Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl Podcast. I'm Paul swing you
Speaker 1: along with my co host Lisa Brahma Waits. Each day
Speaker 1: we bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money. Whether at the grocery store or
Speaker 1: the trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple
Speaker 1: podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as
Speaker 1: that Bloomberg dot com. Do you feel good about yourself
Speaker 1: because you're drinking water instead of soda? Be wary of
Speaker 1: that water? Are joining us now? Is that? Seek all?
Speaker 1: He is author and active as member of the Council
Speaker 1: of Foreign Relations. Do what I guess here at our
Speaker 1: interactive broker studio is he is the author of a
Speaker 1: new book, Troubled Water, What's Wrong with What We Drink?
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about the book and
Speaker 1: about the sort of larger concept here. And you said
Speaker 1: right before we went on air, I'm not here to
Speaker 1: scare anybody. And yet when I was reading through your materials, Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a little bit unnerving to think that a lot
Speaker 1: of the water that people drink, it's not just flint Michigan,
Speaker 1: is contaminated. It's correct almost everywhere in America, there are
Speaker 1: contaminants in our drinking water, and this is probably the
Speaker 1: largest unspoken of public health threat or menace in the
Speaker 1: United States. There's a large number of different chemicals that
Speaker 1: get into our systems through our drinking water that are
Speaker 1: having unknown effects on our bodies, on our endocrin systems,
Speaker 1: as the technical phrase that affects growth, attention, spans, sexual interest, fertility,
Speaker 1: as well as the possibility of cancer. Some of those
Speaker 1: things are already proven scientifically and some are now in
Speaker 1: the process of being investigated. But I would argue that
Speaker 1: not being investigated aggressively enough by the e p A
Speaker 1: an organization that whether it's a Democratic or Republican president
Speaker 1: or Congress, is unfortunately inactive. We're not active enough in
Speaker 1: pursuing what we need to have pursued to get the
Speaker 1: best health profile for all Americans. All Right, So if
Speaker 1: you don't have the best water, what needs to change
Speaker 1: within the US to improve the quality of our water. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, there aren't nearly There are about a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand chemicals that are in commerce in the United States,
Speaker 1: maybe even more, and you would think that the would
Speaker 1: be under some type of investigation or regulation by the
Speaker 1: PA because some significant percentage of them get into our
Speaker 1: drinking water and some percentage of those have effect on
Speaker 1: our health. But of that hundred thousand chemicals that are
Speaker 1: in commerce the United States, sounds hard to believe this,
Speaker 1: but it's true, only seventy seven zero are being regulated
Speaker 1: by the e p A for drinking water purposes. And
Speaker 1: as shocking as that low number is, even more shocking
Speaker 1: given how much chemicals is used in daily life in America.
Speaker 1: Even more shocking is the fact that the last time
Speaker 1: the e p A regulated any chemical whatsoever or any
Speaker 1: contaminant whatsoever, was twenty three years ago. They have been
Speaker 1: inactive for generation and longer, and that is putting our
Speaker 1: health at risk. Is there any map of where we
Speaker 1: can and can drink water? Well, tell me who you
Speaker 1: live and I'll let you know. Okay, I'll give you
Speaker 1: my address after this. Seriously, it's anyone tracking or sort
Speaker 1: of trying to do this scientifically. Well. Actually, there's an
Speaker 1: organization called the Environmental Working Group where on their website
Speaker 1: you can punch in your zip code and they can
Speaker 1: tell you, under the federally filed documents by each hility,
Speaker 1: what contaminants have been found in that ZIP codes water.
Speaker 1: Whether or not that's particularly to your particular tap, Lisa,
Speaker 1: I can't say for sure, but invite me over for
Speaker 1: lunch and I'll bring my testing you. All right, So,
Speaker 1: water filtration plans, I thought that was the answer. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you would think so. The problem the problem POLL is
Speaker 1: that both on the wastewater side and on the water filtration,
Speaker 1: which is the where they distribute the water to our
Speaker 1: homes from, on both sides, we're using technologies that are
Speaker 1: about a hundred or more years old. And although in
Speaker 1: the interim places have been rebuilt and they're pretty and
Speaker 1: they're nice parking lots and beautiful reception areas, the truth
Speaker 1: is that the technology is being used never grew up
Speaker 1: along with the time that America became what will call
Speaker 1: highly medicalized society, where now one of where seventy of
Speaker 1: all Americans twelve and overtake at least one pharmaceutical product
Speaker 1: to day. Um people people about Americans twelve and overtake
Speaker 1: five or more prescription pills a day, and that all
Speaker 1: gets into our water a stream. On the inbound side,
Speaker 1: we still do we did a hundred plus years ago
Speaker 1: to get rid of cholera and dysentery and typhoid fever.
