WEBVTT - Bloomberg Surveillance TV: August 26, 2024

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:06.800
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.

0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.440
<v Speaker 2>This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along

0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:18.680
<v Speaker 2>with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day

0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:22.280
<v Speaker 2>for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics

0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:24.920
<v Speaker 2>from our global headquarters in New York City. We are

0:00:24.920 --> 0:00:27.680
<v Speaker 2>live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine

0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.240
<v Speaker 2>am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:33.960
<v Speaker 2>anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg

0:00:34.040 --> 0:00:37.480
<v Speaker 2>Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. The former Fed Governor

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:39.960
<v Speaker 2>Bessie Duke writes in the following it would take something

0:00:40.000 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 2>extraordinary to derail a twenty five basis point cut in September.

0:00:44.440 --> 0:00:46.760
<v Speaker 2>The question we've all got what it would take to

0:00:46.840 --> 0:00:49.879
<v Speaker 2>make if fifty Bessy joins us now for more, Betsy,

0:00:49.960 --> 0:00:52.360
<v Speaker 2>wonderful to see you once again. Let's start with Friday

0:00:52.520 --> 0:00:54.560
<v Speaker 2>and that speech on Friday. Lisa and I've got a

0:00:54.600 --> 0:00:56.720
<v Speaker 2>similar question, and I think you might have the answer.

0:00:57.120 --> 0:00:59.600
<v Speaker 2>Was the chairman speaking for the committee on Friday or

0:00:59.640 --> 0:01:02.680
<v Speaker 2>speaking from South So for the.

0:01:02.680 --> 0:01:05.640
<v Speaker 1>Entire speech he was speaking for the committee except for

0:01:05.680 --> 0:01:08.319
<v Speaker 1>the one line when he said, my confidence has grown

0:01:09.160 --> 0:01:12.240
<v Speaker 1>that inflation is on a sustainable path. And there he said,

0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:15.200
<v Speaker 1>my and that's very unusual for this, for this Cheerman.

0:01:16.480 --> 0:01:18.600
<v Speaker 1>And I think what he was doing there was he

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:22.199
<v Speaker 1>was expressing his own opinion, but giving the committee room,

0:01:22.560 --> 0:01:24.960
<v Speaker 1>not front running the committee, but giving the committee room

0:01:25.200 --> 0:01:28.480
<v Speaker 1>in September through the sep to all put out their

0:01:28.520 --> 0:01:32.040
<v Speaker 1>own estimates of both where the various indicators are going

0:01:32.040 --> 0:01:34.959
<v Speaker 1>to be and their confidence in their forecasts.

0:01:35.120 --> 0:01:36.959
<v Speaker 2>Bessie, how big do you think the range will be

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.640
<v Speaker 2>in the Summary of Economic projections come September eighteenth? How

0:01:40.680 --> 0:01:42.200
<v Speaker 2>wide is that range going to be?

0:01:43.000 --> 0:01:45.920
<v Speaker 1>The range of the projections themselves are the confidence. So

0:01:46.600 --> 0:01:49.160
<v Speaker 1>the projections themselves, I don't think are going to be

0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:51.040
<v Speaker 1>a terribly wide range, or not.

0:01:51.080 --> 0:01:52.800
<v Speaker 3>More than usual wide range.

0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:56.160
<v Speaker 1>But what I'm really watching for is the confidence and

0:01:56.200 --> 0:02:01.520
<v Speaker 1>particularly the confidence in the inflation forecast. In the gym projections,

0:02:01.960 --> 0:02:07.200
<v Speaker 1>there were just one or two participants who had more

0:02:07.240 --> 0:02:10.880
<v Speaker 1>than actually normal confidence in their projections. All the rest

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:15.120
<v Speaker 1>of them said more uncertainty than usual. So that's the

0:02:15.160 --> 0:02:16.639
<v Speaker 1>confidence piece that I'll be looking for.

