29.440 --> 0:36:32.600
<v Speaker 1>the energy sector. When energy prices came down, all the

0:36:32.760 --> 0:36:36.120
<v Speaker 1>activity related to energy kind of died and CAPEX slowed

0:36:36.120 --> 0:36:39.040
<v Speaker 1>down industrial production. That began to change late last year

0:36:39.080 --> 0:36:43.040
<v Speaker 1>as activity picked up again. So we'll see, you know,

0:36:43.160 --> 0:36:45.600
<v Speaker 1>But but the big, but the big wind hitting manufacturing

0:36:45.680 --> 0:36:48.520
<v Speaker 1>is all about innovation and technology. And all you gotta

0:36:48.520 --> 0:36:51.440
<v Speaker 1>do is go to an autopoint in Electington, Kentucky, UH

0:36:51.600 --> 0:36:53.160
<v Speaker 1>just to see what's going on. You don't see too

0:36:53.200 --> 0:36:56.279
<v Speaker 1>many human beings. It's a huge issue and sustains through

0:36:56.360 --> 0:37:01.719
<v Speaker 1>this generational shift. We have a generation constancy on Jobs Day.

0:37:02.160 --> 0:37:05.000
<v Speaker 1>The perspective of James Glassman of JP Morgan, we do

0:37:05.160 --> 0:37:07.800
<v Speaker 1>that now. He will stay with us through the statistics

0:37:07.840 --> 0:37:10.680
<v Speaker 1>will see in five and a half minutes, and then

0:37:10.719 --> 0:37:13.520
<v Speaker 1>perspective from Jana's Capital and Bill Gross. He has been

0:37:13.600 --> 0:37:17.719
<v Speaker 1>most generous to talk to us about the Central Bank

0:37:17.800 --> 0:37:20.200
<v Speaker 1>of this nation and of course the impact on fixed

0:37:20.239 --> 0:37:22.560
<v Speaker 1>income Jobs Day. Let's get straight to the numbers here.

0:37:22.560 --> 0:37:24.719
<v Speaker 1>The April numbers from the Labor Department, starting with the

0:37:24.800 --> 0:37:27.480
<v Speaker 1>change in non farm payrolls survey was a d and

0:37:27.520 --> 0:37:30.320
<v Speaker 1>the actual read two hundred eleven thousand. But catching my

0:37:30.520 --> 0:37:33.040
<v Speaker 1>I here is the revision for the March numbers, revised

0:37:33.360 --> 0:37:36.399
<v Speaker 1>down from what was a disappointing number thousand revised down

0:37:36.440 --> 0:37:39.520
<v Speaker 1>to seventy nine thousand. Looking at the unemployment rate here

0:37:39.560 --> 0:37:42.480
<v Speaker 1>four point six percent. The survey was four point rather sorry,

0:37:42.560 --> 0:37:45.040
<v Speaker 1>survey was four point six percent. The actual four point

0:37:45.080 --> 0:37:47.560
<v Speaker 1>four percent. Uh, what do you make of that March revision?

0:37:47.600 --> 0:37:50.000
<v Speaker 1>Down of a churn here yields moving a little bit.

0:37:50.120 --> 0:37:52.239
<v Speaker 1>I don't see that much of a market movement. I mean,

0:37:52.360 --> 0:37:56.399
<v Speaker 1>still focused on oil. But wage growth isn't all that good.

0:37:56.400 --> 0:37:58.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean, let's start with the unemployment rate. Jim Glassmow

0:37:58.600 --> 0:38:01.759
<v Speaker 1>with JP Morgan with US four point six per was

0:38:01.800 --> 0:38:04.360
<v Speaker 1>to survey a lovely four point four percent. But you

0:38:04.440 --> 0:38:07.160
<v Speaker 1>know that's not for good reasons, right, yeah, not with

0:38:07.320 --> 0:38:10.640
<v Speaker 1>not people are disappearing, um, but still we're kind of

0:38:10.680 --> 0:38:13.360
<v Speaker 1>in that zone of um, what the fat things of

0:38:13.440 --> 0:38:15.440
<v Speaker 1>its full employment? So I think they'll be encouraged by

0:38:15.440 --> 0:38:17.600
<v Speaker 1>the report it you know, it tells you we're not

0:38:17.680 --> 0:38:19.400
<v Speaker 1>quite there yet, but I think it keeps them on

0:38:19.560 --> 0:38:22.960
<v Speaker 1>board with the idea of getting their funds right back up.

0:38:23.320 --> 0:38:26.040
<v Speaker 1>That revision negative six is certainly not what you want

0:38:26.080 --> 0:38:28.520
<v Speaker 1>to see, almost like a second derivative of pop up

0:38:29.040 --> 0:38:32.160
<v Speaker 1>and in wage growth. Uh, you know, it's it's just

0:38:32.360 --> 0:38:36.480
<v Speaker 1>a mixed store here. Every year hourly earnings two point

0:38:36.640 --> 0:38:42.200
<v Speaker 1>five with a bad revision is the average hourly earnings number?