Speaker 1: We put a dot of chlorine or chlorine like product
Speaker 1: in it to to cleanse the water, but we don't
Speaker 1: do anything to remove from that water these pharmaceutical residues
Speaker 1: and other chemicals that have found their way into our
Speaker 1: water stream, such that I'll give one example of many
Speaker 1: that are in my book Troubled Water, of just one.
Speaker 1: A scientist, independent scientists, with no act to grind, went
Speaker 1: ahead in the Great Lakes vast amount of water so
Speaker 1: be diluted like crazy would think. She tested fish and
Speaker 1: all five of the Great Lakes, and in all five
Speaker 1: of the Great Lakes she found in their brains and
Speaker 1: in their organs and their muscle, she found residues of
Speaker 1: of all kinds of psychiatric medicines like solof and Selexa
Speaker 1: and fourteen other medications. Now, if that's going there, that
Speaker 1: water is then being sent back to our homes for
Speaker 1: us to drink, and we are getting that dosage is
Speaker 1: back in micro quantities, and we're getting that in magnified amounts.
Speaker 1: Also for eating the fish. I'm just trying. I'm going
Speaker 1: through the sub extrapolation getting increasingly concerned. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: you know, how normal is this with other countries as well?
Speaker 1: I mean, is there just sort of this problem globally
Speaker 1: or is the US particularly bad. The more the more industrialized,
Speaker 1: the more industrialized society is, the more likely you are
Speaker 1: to have these problems. Now, there are some countries, UH,
Speaker 1: particularly Israel and Singapore that have very aggressive systems for
Speaker 1: purifying their water for reasons unrelated to UH necessarily health reasons,
Speaker 1: but really for water scarcity reasons. They have a reason
Speaker 1: to do this. And there are some parts of the
Speaker 1: United States, and I talked about in a chapter Orange County, California,
Speaker 1: which has made a decision to basically ignore the e
Speaker 1: p A guidelines, go way above it, and they demonstrate
Speaker 1: the fact that using known technologies at very reasonable prices,
Speaker 1: you can have the safest drinking water possible you can
Speaker 1: of pure water. All you would think that if they
Speaker 1: had Zoloft in the water, Prozac or something, everybody'd be
Speaker 1: a little b happier a little bit exactly. So it's
Speaker 1: seth So private versus public water utilities tell us the
Speaker 1: compare and contrast there. Okay, So, so this was a
Speaker 1: piece that I wrote the other day for The Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal, and I wanna I wanna highlight something that
Speaker 1: is a completely unknown fact in American life. Even when
Speaker 1: I talk to members of Congress and senators, they have
Speaker 1: no idea. This is the case. You would think, rationally speaking,
Speaker 1: fifty states, maybe every state should have at least one
Speaker 1: water utility, maybe two, maybe three. So maybe there should
Speaker 1: be three hundred, four hundred, maybe five. What are utilities?