0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:19.200
<v Speaker 4>Betsy, do you think that it's appropriate for this fedter

0:02:19.280 --> 0:02:22.120
<v Speaker 4>reserve to be so disproportionately weighted to cutting rates at

0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:24.720
<v Speaker 4>a time, or we're not seeing true weakness in a

0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:25.920
<v Speaker 4>labor market.

0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:30.320
<v Speaker 1>Well, cutting rates is right now only reducing the amount

0:02:30.360 --> 0:02:34.640
<v Speaker 1>of tightness. It's not in any way becoming stimulative, and

0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:37.160
<v Speaker 1>so I think it is appropriate to begin that, but

0:02:37.320 --> 0:02:39.960
<v Speaker 1>I think they'll go fairly slowly and feel their way along.

0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:43.720
<v Speaker 1>The one piece that I don't think there's consensus on

0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:44.640
<v Speaker 1>is what.

0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:45.639
<v Speaker 3>Is the level of neutral?

0:02:45.680 --> 0:02:48.000
<v Speaker 1>What is the neutral level of interest rates those that

0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:52.320
<v Speaker 1>are neither stimulative nor restrictive, And I think they'll be

0:02:52.320 --> 0:02:54.200
<v Speaker 1>feeling that went along to that point.

0:02:54.400 --> 0:02:56.640
<v Speaker 4>They also didn't really resolve the other issue, which was

0:02:56.639 --> 0:02:58.639
<v Speaker 4>the theme of the whole conference, which was how much

0:02:58.760 --> 0:03:02.600
<v Speaker 4>was monetary policy reponsible for bringing down inflation and how

0:03:02.680 --> 0:03:06.280
<v Speaker 4>much could it be responsible for preventing some sort of

0:03:06.440 --> 0:03:09.079
<v Speaker 4>downside to the labor market in general. I mean, did

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:11.280
<v Speaker 4>we get any answers to some of the bigger questions

0:03:11.280 --> 0:03:13.400
<v Speaker 4>other than simply a FED show came out and said, yes,

0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:15.280
<v Speaker 4>we're going to cut rates. We're going to start the process,

0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 4>so we could potentially cut a lot.

0:03:17.639 --> 0:03:20.400
<v Speaker 1>So actually I think he did address that question. The

0:03:20.440 --> 0:03:25.640
<v Speaker 1>piece that he talked about is the importance of inflation expectations,

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.520
<v Speaker 1>and what I heard him say was, yes, you know,

0:03:28.680 --> 0:03:31.440
<v Speaker 1>we were wrong on transitory. Once we realized we were wrong,

0:03:31.520 --> 0:03:34.720
<v Speaker 1>we acted. And so what I heard from that is

0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 1>so the Fed might get the individual settings wrong from

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:43.440
<v Speaker 1>time to time, but its commitment to its mandate and

0:03:43.560 --> 0:03:46.640
<v Speaker 1>willingness to act in furtherance of that mandate is most

0:03:46.680 --> 0:03:53.240
<v Speaker 1>important for the confidence and anchoring inflation expectations. And that

0:03:53.360 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 1>piece I think he declared victory on not necessarily inflation,

0:03:57.520 --> 0:04:01.840
<v Speaker 1>but inflation expectations remaining anchored through this cycle of inflation.

0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 2>Can we deal with inflation that contribution to actually bringing

0:04:04.760 --> 0:04:08.440
<v Speaker 2>inflation down from eight down towards three. Let's see what's

0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:11.120
<v Speaker 2>your impression of things, because in that speech on Friday,

0:04:11.400 --> 0:04:13.800
<v Speaker 2>I think we certainly walked away with this idea that

0:04:13.800 --> 0:04:15.840
<v Speaker 2>the Federal Reserve Chair was acknowledging that a lot of

0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:17.479
<v Speaker 2>the work came from elsewhere.