0:38:42.480 --> 0:38:46.200
<v Speaker 1>Jim Glassman, is it a blue collar statistic, or does

0:38:46.239 --> 0:38:49.239
<v Speaker 1>it capture all of America? Well, it doesn't capture all

0:38:49.280 --> 0:38:51.360
<v Speaker 1>of America and it doesn't capture all of pay. So

0:38:51.480 --> 0:38:55.279
<v Speaker 1>there's a lot of benefits and healthcare insurance premiums and

0:38:55.600 --> 0:38:58.880
<v Speaker 1>things like that that are not in there. But remember

0:38:58.960 --> 0:39:01.480
<v Speaker 1>this thing was stuck at two sent forever, so it's

0:39:01.520 --> 0:39:04.120
<v Speaker 1>come up a little bit. Look at the labor force change,

0:39:04.160 --> 0:39:07.040
<v Speaker 1>which goes right into that unemployment rate next to nothing

0:39:07.360 --> 0:39:10.920
<v Speaker 1>three thousand than a hundred and forty five thousand. Those

0:39:10.960 --> 0:39:15.200
<v Speaker 1>are buoyant numbers in a terrible twelve. Yeah, so we

0:39:15.320 --> 0:39:17.160
<v Speaker 1>had you know, these numbers are very volatile on the

0:39:17.200 --> 0:39:20.200
<v Speaker 1>monthly basis, had a surge of labor force earlier in

0:39:20.239 --> 0:39:22.400
<v Speaker 1>the year, so it's hard to tell. Sometimes you need

0:39:22.440 --> 0:39:25.040
<v Speaker 1>about six months behind you to see what's really going

0:39:25.080 --> 0:39:27.640
<v Speaker 1>on with these numbers. They get very volatile. How do

0:39:27.680 --> 0:39:30.279
<v Speaker 1>you link this into the productivity reports that we saw

0:39:30.320 --> 0:39:32.759
<v Speaker 1>the other way quickly here? Please? Well, you know slop

0:39:32.840 --> 0:39:35.719
<v Speaker 1>aarctivity means that's what's the restraint on pay. So if

0:39:35.719 --> 0:39:38.360
<v Speaker 1>parctivity were booming, we would be seeing stronger gains and

0:39:38.400 --> 0:39:41.520
<v Speaker 1>average oly earn. He's probably okay, Jim Glassman with this

0:39:41.800 --> 0:39:58.120
<v Speaker 1>JP Morgan, and we say thank you for that. And

0:39:58.200 --> 0:40:00.720
<v Speaker 1>now joining us Bill Gross, he is with Janice Capital.

0:40:00.760 --> 0:40:03.640
<v Speaker 1>We welcome all on Bloomberg Television into our cozy aboard

0:40:03.800 --> 0:40:07.719
<v Speaker 1>our radio studios here David Gura and Tom Keane to

0:40:07.840 --> 0:40:11.080
<v Speaker 1>speak to Mr Gross. Bill. Wonderful to speak to you again,

0:40:11.120 --> 0:40:13.560
<v Speaker 1>and we really value your being with us each and

0:40:13.680 --> 0:40:16.799
<v Speaker 1>every job's day. I'm going to suggest, even though there's

0:40:16.800 --> 0:40:20.080
<v Speaker 1>not much market action, when you look at last month's

0:40:20.360 --> 0:40:24.040
<v Speaker 1>multi report, this is certainly not the bang up report

0:40:24.120 --> 0:40:28.719
<v Speaker 1>the job optimists would have wanted to see. Well, that's

0:40:28.760 --> 0:40:32.440
<v Speaker 1>certainly not in terms of wages, in terms of the

0:40:32.680 --> 0:40:36.640
<v Speaker 1>potential for the FED to be a little stronger and

0:40:36.640 --> 0:40:40.279
<v Speaker 1>a little more hawkish. Uh. You know, the job's number,

0:40:40.320 --> 0:40:42.839
<v Speaker 1>I think is a good number. And the U six,

0:40:42.920 --> 0:40:47.920
<v Speaker 1>the underployment number came down from eight six to from

0:40:47.960 --> 0:40:50.600
<v Speaker 1>eight nine eight six, which is a pretty substantial change.

0:40:50.640 --> 0:40:53.600
<v Speaker 1>So there's something in there for everybody. To me. It's

0:40:53.920 --> 0:40:56.759
<v Speaker 1>simply suggests that the FED continues on its course of

0:40:57.400 --> 0:41:01.080
<v Speaker 1>gradual increases, and that, of course is the the primary question.

0:41:01.200 --> 0:41:04.880
<v Speaker 1>What does gradual mean to the market. Gradual means like

0:41:05.520 --> 0:41:08.120
<v Speaker 1>forty basis points for the year and to the FED

0:41:08.239 --> 0:41:10.919
<v Speaker 1>in terms of the dots, that means fifty to seventy five.

0:41:11.000 --> 0:41:14.279
<v Speaker 1>And there's the conundrum, as you know, cher Yelling does

0:41:14.400 --> 0:41:17.000
<v Speaker 1>focus on this labor report. Does she need to focus

0:41:17.080 --> 0:41:19.960
<v Speaker 1>on in her usual months to month and quarter to

0:41:20.040 --> 0:41:22.680
<v Speaker 1>quarter away or does she really need to focus away

0:41:22.760 --> 0:41:25.160
<v Speaker 1>from the jobs report on at a lot of other

0:41:25.360 --> 0:41:29.919
<v Speaker 1>themes within our American economy. Well, I think she needs

0:41:29.960 --> 0:41:33.400
<v Speaker 1>to focus away. There's been a number of reports, supportive

0:41:33.440 --> 0:41:37.239
<v Speaker 1>reports that suggests that low and negative interest rates do

0:41:37.440 --> 0:41:41.920
<v Speaker 1>strange things as they approach or punched through the zero bound.