Speaker 1: United States? Tops? Even though you could say that one
Speaker 1: utility could cover several states, we have in the United
Speaker 1: States over fifty thousand what are utilities? One county, Los
Speaker 1: Angeles County has two hundred separate water utilities. These are
Speaker 1: very tiny. They have no ability to have the financial
Speaker 1: well wherewithal in order to get the financing that they
Speaker 1: need to make sure that they can hire up to
Speaker 1: date up that they can buy up to date technologies,
Speaker 1: hire the most advanced scientists and engineers, and also fix
Speaker 1: their broken infrastructure. Because this is crazy, just real quick, here,
Speaker 1: who has the interest of keeping all of these smaller
Speaker 1: util it is open the utilities, okay, so, but no
Speaker 1: one in the public, Lisa, nobody in the public should
Speaker 1: for a second think that this is a good idea,
Speaker 1: and it isn't a good idea. That's why one of
Speaker 1: the main thrust of my book talking about public health
Speaker 1: and water is to say that four big takeaways from
Speaker 1: my book, one of which is we must consolidate our
Speaker 1: drinking water utilities. And by the way, a second point
Speaker 1: that I made in the Journal article is that it
Speaker 1: turns out that about fift of American utilities are in
Speaker 1: private hands, which is invest your own hands, whether they're
Speaker 1: public companies or private companies. Remarkably, digging deep into e
Speaker 1: p A health data, which a couple of professors have done,
Speaker 1: you you learned something remarkable, which is that although you
Speaker 1: would think that public utilities have the public's interests in mind,
Speaker 1: actually there's a much higher incidence of contaminated water in
Speaker 1: public utilities. And the reason for that is because mayors
Speaker 1: want to keep the price of water low and therefore
Speaker 1: they don't get the outcomes you want. Set Segal, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining fascinating thing discussion. Set single activist, author,
Speaker 1: member of the Council Foreign Relations, author of Troubled Water,
Speaker 1: What's Wrong with What We Drink? That's coming October one,
Speaker 1: and also author of Let there Be Water Israel Solution
Speaker 1: for water star starved world. I am very interested in that.
Speaker 1: Tom Freedom of New York Times op ed today on
Speaker 1: that topic, using the work of Seth. Very interesting. Time
Speaker 1: to check in with Bloomberg Opinion. We're joined by Pining
Speaker 1: columnist Eric Outunus. He's a senior et F analysts for
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence and Eric, when you come in here, typically
Speaker 1: we talk about what new cool et F. Vanguard is
Speaker 1: launching a little bit different twists. Today Now they're talking
Speaker 1: about getting into the private equity business. What's going on
Speaker 1: one of our favorite ETF issuer. Yeah. I mean, anytime
Speaker 1: you hear Vanguard getting into something, most people shutter, especially
Speaker 1: if you're in that business. But I would say, if
Speaker 1: you're in private equity, don't worry so much. This is
Speaker 1: really aimed at the advisory business, wealth management. This is Vanguard.
Speaker 1: That's what they want to disrupt here. So if you
Speaker 1: are an advisor and you want to get bigger clients,
Speaker 1: institutional clients, you need private equity. So this is just
Speaker 1: to sort of round out their other offerings. It's right
Speaker 1: in the press release. It says here part of an
Speaker 1: ongoing effort to further expand the suite of products to
Speaker 1: our advisory clients, and Tim Buckley said back in March
Speaker 1: of last year, we have been really he's the CEO,
Speaker 1: He's the CEO of Vanguard. To me, this quote is
Speaker 1: really who should be on alert here. We have been
Speaker 1: really pleased with the price competition we have introduced in
Speaker 1: the mutual fund sphere. We liked that we have had
Speaker 1: that much of an impact that the area that really
Speaker 1: needs to come down in price is advice. Okay, this
Speaker 1: is this is really a compelling point because my first
Speaker 1: initial uh take on this was this is where the
Speaker 1: fees are private equity, and so of course Vanguard's gonna
Speaker 1: want to get into private equity, but it's being submanaged
Speaker 1: by somebody else. This isn't necessarily them building out their
Speaker 1: own private equity capacity within the house. This is more
Speaker 1: about what are saying, which is to have a bigger
Speaker 1: suite of offerings to institutions. Is that is that the
Speaker 1: right read of this? Yeah, I'm gonna bet there's no
Speaker 1: uh that. There was nothing in the press release about
Speaker 1: the what the cost would be, But I'm gonna bet
Speaker 1: it's going to be on the cheaper side for a
Speaker 1: private equity fund, probably on the expensive side. If you're
Speaker 1: talking et F prices, but Vanguard is not going to
Speaker 1: do anything that's like, you know, too controlled price wise.
Speaker 1: So then granted, the big loser here is the advisory business.
Speaker 1: But does this also start to put pressure on private
Speaker 1: equity fees in a way that we really haven't seen
Speaker 1: until now. It can, and you know, you cannot underestimate Vanguard.