0:04:18.839 --> 0:04:22.360
<v Speaker 1>Well, the problem this was a supply side driven inflation anyway,

0:04:22.560 --> 0:04:25.160
<v Speaker 1>So a lot all of the work was on the

0:04:25.200 --> 0:04:27.840
<v Speaker 1>supply side, which effect can't really effect. All the VET

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:30.919
<v Speaker 1>could do was whole demand in check as best it

0:04:31.000 --> 0:04:34.080
<v Speaker 1>could while supply caught up. And that's true of the

0:04:34.160 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>labor market as well as the goods market, and I

0:04:37.080 --> 0:04:40.719
<v Speaker 1>think they did that. What I heard in this speech

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:45.120
<v Speaker 1>he recognized that the reduction inflation has come entirely from supply,

0:04:45.600 --> 0:04:49.040
<v Speaker 1>including on the labor side. So when you look at labor,

0:04:49.120 --> 0:04:51.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't think we have a week labor market. It's

0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:53.640
<v Speaker 1>coming into balance, but it's coming into balance because of

0:04:53.680 --> 0:04:58.760
<v Speaker 1>improvements and participation and increases in immigration, both of which

0:04:59.120 --> 0:04:59.400
<v Speaker 1>have a.

0:04:59.400 --> 0:05:01.760
<v Speaker 3>Limit to how much they can continue to contribute.

0:05:02.040 --> 0:05:05.280
<v Speaker 2>Bessie Juke, appreciate it. Thank you, Former Fed Governor Bessie Joke.

0:05:05.279 --> 0:05:07.520
<v Speaker 2>Down the latest and the reaction there to that speech

0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:11.320
<v Speaker 2>begs the question further improvements on inflation from here? Does

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:13.400
<v Speaker 2>it require the pain that the Federal Reserve chairman was

0:05:13.440 --> 0:05:25.440
<v Speaker 2>talking about two years ago? And Miss Pierre Fadagho of

0:05:25.440 --> 0:05:28.240
<v Speaker 2>New Street Research recently raising its price target on the

0:05:28.279 --> 0:05:32.440
<v Speaker 2>AI giants to one, expecting reassuring signals in the earnings

0:05:32.600 --> 0:05:34.320
<v Speaker 2>results that stuck us up by about a half or

0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:37.279
<v Speaker 2>one percent this morning after a decent rally on Friday.

0:05:37.279 --> 0:05:39.520
<v Speaker 2>Pierre fredagu of New Street joins us now for more

0:05:39.600 --> 0:05:41.839
<v Speaker 2>pre just go through sort of base case expectations for

0:05:41.880 --> 0:05:43.720
<v Speaker 2>you and a team coming on Wednesday.

0:05:45.240 --> 0:05:48.400
<v Speaker 5>Yes, so on Wednesday, you know, investors got tricked up,

0:05:49.240 --> 0:05:52.839
<v Speaker 5>trioked off a bit by all this noise about a

0:05:52.839 --> 0:05:57.440
<v Speaker 5>black Whale family of chips and next generation chip's being delayed,

0:05:58.120 --> 0:06:02.040
<v Speaker 5>and so that created some kind of like nervousness around

0:06:02.080 --> 0:06:06.360
<v Speaker 5>the stock and to us, the reality is that NVDA

0:06:06.400 --> 0:06:09.200
<v Speaker 5>is still in the same situation. All buyers are increasing

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:15.320
<v Speaker 5>their capex, the supply chain is increasing capacity very very steadily.

0:06:15.800 --> 0:06:18.120
<v Speaker 5>So it's very reasonable to expect Nvidia to do better

0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:20.719
<v Speaker 5>than what the guide did three months ago, and to

0:06:20.800 --> 0:06:23.520
<v Speaker 5>guide for the next three months in the same vein

0:06:23.680 --> 0:06:27.080
<v Speaker 5>like a above current expectations. So we think the numbers

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:29.479
<v Speaker 5>are going to do to do fine. And then the

0:06:29.520 --> 0:06:31.880
<v Speaker 5>second thing is all investors are going to ask on

0:06:31.880 --> 0:06:34.160
<v Speaker 5>the conference call about the black Well delays, what does

0:06:34.160 --> 0:06:34.520
<v Speaker 5>that mean?