0:41:42.480 --> 0:41:44.600
<v Speaker 1>I've been talking about that for several years, and I

0:41:44.640 --> 0:41:47.480
<v Speaker 1>don't think the FIT or other central banks really focus

0:41:47.560 --> 0:41:50.759
<v Speaker 1>on enough the fact that low low interest rates keep

0:41:50.880 --> 0:41:55.480
<v Speaker 1>zombie corporations alive. And that feeds into your question for productivity,

0:41:56.040 --> 0:41:59.040
<v Speaker 1>the fact that low interest rates destroy you know, very

0:41:59.120 --> 0:42:02.600
<v Speaker 1>productive business models like insurance companies and pension funds and

0:42:03.040 --> 0:42:05.799
<v Speaker 1>savings in general. And so the FED, to my way

0:42:05.840 --> 0:42:09.160
<v Speaker 1>of thinking, is a model driven type of institution, and

0:42:09.239 --> 0:42:13.000
<v Speaker 1>their models are outdated. So they need to get into

0:42:13.040 --> 0:42:15.839
<v Speaker 1>the future as opposed to come back from the past. Bill,

0:42:15.880 --> 0:42:17.920
<v Speaker 1>We've got to go to the market dynamics right now

0:42:18.080 --> 0:42:20.480
<v Speaker 1>from this important jobs report, and I want to go

0:42:20.760 --> 0:42:23.000
<v Speaker 1>right to the research chase that's going on in the

0:42:23.080 --> 0:42:27.360
<v Speaker 1>last forty eight hours. Would you presume commodity dynamics that

0:42:27.440 --> 0:42:31.040
<v Speaker 1>we've seen and the worries about China, which are always

0:42:31.120 --> 0:42:36.280
<v Speaker 1>their link to commodities fold right back to a central

0:42:36.320 --> 0:42:39.839
<v Speaker 1>bank discussion of the United States of America, Or maybe

0:42:39.880 --> 0:42:43.160
<v Speaker 1>it's not a taper tantrum, but it's an oil tantrum.

0:42:43.280 --> 0:42:45.759
<v Speaker 1>Is that what we're seeing if we presume a more

0:42:45.840 --> 0:42:51.239
<v Speaker 1>restrictive fed Well, you mentioned China, and China is a

0:42:51.320 --> 0:42:54.239
<v Speaker 1>tough one. Uh, certainly in terms of their policies and

0:42:54.440 --> 0:42:58.120
<v Speaker 1>their credit creation. Uh. You know, China, to my way thinking,

0:42:58.560 --> 0:43:03.279
<v Speaker 1>a year ago, UH jumped up credit to a type

0:43:03.280 --> 0:43:07.680
<v Speaker 1>of annual rate and created global growth more than expected.

0:43:08.080 --> 0:43:11.640
<v Speaker 1>Now they tend to be tightening the reins, so to speak.

0:43:11.719 --> 0:43:15.040
<v Speaker 1>But no one really knows about the shadow banking system

0:43:15.080 --> 0:43:17.120
<v Speaker 1>in China, little on the shadow banking system in the

0:43:17.239 --> 0:43:21.160
<v Speaker 1>United States. I have a sense though, that that credit

0:43:21.320 --> 0:43:23.799
<v Speaker 1>is being restricted, that their short term rate has moved

0:43:23.840 --> 0:43:26.360
<v Speaker 1>up by two to three basis points, and the ultimately

0:43:26.719 --> 0:43:28.839
<v Speaker 1>that makes a difference on a global basis and that's

0:43:28.880 --> 0:43:31.759
<v Speaker 1>why you're seeing oil prices and that's why you're seeing

0:43:31.800 --> 0:43:34.640
<v Speaker 1>other commodity prices come down by five ten in in

0:43:34.760 --> 0:43:39.280
<v Speaker 1>some cases of simply because China, as the growth creator

0:43:39.400 --> 0:43:42.560
<v Speaker 1>and the credit creator, is simply slowing down. So we

0:43:42.640 --> 0:43:44.600
<v Speaker 1>were talking with Villain Batter a little earlier today from

0:43:44.640 --> 0:43:46.520
<v Speaker 1>City Group, and he said he does not think that

0:43:46.600 --> 0:43:48.920
<v Speaker 1>Trump and omics, as it's come to be called his

0:43:49.000 --> 0:43:51.560
<v Speaker 1>run its course. When when you look at that still

0:43:51.719 --> 0:43:56.520
<v Speaker 1>nascent brand of economics, where do you think we are? Well,

0:43:56.560 --> 0:43:59.160
<v Speaker 1>I think it, uh, it's still running its course in

0:43:59.320 --> 0:44:02.279
<v Speaker 1>terms of mark gets and and that's where you have to, uh,

0:44:03.239 --> 0:44:05.400
<v Speaker 1>that's where you have to discriminate between markets and the

0:44:05.440 --> 0:44:08.600
<v Speaker 1>real economy. Obviously, the real economy is only three or

0:44:08.680 --> 0:44:12.560
<v Speaker 1>four months old in terms of Trump and the administration,

0:44:12.600 --> 0:44:14.680
<v Speaker 1>and the policies haven't had a chance to work yet,

0:44:14.800 --> 0:44:18.160
<v Speaker 1>let alone to be put into law. But I think

0:44:18.200 --> 0:44:21.479
<v Speaker 1>the potential of course for lower corporate tax rates whatever

0:44:21.600 --> 0:44:25.480
<v Speaker 1>that is, the potential for reregulate deregulation in terms of

0:44:26.120 --> 0:44:32.279
<v Speaker 1>significant industries, the potential for um uh you know globalization. Uh,

0:44:32.680 --> 0:44:35.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's there's lots there that have affected markets

0:44:35.880 --> 0:44:39.120
<v Speaker 1>and affected currencies as you and Tom follow but the

0:44:39.160 --> 0:44:42.759
<v Speaker 1>real economy is yet to punch in. I think I'm

0:44:42.800 --> 0:44:45.800
<v Speaker 1>a skeptic. I think that the real economy in the

0:44:45.960 --> 0:44:49.000
<v Speaker 1>US and in globally, but the US economy is a

0:44:49.040 --> 0:44:51.720
<v Speaker 1>two percent number going forward, and that it's a function

0:44:51.760 --> 0:44:55.680
<v Speaker 1>of productivity, and the productivity you really can't be affected

0:44:55.719 --> 0:44:58.120
<v Speaker 1>by corporate tax rates. Just look at it this way.