Speaker 1: I was looking at the flows this year. Vanguard takes
Speaker 1: in more than everybody every year, but this year what's
Speaker 1: interesting is Fidelity, black Rock, Schwab, they're all starting to
Speaker 1: catch up to Vanguard. But the reason they're catching up
Speaker 1: is because they've all just copied Vanguard and they offer
Speaker 1: dirt cheap beta. So in a way, Vanguard is responsible
Speaker 1: for the whole enchilada. Now, if they get into private
Speaker 1: equity and they see clients, maybe come over and work
Speaker 1: with them, possible, But I see the price pressure in
Speaker 1: private equity and it talked to Paul Goldberg RP Analysts
Speaker 1: and he's very adamant about this as well. That's not
Speaker 1: gonna come for a while. We think medium long term
Speaker 1: at best. But right now their advisory business is up
Speaker 1: to a hundred and sixty one billion, and it basically
Speaker 1: is only a couple of years old, so that's a
Speaker 1: fast growth for that business. And remember they have all
Speaker 1: these fund investors who grew up with them and now
Speaker 1: have more complicated life matters. So they've got this natural
Speaker 1: pool of money coming in that they're gonna offer advice on.
Speaker 1: And their fees are low. The highest fee you can
Speaker 1: pay is thirty basis points, but if you have over
Speaker 1: twenty five million, they charge you five. Wow, it's just extraordinary.
Speaker 1: So who are going to be initially kind of the
Speaker 1: customers for this private equities I wouldn't think it would
Speaker 1: be appropriate for every you know, individual investor for example, Uh, institutions, right,
Speaker 1: so you're gonna have to be qualified. So here, I mean,
Speaker 1: here's the quote from the Pressure least many institutional clients
Speaker 1: seek alpha sources not readily available in the public markets.
Speaker 1: This also speaks to a bigger issue, which is, Uh,
Speaker 1: the private equity markets are growing, public equity markets not
Speaker 1: growing as much, and some people estimating that regular fund
Speaker 1: companies are going to have to get into private equity
Speaker 1: to keep up at the times. So who are the
Speaker 1: big advisory firms that should be onnotice? I'd say, well,
Speaker 1: all the big ones Meryl ubs uh. And then also
Speaker 1: I think r A is to a degree. I think
Speaker 1: the r A business. If you are a specialist and
Speaker 1: your local probably fine. But anyone in the middle middle level,
Speaker 1: we're bigger. I think that's who Vanguard typically takes out
Speaker 1: the big guys. How does Vanguard lower the advisory fees here?
Speaker 1: What's their secret sauce? Well, the secret sauce is the
Speaker 1: mutual ownership structure. They're basically designed like a co op,
Speaker 1: so their investors are vanguards, not a public company. That's
Speaker 1: why not much is known about it. But it's rest
Speaker 1: as Mounvern Pennsylvania private company there. They keep such a
Speaker 1: low profile and yet six point two trillion assets under management. Yeah,
Speaker 1: every time they get new profit in they instead of
Speaker 1: you know, doing things with that money, they typically vote
Speaker 1: because the fund investors are the shareholders, so of course
Speaker 1: they're going to vote to lower the fees. So for
Speaker 1: fifties some years they've been lowering the fees on funds,
Speaker 1: and I'd like to say they they were lowering fees
Speaker 1: before it was cool. Now everybody wants to do it.
Speaker 1: They're already at ten bibs everywhere, so in their mind,
Speaker 1: I think they are much more playing a different game.
Speaker 1: They're not looking for profits, They're looking to just lower
Speaker 1: costs for investors everywhere. So if Fidelity gets UH flows
Speaker 1: offering index mutual funds for two basis points, I think
Speaker 1: Vanguard takes that as a win for them, And I
Speaker 1: think if they can maybe have an effect on private equity,
Speaker 1: they'll probably take that as a win as well. But
Speaker 1: I think ultimately, right now their purpose is to build
Speaker 1: out this advisory business called the Personal Advisory Service p
Speaker 1: AS probably the three scariest letters if you're an advisor
Speaker 1: right now. Yeah, p AS, Eric Valcinez, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being with us of Bloomberg Intelligence r et
Speaker 1: F grew here. It is a busy time down in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. What with the State of the Union address
Speaker 1: last night by the president, impeachment wrapping up today in
Speaker 1: the Senate UH, and then the Democratic presidential race well underway.