0:06:34.680 --> 0:06:36.159
<v Speaker 3>Doesn't mean like gross is going.

0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:39.200
<v Speaker 5>To slow down and now you here is kind of

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:43.479
<v Speaker 5>like counter intuitive. The reality is that when you launch

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 5>a new chip like black Well, it's consuming more of

0:06:46.760 --> 0:06:48.040
<v Speaker 5>your supply capacity.

0:06:48.440 --> 0:06:53.920
<v Speaker 3>You need more HBM chips per GPU, you need more.

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:57.039
<v Speaker 5>Like Cobost packaging capacity per GPU, and so if the

0:06:57.160 --> 0:07:02.280
<v Speaker 5>new chip is ramping slower, it's actually easying up capacity constraints,

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:05.360
<v Speaker 5>and so what we think is that management is going

0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:09.440
<v Speaker 5>to explain on Wednesday that while black Bell might be

0:07:09.480 --> 0:07:13.040
<v Speaker 5>delayed by six to eight or maybe twelve weeks, I

0:07:13.120 --> 0:07:15.840
<v Speaker 5>hope the previous generation of Chips is actually going to

0:07:15.840 --> 0:07:18.200
<v Speaker 5>continue to sell very well because we're sted in a

0:07:18.240 --> 0:07:22.559
<v Speaker 5>world in which many, many, many people, many teams wants

0:07:22.680 --> 0:07:26.640
<v Speaker 5>to have as many GPUs a SAP, and so if

0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:28.720
<v Speaker 5>the next generation is not really yet, they'll keep buying

0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:31.640
<v Speaker 5>a lot as much as they can of the previous generation.

0:07:32.000 --> 0:07:33.640
<v Speaker 2>Piah, I wanted to ask you a few questions that

0:07:33.680 --> 0:07:36.240
<v Speaker 2>I don't think will be answered on the call on Wednesday,

0:07:36.320 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 2>and it's what's happening further downstream. I had this conversation

0:07:39.200 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 2>last week with Bloomberg's man, Deep Sing, and he built

0:07:41.760 --> 0:07:43.280
<v Speaker 2>things out for us a little bit as well. I'd

0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:46.720
<v Speaker 2>love your thoughts too. When you hear from their biggest customers,

0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:49.560
<v Speaker 2>they are still bulled up on investing in this cycle

0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:52.679
<v Speaker 2>big time, without a doubt. It just gets the sense

0:07:52.760 --> 0:07:55.360
<v Speaker 2>though the investors just on around the edges might be

0:07:55.440 --> 0:07:58.440
<v Speaker 2>losing patients with the story that they actually want to

0:07:58.480 --> 0:08:01.120
<v Speaker 2>start to see that investment and it's a real bottom

0:08:01.160 --> 0:08:04.960
<v Speaker 2>line profit growth. PA, do you identify any kinds of

0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:09.320
<v Speaker 2>investor restlessness further downstream with the end use case for AI?

0:08:10.600 --> 0:08:13.040
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I think you're spir that's becoming like the key

0:08:13.160 --> 0:08:17.440
<v Speaker 5>questions that he concerned for investors, and that's the right

0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:19.760
<v Speaker 5>way to look at it. So we're doing our best

0:08:19.920 --> 0:08:23.480
<v Speaker 5>tracking down you know who's doing what with AI, and

0:08:23.600 --> 0:08:25.280
<v Speaker 5>so far we think.

0:08:27.880 --> 0:08:29.400
<v Speaker 3>Signals are extremely positive.