0:44:58.280 --> 0:45:00.680
<v Speaker 1>Let me finish the thought, and I'll let to ask

0:45:00.760 --> 0:45:05.480
<v Speaker 1>another question. Um, you know, productivity is a function of

0:45:05.600 --> 0:45:08.719
<v Speaker 1>investment and and corporations have had lots of money they

0:45:08.760 --> 0:45:12.880
<v Speaker 1>can borrow money at the cheapest rate possible in in decades,

0:45:12.960 --> 0:45:15.520
<v Speaker 1>but yet they failed to do that. And so cutting

0:45:15.600 --> 0:45:18.959
<v Speaker 1>corporate taxes, giving them cash flow, letting them repatriate money

0:45:19.080 --> 0:45:21.759
<v Speaker 1>from outside the United States, will that do a lot

0:45:21.800 --> 0:45:23.920
<v Speaker 1>of good in terms of investment? I don't think so.

0:45:24.160 --> 0:45:25.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't think I'll make much of a difference. And

0:45:25.760 --> 0:45:28.680
<v Speaker 1>so two percent real growth, I think is where we're heading. Yeah,

0:45:28.680 --> 0:45:30.839
<v Speaker 1>I think that the saying goes if if if ands

0:45:30.880 --> 0:45:32.880
<v Speaker 1>and butts were candies and nuts, every day would be

0:45:33.120 --> 0:45:36.640
<v Speaker 1>would be Christmas. I'm increasingly interested in in patients, how

0:45:36.719 --> 0:45:39.239
<v Speaker 1>long someone like you is willing to give Washington willing

0:45:39.280 --> 0:45:42.240
<v Speaker 1>to give this administration to do something like tax reform

0:45:42.480 --> 0:45:47.160
<v Speaker 1>or healthcare reform or regulatory reform. Well, I think it

0:45:47.239 --> 0:45:51.000
<v Speaker 1>gets down to David to the to the number, to

0:45:51.120 --> 0:45:53.319
<v Speaker 1>the real growth number. If it's three percent, if they

0:45:53.360 --> 0:45:58.120
<v Speaker 1>can really recreate three percent type of economy, then investors

0:45:58.200 --> 0:46:00.520
<v Speaker 1>can be patient and they need to see that as

0:46:00.560 --> 0:46:02.560
<v Speaker 1>we move along. We didn't see that in the first quarter.

0:46:02.680 --> 0:46:07.120
<v Speaker 1>We're seeing a potential four percent second quarters, so still

0:46:07.239 --> 0:46:09.319
<v Speaker 1>up in the air. But three percent is the number

0:46:09.360 --> 0:46:12.960
<v Speaker 1>that risk markets, that equities, that pe ratios, that HI

0:46:13.040 --> 0:46:16.000
<v Speaker 1>yield spreads in terms of their compression are all based on.

0:46:16.400 --> 0:46:18.920
<v Speaker 1>And so I think there's some disappointment ahead of it's

0:46:18.960 --> 0:46:23.160
<v Speaker 1>two and there's some optimistic uh movement in terms of

0:46:23.239 --> 0:46:25.879
<v Speaker 1>prices if it's three. Bill girls very quickly her How

0:46:26.000 --> 0:46:28.160
<v Speaker 1>correlated are the markets right now? Is over at New

0:46:28.239 --> 0:46:31.120
<v Speaker 1>Burger Birming yesterday talking with their good folks, and there

0:46:31.160 --> 0:46:34.040
<v Speaker 1>was a real statement of the new genus of the markets,

0:46:34.080 --> 0:46:37.239
<v Speaker 1>the lack of correlation. How would lock step are the

0:46:37.360 --> 0:46:41.880
<v Speaker 1>different asset classes right now? Well, I think they're in

0:46:41.920 --> 0:46:44.080
<v Speaker 1>pretty lockstep. I mean, you can talk about the last

0:46:44.160 --> 0:46:46.279
<v Speaker 1>three months in terms of the correlation, but to my

0:46:46.400 --> 0:46:48.600
<v Speaker 1>way of thinking, I always go back to the most

0:46:48.640 --> 0:46:51.480
<v Speaker 1>asset prices, and almost all asset prices are correlated to

0:46:51.560 --> 0:46:55.239
<v Speaker 1>the neutral FED funds rate, to the existing Fed funds rate,

0:46:55.320 --> 0:46:58.640
<v Speaker 1>the forward Fed funds rate, and from there, uh, we

0:46:58.840 --> 0:47:02.000
<v Speaker 1>derived the you know, the Gordon discount model, the dividend

0:47:02.000 --> 0:47:04.719
<v Speaker 1>discound model, and others. And so I think the correlation

0:47:04.880 --> 0:47:06.880
<v Speaker 1>is really in terms of interest rates. And as long

0:47:06.960 --> 0:47:11.359
<v Speaker 1>as we stay stable and relatively low, then markets can

0:47:11.640 --> 0:47:14.520
<v Speaker 1>stay stable and relatively low. But there's risk there, and

0:47:14.920 --> 0:47:17.480
<v Speaker 1>perhaps we can talk about that, and let's do that.