Speaker 1: Let's get the latest returned to Lonnie Chen. Lonnie is
Speaker 1: a David and Diane Stephie research Fellow WHOEVER Institution, also
Speaker 1: a director of Domestic Public Studies and a lecture in
Speaker 1: the Public Policy program at Stanford University. Based in Stanford,
Speaker 1: Lonnie Thanks so much for joining us. Let's start with
Speaker 1: the State of the Union address last night. What are
Speaker 1: your key takeaways? Well, you know, I thought that the
Speaker 1: speech was effective, as you know, the president's sort of
Speaker 1: campaign kickoff in earnest. You know, obviously the President has
Speaker 1: been running for re election, but the speech last night
Speaker 1: was an opportunity for him to articulate what he believes
Speaker 1: the accomplishments of his administration has been. And if you
Speaker 1: look at the policy he discussed, a lot of it
Speaker 1: was aims squarely at the base of the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: really trying to animate and turn out those voters, which
Speaker 1: is going to be key to the success of his
Speaker 1: reelection campaign. So you saw themes like immigration, cultural issues
Speaker 1: like abortion. These are issues obviously that aren't necessarily aimed
Speaker 1: at swing voters or independent voters, are aimed at Republicans
Speaker 1: and getting that vote out is going to be critical.
Speaker 1: So I thought as a re election campaign speech, the
Speaker 1: President did what he needed to do. Uh And and
Speaker 1: now I think it's up to Democrats to define their
Speaker 1: race and pick a nominee. Lonny, You're an incredible guest
Speaker 1: for us to have today. I'm very glad you're here.
Speaker 1: Given the fact that you've advised the Romney and Rubio
Speaker 1: Republican presidential campaigns, and you've seen the way that the
Speaker 1: sausage is made in a lot of ways. I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: especially as some of the polls come out, the Gallop
Speaker 1: one in particular, showing President Trump with a record high
Speaker 1: approval rating, the bifurcation right now, the sort of dispersion
Speaker 1: between the Republicans and the Democrats becoming increasingly sort of
Speaker 1: excuse me, a hard line in their approaches. And I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: from your perspective, do we have a sense of whether
Speaker 1: the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is getting bigger
Speaker 1: in terms of representing overall population in the country. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a really good question. I think the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: by and large, the base has consolidated in the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: And what I don't think you're seeing necessarily a whole
Speaker 1: lot of people affiliating with the Republican Party now. I
Speaker 1: think what you are seeing is a lot of people
Speaker 1: who have decided that they'll support President Trump regardless of
Speaker 1: the partisan label. Uh. You know, we oftentimes talk about,
Speaker 1: for example, Midwestern voters in states like Iowa and Michigan
Speaker 1: that voted for President Obama twice, but in voted for
Speaker 1: President Trump. I don't know they would consider themselves Republicans
Speaker 1: or Democrats. I think they might consider themselves Trump voters
Speaker 1: first and foremost on the Democratic party side. I don't
Speaker 1: see their share of the electorate growing, unless you're talking
Speaker 1: about again, because solidating their support in coastal and urban areas.
Speaker 1: So I think what's happening is increasingly a phenomenon where
Speaker 1: voters are are trying to say that they're independent, and
Speaker 1: we have to really dissect what independent means. That mean
Speaker 1: that they're truly independent in the sense that they could
Speaker 1: vote for a Republican or a Democrat, or does it
Speaker 1: mean that they're independent in a more traditional sense, which
Speaker 1: is that they lean one way or the other and
Speaker 1: are inclined to vote for a Democratic Republican. I tend
Speaker 1: to think we're in an era where people are are
Speaker 1: dealigning themselves from political parties, and what that means is
Speaker 1: opportunity for politicians like Trump who are a little bit
Speaker 1: out of the box, a little bit Lonnie. So the
Speaker 1: impeachment process wrapping up today, officially at least within the Senate,
Speaker 1: what do you think, if anything, the lasting impact will
Speaker 1: be on President Trump, particularly as he heads into reelection mode. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've been saying for a while, I think that this
Speaker 1: impeachment saga is going to be a distant memory by
Speaker 1: the time we get to October and the fall campaign
Speaker 1: leading into the November elections. I really think that, you know,
Speaker 1: while it's dominating the news now, I think by and large,
Speaker 1: voters are going to be concerned about a whole different
Speaker 1: set of other issues, not not impeachment, by the time
Speaker 1: they go to cast their votes. I think the pocketbook issues,
Speaker 1: jobs in the economy, healthcare, those are going to be
Speaker 1: the important ones that voters are going to turn to.