0:08:29.680 --> 0:08:32.640
<v Speaker 5>Like you look at what Facebook can produce in terms

0:08:32.679 --> 0:08:38.120
<v Speaker 5>of numbers of efficiency gains driven by the migration migration

0:08:38.160 --> 0:08:42.400
<v Speaker 5>of their recommending recommendation engines on larger systems. When you

0:08:42.480 --> 0:08:45.719
<v Speaker 5>hear like companies like Walmart telling about how much efficiency

0:08:45.760 --> 0:08:49.720
<v Speaker 5>gains again form from AI, I think we're still in

0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:52.520
<v Speaker 5>a phase where people are getting excited about it, and

0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:56.480
<v Speaker 5>we are in that kind of like almost like contradictory

0:08:56.559 --> 0:09:01.240
<v Speaker 5>situation where today if you don't invest in, whether you

0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:04.680
<v Speaker 5>are like a Walmart using it or like an Amazon

0:09:05.120 --> 0:09:08.320
<v Speaker 5>or a Google diploying the infrastructure, you're taking big risks

0:09:08.400 --> 0:09:12.040
<v Speaker 5>because AI is very very powerful and evolving very very fast.

0:09:12.440 --> 0:09:14.240
<v Speaker 5>So I think we're fairly safe in terms of the

0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 5>new flow coming in. But there is another reality, which

0:09:17.400 --> 0:09:20.760
<v Speaker 5>is that we we are getting into twenty twenty five

0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:24.320
<v Speaker 5>into a web that is going to spend like one

0:09:24.400 --> 0:09:27.680
<v Speaker 5>hundred and fifty billion dollars on AI chips, and the

0:09:27.760 --> 0:09:31.079
<v Speaker 5>key question is going to become again, well what's next?

0:09:31.120 --> 0:09:34.800
<v Speaker 5>You know, can Nvida's business grow significantly from there?

0:09:34.840 --> 0:09:36.960
<v Speaker 3>Again? But we're not going to have any.

0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:39.280
<v Speaker 5>Visibility on that for at least, you know, the next

0:09:39.320 --> 0:09:40.319
<v Speaker 5>six to nine months.

0:09:40.480 --> 0:09:43.640
<v Speaker 4>Here do we have any visibility into what the policy

0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:45.680
<v Speaker 4>backdrop is going to be and how that might affect

0:09:45.720 --> 0:09:47.160
<v Speaker 4>in video? And I say this as there's a front

0:09:47.200 --> 0:09:49.800
<v Speaker 4>page story in the Wall Street Journal today talking about

0:09:49.800 --> 0:09:54.280
<v Speaker 4>how Chinese AI developers are basically working with internet brokers

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:57.920
<v Speaker 4>to access in video chips overseas that they can work

0:09:58.000 --> 0:10:01.240
<v Speaker 4>on them without violating some of them bands on important

0:10:01.280 --> 0:10:04.760
<v Speaker 4>CIN video chips into mainland China. And how much do

0:10:04.800 --> 0:10:06.440
<v Speaker 4>you sort of look at this and see this as

0:10:06.480 --> 0:10:09.600
<v Speaker 4>something they could potentially be a liability for the company

0:10:09.640 --> 0:10:10.960
<v Speaker 4>that they talk about going forward.

0:10:12.400 --> 0:10:16.400
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I think it's it's always an overhang. You know,

0:10:16.960 --> 0:10:19.640
<v Speaker 5>the government can do whatever they want. The invisible hand

0:10:19.679 --> 0:10:23.200
<v Speaker 5>is still pushing pushing GPUs to watch China, and Chinese

0:10:23.320 --> 0:10:27.240
<v Speaker 5>user actually still accessing their GPUs.

0:10:27.840 --> 0:10:29.360
<v Speaker 3>The government has to to.