0:47:17.560 --> 0:47:19.319
<v Speaker 1>We'll talk to you. It's like Uncle Wiggily. He's telling

0:47:19.400 --> 0:47:21.680
<v Speaker 1>us what's gonna happen in the next chapter as well,

0:47:21.800 --> 0:47:24.800
<v Speaker 1>Bill Gross with us the janis at Capital and Bloomberg

0:47:24.840 --> 0:47:30.480
<v Speaker 1>Television and Bloomberg Radio worldwide built. We're talking about the

0:47:30.560 --> 0:47:32.920
<v Speaker 1>correlations within the market, and you were linking them to

0:47:33.000 --> 0:47:37.239
<v Speaker 1>the anchor of central bank action. And yet the commodities

0:47:37.360 --> 0:47:40.840
<v Speaker 1>are in free fall. How do you how do you

0:47:41.120 --> 0:47:45.160
<v Speaker 1>use commodity dynamics within your work? Are they an opportunity

0:47:45.239 --> 0:47:48.279
<v Speaker 1>when they plunge like this to make alpha down the road?

0:47:48.600 --> 0:47:51.080
<v Speaker 1>Do you go long and oil? Do you go along Canada.

0:47:51.160 --> 0:47:53.600
<v Speaker 1>Do you go along Looney rather, how do you play

0:47:54.000 --> 0:47:59.239
<v Speaker 1>a commodity plunge? Yeah? Uh? In two ways. Tom first,

0:47:59.280 --> 0:48:00.800
<v Speaker 1>in terms of car and says, you look for a

0:48:00.960 --> 0:48:04.600
<v Speaker 1>very undervalued currency. I like the Mexican pay so so.

0:48:04.760 --> 0:48:10.040
<v Speaker 1>I recognize their obvious problems in terms of Trumpian policies

0:48:10.080 --> 0:48:13.360
<v Speaker 1>going forward, but I think it's a very attractive situation

0:48:13.440 --> 0:48:16.719
<v Speaker 1>and very volatile, which which makes it possible to you know,

0:48:16.880 --> 0:48:20.080
<v Speaker 1>to basically to sell puts on the Mexican pay so so.

0:48:20.200 --> 0:48:22.960
<v Speaker 1>In terms of commodities, what I look for, and I'm

0:48:23.000 --> 0:48:27.200
<v Speaker 1>a volatility seller at relatively high volatilities, I look for

0:48:27.320 --> 0:48:30.759
<v Speaker 1>those commodities that have been most recently volatile. Let's take

0:48:30.800 --> 0:48:32.680
<v Speaker 1>gold for the last two or three days. You know,

0:48:32.800 --> 0:48:36.560
<v Speaker 1>a pretty dramatic decline in terms of gold following on

0:48:36.760 --> 0:48:40.640
<v Speaker 1>a pretty dramatic decline in real interest rates. UM are

0:48:40.800 --> 0:48:43.600
<v Speaker 1>arising in real interest rates which produced that, and so

0:48:44.280 --> 0:48:48.799
<v Speaker 1>UM gold, to my way thinking, has a relatively high volatility.

0:48:49.080 --> 0:48:52.080
<v Speaker 1>UM oil is creeping up there with US downdraft in

0:48:52.160 --> 0:48:54.919
<v Speaker 1>the past few days, and so i'd rather than look

0:48:54.960 --> 0:48:58.200
<v Speaker 1>for price distortions to go long or short, I look

0:48:58.280 --> 0:49:02.000
<v Speaker 1>for higher volatility to sell on the wings and to

0:49:02.200 --> 0:49:05.000
<v Speaker 1>take advantage of uh, you know, of the premiums as

0:49:05.040 --> 0:49:08.560
<v Speaker 1>opposed to the potential price drop or price increase. Tom

0:49:08.640 --> 0:49:11.440
<v Speaker 1>touched upon this a few minutes ago briefly, But when

0:49:11.480 --> 0:49:12.920
<v Speaker 1>you look at oil right now, what do you think

0:49:13.040 --> 0:49:14.800
<v Speaker 1>is is driving the price lower? We were talking with

0:49:14.840 --> 0:49:17.279
<v Speaker 1>Steven Short yesterday and he suggested that this had nothing

0:49:17.360 --> 0:49:20.040
<v Speaker 1>to do with with OPEC. It was a different story

0:49:20.080 --> 0:49:22.720
<v Speaker 1>than that. What's your sense of what's motivating this downturn

0:49:22.760 --> 0:49:26.320
<v Speaker 1>that we're seeing. Well, you looked at oil both in

0:49:26.440 --> 0:49:30.080
<v Speaker 1>terms of supply and demands. Sometimes that the supply is

0:49:30.120 --> 0:49:33.000
<v Speaker 1>a mystery, especially with the shale in the United States

0:49:33.080 --> 0:49:37.080
<v Speaker 1>and the marginal price for production. But you also looked

0:49:37.120 --> 0:49:40.320
<v Speaker 1>at demand, and to my way of thinking, global demand

0:49:40.520 --> 0:49:43.880
<v Speaker 1>for oil is a reflection of global growth and a

0:49:43.960 --> 0:49:48.880
<v Speaker 1>reflection of potential Chinese growth. And we've talked about this

0:49:49.080 --> 0:49:51.960
<v Speaker 1>ten minutes ago. But I think the Chinese economy is

0:49:52.040 --> 0:49:55.320
<v Speaker 1>in the process of slowing raising credit, and that in