Speaker 1: So I know the the impeachment saga is difficult to
Speaker 1: to not cover, but the reality is that for most
Speaker 1: voters this is not going to be an issue that
Speaker 1: they particularly care about. Lonnie, Since you've advised both the
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio and Romney campaigns, both of those individuals have
Speaker 1: come out against President Trump throughout his presidency, certainly early
Speaker 1: on and before he became presidents have their views changed?
Speaker 1: I mean sort of among moderate Republicans, are they are
Speaker 1: they more supportive of President Trump now? Well, I think
Speaker 1: Senator Rubio has has been, you know, pretty supportive, particularly
Speaker 1: over the last couple of months or so. I think
Speaker 1: he's been supportive on policy. I think with respect of
Speaker 1: this impeachment debate, it's been pretty clear. He's been pretty forceful,
Speaker 1: I think, in arguing that he doesn't believe this is
Speaker 1: a removable offense. And he also, you may recall, voted
Speaker 1: against trying to hear from additional witnesses. So I think
Speaker 1: he's been fairly conventional. He has spoken out against the
Speaker 1: president a few times on on some foreign policy issues,
Speaker 1: but by and large, I think he's been he's been
Speaker 1: pretty consistent in supporting the president. Senator Romney, I think,
Speaker 1: has been in a slightly different position, and he's obviously
Speaker 1: been seen as more of a maverick. I think that
Speaker 1: reflects the fact, first of all, that, um, you know,
Speaker 1: Senator Romney has been somebody who comes politically from a
Speaker 1: different kind of constituency. He's got got some more political safety,
Speaker 1: one would argue, than Senator Rubio does in Florida, which
Speaker 1: is a swing in your state. And I do think
Speaker 1: that Senator Romney is a different phase of his career.
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, Um, you know, he's been the nominee the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, he's been somebody who's been an elder statesman
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party for a while. Um, I think
Speaker 1: he's had the latitude in the freedom to frankly speak
Speaker 1: his mind or but this is this is a this
Speaker 1: is a compelling point. He's more in a position to
Speaker 1: speak his mind. Do other Republicans feel similarly to him
Speaker 1: when they're not speaking in public? Yeah, Well that's the
Speaker 1: that's the key, uh modifier there, lisays when they're not
Speaker 1: in public. I think a lot of Republicans privately, are
Speaker 1: are you not happy with the president's behavior on the
Speaker 1: Ukraine situation? They would say that privately, but publicly they haven't.
Speaker 1: They haven't stood out and said that because they fear
Speaker 1: the repercussions and or they believe that the way the
Speaker 1: Republican Party is now, there would be electoral consequences to
Speaker 1: speaking out against presidents. So yeah, there definitely is this
Speaker 1: dichotomy between private and public. Lonnie, just real quickly thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: How do you handicap the democratic field? We had that
Speaker 1: Debacco in the Iowa caucus is just right now? How
Speaker 1: do you handicap that field? I think it's going to
Speaker 1: consolidate to you know, one progressive and one moderate. I
Speaker 1: see probably Bernie standards as the inside track on the
Speaker 1: progressive side. On the moderate side, it's tough to tell.
Speaker 1: Pete Bota did well in Iowa, but it remains to
Speaker 1: be seen if he can win in diverse states. And
Speaker 1: I think the biggest beneficiary from last night might actually
Speaker 1: be Mike Bloomberg because of the opportunity he has going
Speaker 1: forward to compete and really the only person with the
Speaker 1: resources to compete once we get the Super Tuesday, which
Speaker 1: is a big hall of delegates, which is at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, what matters. Lonnie Chen, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being with us. Lonnie Chen is the
Speaker 1: David and Diane Stephy Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution,
Speaker 1: also Director of Domestic Policy Studies and lecturer in the
Speaker 1: Public Policy Program at Stanford University. We should say Mike
Speaker 1: Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP,
Speaker 1: which owns this radio station. Just as a disclaimer, and
Speaker 1: we will continue to follow what happens with respect to
Speaker 1: the ongoing elections. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg pen
Speaker 1: L podcast. You can subscribe and listen to interviews at
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform you prefer. Paul Sweeney
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney and Lisa Brahm Woyd's
Speaker 1: I'm a Twitter at Lisa Abramo. It's one before the podcast.
Speaker 1: You can always catch us worldwide on Bloomberg Radio h