0:10:29.320 --> 0:10:31.880
<v Speaker 5>Work on a on a thin line. You know, it's

0:10:31.920 --> 0:10:34.400
<v Speaker 5>it's very very challenging. They don't want they want to

0:10:34.480 --> 0:10:37.040
<v Speaker 5>keep you know, the leadership in AI in the US

0:10:37.120 --> 0:10:40.319
<v Speaker 5>and for that they don't want to weakend Nvida or

0:10:40.400 --> 0:10:42.559
<v Speaker 5>any any players, and they want to to make sure

0:10:42.600 --> 0:10:46.600
<v Speaker 5>they don't let like I say, they don't let China,

0:10:47.440 --> 0:10:50.320
<v Speaker 5>you know, catch up in terms of a capabilities. I

0:10:50.360 --> 0:10:52.920
<v Speaker 5>think this balancing act is going to continue. We've seen

0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:55.000
<v Speaker 5>it over the last two three years, and you have

0:10:55.160 --> 0:10:57.720
<v Speaker 5>back and forth and you might have like a tightening

0:10:57.760 --> 0:11:00.760
<v Speaker 5>of regulation around Nvidia, but now at the end of

0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:05.320
<v Speaker 5>the day, you know, it's it's a smaller moving part. Remember,

0:11:05.600 --> 0:11:08.920
<v Speaker 5>we are still in a world in which people want

0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:11.840
<v Speaker 5>way more GPUs and way more chips than what is

0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:15.840
<v Speaker 5>being produced. So if you have a ruling, you know,

0:11:15.960 --> 0:11:21.280
<v Speaker 5>limiting again access for China to leading GPUs, China will

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:26.439
<v Speaker 5>instantly buy you know, previous generation GPUs, less powerful GPUs

0:11:26.840 --> 0:11:29.520
<v Speaker 5>and then the more powerful GPUs. And maybe we had

0:11:29.559 --> 0:11:31.520
<v Speaker 5>in our models that we're going to China next year,

0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:36.480
<v Speaker 5>we're going to go to Western clients, and you know,

0:11:37.240 --> 0:11:39.760
<v Speaker 5>I would call that a second order moving part. It

0:11:39.840 --> 0:11:42.079
<v Speaker 5>might create a lot of headlines, but I don't think

0:11:42.120 --> 0:11:44.600
<v Speaker 5>it's like enough to disrupt the trajectory as long as

0:11:44.640 --> 0:11:47.000
<v Speaker 5>we are supply constraints nobly.

0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:49.400
<v Speaker 2>Pierre, thank you for your clarity. As always, Pierre found

0:11:49.400 --> 0:11:52.520
<v Speaker 2>a good New Street Research looking ahead to numbers from

0:11:52.520 --> 0:11:54.160
<v Speaker 2>a video Wednesday afternoon.

0:11:54.200 --> 0:12:06.199
<v Speaker 6>This morning, three ninety one, So.

0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:08.559
<v Speaker 2>Here's the lacest. Vice President Kamala Harris back on the

0:12:08.600 --> 0:12:11.680
<v Speaker 2>campaign travel this week as her campaign rags in over

0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:15.560
<v Speaker 2>half a billion dollars post DNC and Donald Trump is

0:12:15.600 --> 0:12:18.360
<v Speaker 2>maintaining a heavy presence in swing states after a week

0:12:18.400 --> 0:12:22.200
<v Speaker 2>of counterprogramming the convention, Henretta Trees have Vader partners saying

0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:24.560
<v Speaker 2>the following post Labor Day, she she could be in

0:12:24.600 --> 0:12:28.160
<v Speaker 2>the lead nationally and in critical swing states by enough

0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:30.160
<v Speaker 2>of a margin to emerge as the favorite to win

0:12:30.200 --> 0:12:32.959
<v Speaker 2>the election. Harris has ushered in dramatic shifts in the

0:12:33.000 --> 0:12:35.400
<v Speaker 2>electoral landscape, but is not yet favored to win the

0:12:35.440 --> 0:12:38.960
<v Speaker 2>election in our opinion. Henrietta joins us now for more, Henretta,

0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:40.360
<v Speaker 2>thanks for being with us. So I want to start

0:12:40.360 --> 0:12:43.400
<v Speaker 2>with those numbers. Harris campaign and affiliates have raised five

0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:47.400
<v Speaker 2>hundred and forty billion US dollars since Biden quit. How

0:12:47.440 --> 0:12:50.760
<v Speaker 2>does that stack up against Campaign Trump and how are

0:12:50.800 --> 0:12:51.520
<v Speaker 2>they spending it?