0:49:55.480 --> 0:49:59.000
<v Speaker 1>turn reflects in terms of a lower oil price down

0:49:59.040 --> 0:50:01.960
<v Speaker 1>the road. So um, both of those things. I don't

0:50:02.000 --> 0:50:05.000
<v Speaker 1>think oil has a lot further to go. Um, you know,

0:50:05.320 --> 0:50:07.680
<v Speaker 1>it's a close to forty five can go down to

0:50:07.760 --> 0:50:10.200
<v Speaker 1>forty I suppose, But I think we're in a zone

0:50:10.280 --> 0:50:14.640
<v Speaker 1>here where where oil can be sold in terms of

0:50:14.680 --> 0:50:19.640
<v Speaker 1>its volatility, both at levels of fifty plus and at

0:50:19.719 --> 0:50:23.720
<v Speaker 1>levels of forty minus. It's it's a it's a pleasure

0:50:23.760 --> 0:50:25.759
<v Speaker 1>to privilege to talk with you on jobs Day. And

0:50:26.040 --> 0:50:28.600
<v Speaker 1>I wonder, aside from that being a good peg, how

0:50:28.680 --> 0:50:31.160
<v Speaker 1>you how you rate the importance of data on the

0:50:31.280 --> 0:50:33.200
<v Speaker 1>labor economy when you look at the health of the

0:50:33.320 --> 0:50:35.640
<v Speaker 1>U S economy overall, in other words, when you're looking

0:50:35.640 --> 0:50:37.960
<v Speaker 1>at all of this data, this panoply of data, how

0:50:38.040 --> 0:50:43.200
<v Speaker 1>important is that is the labor market at this point? Well,

0:50:43.239 --> 0:50:45.600
<v Speaker 1>I think it is uh. And ultimately to my way

0:50:45.640 --> 0:50:49.960
<v Speaker 1>of thinking, David, I I moved from jobs to retail sales.

0:50:50.280 --> 0:50:53.560
<v Speaker 1>That there's definitely a connection, right, not a direct connection,

0:50:53.640 --> 0:50:56.520
<v Speaker 1>but to my way of thinking, that an economy is

0:50:56.560 --> 0:51:00.320
<v Speaker 1>a reflection of demand, consumer demand. That's why we have

0:51:00.440 --> 0:51:04.840
<v Speaker 1>economies to provide consumer products. And so you know, I

0:51:05.000 --> 0:51:08.840
<v Speaker 1>look straight from job creation to its effect on retail sales,

0:51:09.200 --> 0:51:12.359
<v Speaker 1>and of course we've seen some pretty disappointing numbers. That's

0:51:12.480 --> 0:51:14.799
<v Speaker 1>a lot of it. Of course, because of the transition

0:51:14.920 --> 0:51:18.600
<v Speaker 1>to UM you know to the internet as opposed to

0:51:18.600 --> 0:51:22.959
<v Speaker 1>to to hardline stores. But in any case, retail sales

0:51:23.000 --> 0:51:24.600
<v Speaker 1>have been very slow, and so you would have to

0:51:24.680 --> 0:51:28.680
<v Speaker 1>wonder how you know job creation has affected that and

0:51:28.800 --> 0:51:31.800
<v Speaker 1>why it hasn't affected it more positively. But you know,

0:51:31.920 --> 0:51:33.920
<v Speaker 1>to my way thinking, the weak economy in the first

0:51:34.040 --> 0:51:37.399
<v Speaker 1>quarter is a reflection of sales even in the face

0:51:37.480 --> 0:51:41.040
<v Speaker 1>of higher UH employment numbers that we experienced. No, there's

0:51:41.080 --> 0:51:43.400
<v Speaker 1>been no one more than you that is spoken of

0:51:43.480 --> 0:51:47.319
<v Speaker 1>this nation's financial repression. A few visits ago, you made

0:51:47.400 --> 0:51:49.600
<v Speaker 1>very clear to us you look at financial repression in

0:51:49.719 --> 0:51:52.480
<v Speaker 1>seven eight years, and I believe your language was even

0:51:52.560 --> 0:51:55.640
<v Speaker 1>a decade. I spoke to Sherman Bernanke earlier this week.

0:51:55.719 --> 0:51:59.319
<v Speaker 1>I believe I mentioned you about his Dylan South Carolina.

0:51:59.760 --> 0:52:03.840
<v Speaker 1>In the crushing weight on savers and investors? What do

0:52:04.080 --> 0:52:07.840
<v Speaker 1>they do? Let's revisit this again. What do our listeners

0:52:08.120 --> 0:52:15.160
<v Speaker 1>actually do about the dearth of yield in their investments? Well,

0:52:15.200 --> 0:52:16.719
<v Speaker 1>there are number of ways to do it. I don't

0:52:16.760 --> 0:52:19.720
<v Speaker 1>think you do it by taking more risk. Obviously, that's

0:52:20.160 --> 0:52:23.080
<v Speaker 1>one way. By taking high yield bonds as supposed to

0:52:23.280 --> 0:52:27.200
<v Speaker 1>treasuries at the extreme example, um that would not be

0:52:27.360 --> 0:52:30.400
<v Speaker 1>my recommendation simply because of the compression of spreads and

0:52:30.480 --> 0:52:34.960
<v Speaker 1>the inherent risk at these price levels. What do investors do?

0:52:35.160 --> 0:52:39.399
<v Speaker 1>What the savers do? Um? Do they sit it out? Um? Yeah,

0:52:39.480 --> 0:52:41.279
<v Speaker 1>to a certain extent, I think they do, and they

0:52:41.360 --> 0:52:43.840
<v Speaker 1>wait for a central bank, hopefully the Fed. They're on

0:52:43.920 --> 0:52:46.640
<v Speaker 1>the move upwards, although very gradually, they wait for a

0:52:46.719 --> 0:52:50.879
<v Speaker 1>central bank to to renormalize. To some extent, I don't

0:52:50.920 --> 0:52:53.719
<v Speaker 1>think that's ever going to happen relative to ten or

0:52:53.840 --> 0:52:56.160
<v Speaker 1>twenty years ago. We're not going back to a two

0:52:56.239 --> 0:52:59.440
<v Speaker 1>percent real rate of interest simply because there's too much leverage.

0:53:00.120 --> 0:53:04.040
<v Speaker 1>But savers have to be careful as as we move

0:53:04.120 --> 0:53:07.560
<v Speaker 1>higher in terms of interest rates. Uh, simply because there's

0:53:07.840 --> 0:53:10.920
<v Speaker 1>a price declines ahead. If they invest in junk bonds

0:53:10.960 --> 0:53:15.560
<v Speaker 1>and even long treasuries. What a savers doing a long term? Uh?

0:53:16.280 --> 0:53:19.440
<v Speaker 1>They save more? What do they do? They work longer? Um?

0:53:19.560 --> 0:53:21.560
<v Speaker 1>What do they do? They lower their standard of living?

0:53:21.600 --> 0:53:25.520
<v Speaker 1>And those are the repercussions basically of a low interest

0:53:25.640 --> 0:53:29.160
<v Speaker 1>rate that is a reflection of central bank policies that

0:53:29.239 --> 0:53:32.040
<v Speaker 1>have kept interest rates down. That rest interest rates like

0:53:32.160 --> 0:53:34.239
<v Speaker 1>you talked about for the last six or seven years,

0:53:34.400 --> 0:53:36.840
<v Speaker 1>is this generational and that we migrate back to what

0:53:37.080 --> 0:53:39.800
<v Speaker 1>you and I saw our grandparents doing in the twenties

0:53:39.840 --> 0:53:41.520
<v Speaker 1>and the thirties. Do we need to get the use

0:53:41.880 --> 0:53:46.799
<v Speaker 1>to a three percent coupon being a big deal? Yeah,

0:53:46.840 --> 0:53:49.319
<v Speaker 1>I think we do for a long time. I think

0:53:49.600 --> 0:53:52.160
<v Speaker 1>tonk to a certain extent. It's a function of demographics,

0:53:52.239 --> 0:53:55.760
<v Speaker 1>and a demographic wave is something that's hard to resist.

0:53:56.200 --> 0:53:58.480
<v Speaker 1>We know about the boomers and the retirement of the boomers,

0:53:58.520 --> 0:54:01.680
<v Speaker 1>and the fact that all older people spend less and

0:54:01.800 --> 0:54:07.240
<v Speaker 1>therefore the real interest rate should be uh, you nconcomminally lower.

0:54:07.560 --> 0:54:10.360
<v Speaker 1>We know that globally it's the same situation with Japan.

0:54:10.560 --> 0:54:14.279
<v Speaker 1>Is are Petra edition so uh? With demographics alone and

0:54:14.760 --> 0:54:18.120
<v Speaker 1>the high level of debt relative to GDP in most countries,

0:54:18.400 --> 0:54:20.719
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's a situation where you have to get

0:54:20.840 --> 0:54:24.320
<v Speaker 1>used to lower interest rates, if only because if central

0:54:24.360 --> 0:54:27.680
<v Speaker 1>banks raised them too much like they did in two

0:54:27.760 --> 0:54:30.440
<v Speaker 1>thousand and five and six to five and a quarter percent,

0:54:30.840 --> 0:54:34.400
<v Speaker 1>you can break the bank. Milkings to Global conference just

0:54:34.480 --> 0:54:36.319
<v Speaker 1>wrapped up in the Secretary of the Treasury was there

0:54:36.320 --> 0:54:38.520
<v Speaker 1>in conversation with our editor in chief at John Michel.

0:54:39.280 --> 0:54:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Mr Gross was pool side at the Milk conference of course,

0:54:45.400 --> 0:54:48.600
<v Speaker 1>of course, but one of the things they discussed with

0:54:48.680 --> 0:54:51.840
<v Speaker 1>the prospect of their being long bonds of Secretary monution

0:54:52.320 --> 0:54:55.440
<v Speaker 1>issuing bonds of fifty years or longer in duration. And

0:54:55.760 --> 0:54:57.920
<v Speaker 1>he says, there's a working group at Treasury looking into that.

0:54:58.440 --> 0:55:00.719
<v Speaker 1>Right now, what should they be think about, how should

0:55:00.719 --> 0:55:03.480
<v Speaker 1>they be approaching whether or not the Treasury Department shouldn't

0:55:03.480 --> 0:55:07.960
<v Speaker 1>fact issue bonds of longer duration. Well, simply, I mean,

0:55:08.040 --> 0:55:10.680
<v Speaker 1>Warren Buffett would simply say if he was asked, I

0:55:10.719 --> 0:55:12.680
<v Speaker 1>don't know if he's been asked, but he would simply say,

0:55:12.800 --> 0:55:16.480
<v Speaker 1>you should issue debt when interest rates are exceedingly low.

0:55:16.640 --> 0:55:19.640
<v Speaker 1>And from the Treasury standpoint, and you know, they're not

0:55:19.719 --> 0:55:23.320
<v Speaker 1>a profit making institution, but they certainly look towards, you know,

0:55:23.400 --> 0:55:26.399
<v Speaker 1>the attractiveness of either issuing debt at high interest rates

0:55:26.440 --> 0:55:28.640
<v Speaker 1>or low interustrates. It's better to issue with them when

0:55:28.640 --> 0:55:31.960
<v Speaker 1>they're low. And and and yes, it's being opposed by

0:55:32.040 --> 0:55:35.239
<v Speaker 1>the street, by the investment banking world, and to some

0:55:35.400 --> 0:55:40.160
<v Speaker 1>extent by the uh you know, investment institutions like Janice,

0:55:40.239 --> 0:55:42.840
<v Speaker 1>I Guess and Pimpco. But the fact is that the

0:55:42.920 --> 0:55:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Treasure should be loading up on fifty year dead and

0:55:45.520 --> 0:55:48.520
<v Speaker 1>maybe even a hundred you're dead simply because at three

0:55:48.560 --> 0:55:50.960
<v Speaker 1>and a half percent, it's about as attractive as it's

0:55:51.000 --> 0:55:53.239
<v Speaker 1>ever going. Again, if you if you take out a mortgage,

0:55:53.400 --> 0:55:55.480
<v Speaker 1>you want to take it out at three percent as

0:55:55.520 --> 0:55:58.920
<v Speaker 1>opposed to five percent. And so come on, okay, Bill,

0:55:59.040 --> 0:56:01.600
<v Speaker 1>this is really important. Everything we've talked about before is

0:56:01.680 --> 0:56:06.120
<v Speaker 1>absolutely useless. I want you to explain the geniosity that

0:56:06.239 --> 0:56:10.000
<v Speaker 1>the San Francisco forty Niners gave up Mitchell Trobinsky of

0:56:10.160 --> 0:56:14.759
<v Speaker 1>David Gura's North Carolina to the Chicago Bears and yet

0:56:14.840 --> 0:56:18.640
<v Speaker 1>took a motherload of draft excellence. Are your forty Niners

0:56:18.719 --> 0:56:21.759
<v Speaker 1>super Bowl bound? Because he said no to Trabinsky of

0:56:21.880 --> 0:56:26.880
<v Speaker 1>Chapel Hill, Well, certainly there's one or tim more wins

0:56:26.960 --> 0:56:32.000
<v Speaker 1>ahead because of that. That's up ever heard of. You know,

0:56:32.120 --> 0:56:34.239
<v Speaker 1>if I were a Chicago Bear fan, I'd be hanging

0:56:34.360 --> 0:56:37.920
<v Speaker 1>my head and uh in shame because they moved up

0:56:37.960 --> 0:56:40.160
<v Speaker 1>from three to two. They got the same person that

0:56:40.239 --> 0:56:41.719
<v Speaker 1>they were going to get anyway, and they gave away

0:56:41.800 --> 0:56:46.440
<v Speaker 1>draft choice about there you go. We we thank ESPN

0:56:46.560 --> 0:56:48.640
<v Speaker 1>for their wisdom because I had no idea what I

0:56:48.760 --> 0:56:51.440
<v Speaker 1>was talking about. Their nick wagon or over to ESPN

0:56:51.680 --> 0:56:54.600
<v Speaker 1>helping me out there with Bill Gross on how the

0:56:54.680 --> 0:56:58.080
<v Speaker 1>Bears failed on this mission. Mr Gross, thank you so much.

0:56:58.440 --> 0:57:01.160
<v Speaker 1>With Janice Cappel and of course uh an affection for

0:57:01.360 --> 0:57:03.200
<v Speaker 1>what they do they want if they want one or

0:57:03.239 --> 0:57:06.319
<v Speaker 1>two more games, David, they double right double their own

0:57:07.160 --> 0:57:10.799
<v Speaker 1>this year. David Mitchell Trobinski, He's like the real deal. Yeah, well,

0:57:10.800 --> 0:57:14.840
<v Speaker 1>I mean highly touted. Who do you follow it? I

0:57:15.120 --> 0:57:19.800
<v Speaker 1>follow Manchester United? I can't. I mean there's too much

0:57:20.160 --> 0:57:23.200
<v Speaker 1>is everybody knows listening. There's just too much to watch

0:57:23.440 --> 0:57:25.960
<v Speaker 1>right now. I will say I don't follow the NBA,

0:57:26.120 --> 0:57:29.919
<v Speaker 1>and I love watching the busted Celtics. It's just they're

0:57:29.960 --> 0:57:32.320
<v Speaker 1>just they're just fun. I have no idea what I'm

0:57:32.360 --> 0:57:35.000
<v Speaker 1>looking at, but they're fun. I like it a lot.

0:57:44.240 --> 0:57:48.280
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Subscribe and

0:57:48.440 --> 0:57:53.760
<v Speaker 1>listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast

0:57:53.920 --> 0:57:57.760
<v Speaker 1>platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene David Gura.

0:57:58.320 --> 0:58:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Is that David Gura? Before the podcast? You can always

0:58:02.040 --> 0:58:16.640
<v Speaker 1>catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio, brought you by Bank

0:58:16.720 --> 0:58:20.720
<v Speaker 1>of America Mary Lynch, dedicated to bringing our clients insights

0:58:20.760 --> 0:58:24.360
<v Speaker 1>and solutions to meet the challenges of a transforming world.

0:58:24.880 --> 0:58:28.600
<v Speaker 1>That's the power of global connections. Mary Lynch, Pierce, Fenner

0:58:28.680 --> 0:58:32.160
<v Speaker 1>and Smith Incorporated, Member s i p C