0:12:53.320 --> 0:12:56.319
<v Speaker 7>Well, it doesn't compare to the Trump campaign at all.

0:12:56.360 --> 0:12:59.080
<v Speaker 7>The Trump campaign is down into something in the ranger

0:12:59.120 --> 0:13:01.960
<v Speaker 7>about sixty three million dollars for the entire month of

0:13:02.040 --> 0:13:05.280
<v Speaker 7>July versus over two hundred and forty million dollars for

0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:08.199
<v Speaker 7>the Harris campaign. The two are not equal. If you're

0:13:08.200 --> 0:13:12.120
<v Speaker 7>looking at the fundraising numbers the DNC versus the RNC

0:13:13.280 --> 0:13:18.360
<v Speaker 7>voter galvanization, the number of volunteers they've gotten in swing states,

0:13:18.480 --> 0:13:21.440
<v Speaker 7>it's it's it's almost double the size, if not more,

0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:23.679
<v Speaker 7>in the Harris camp. And I think that's something that

0:13:23.679 --> 0:13:26.320
<v Speaker 7>the Trump campaign is actively worried about right now. You

0:13:26.400 --> 0:13:29.560
<v Speaker 7>saw it from their internal polling memos this weekend. They're

0:13:29.600 --> 0:13:33.200
<v Speaker 7>anticipating that not just has Commonala risen six points since

0:13:33.200 --> 0:13:35.240
<v Speaker 7>she started the race just a few weeks ago, but

0:13:35.320 --> 0:13:37.400
<v Speaker 7>she's going to increase another two to three points in

0:13:37.440 --> 0:13:39.800
<v Speaker 7>the next couple of weeks, the next couple of days

0:13:39.840 --> 0:13:43.200
<v Speaker 7>after the DNC. That's a natural bounce, but one that

0:13:43.200 --> 0:13:46.720
<v Speaker 7>would supersed Trump and it probably won't fade. When you

0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:48.960
<v Speaker 7>think about what Trump is doing on the trail, He's

0:13:49.000 --> 0:13:51.839
<v Speaker 7>not going to campaign until Thursday and Friday. He'll be

0:13:51.880 --> 0:13:54.400
<v Speaker 7>in Pennsylvania. I mean, every single day is critical here,

0:13:54.400 --> 0:13:56.680
<v Speaker 7>particularly when you're behind, like the Trump campaign is now.

0:13:56.800 --> 0:13:58.440
<v Speaker 2>Just to go a little bit deeper into these numbers,

0:13:58.480 --> 0:14:00.600
<v Speaker 2>the five hundred and forty million, I said, bid an

0:14:00.600 --> 0:14:04.360
<v Speaker 2>excuse me, five hundred and forty million. One third, yes,

0:14:04.400 --> 0:14:06.720
<v Speaker 2>a heck of a lot more money. One third contributed

0:14:06.760 --> 0:14:10.640
<v Speaker 2>in convention first time donors since the convention were first

0:14:10.640 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 2>time donors. Two thirds were women. It's the gender split here,

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:17.120
<v Speaker 2>hendrid Of. It's interesting that gender split. How firmly entrenched

0:14:17.160 --> 0:14:20.000
<v Speaker 2>you think that actually is the split between women and

0:14:20.040 --> 0:14:21.520
<v Speaker 2>men in this country and who they're supporting.

0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:25.120
<v Speaker 7>It is extremely firm. And I don't say that because

0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:27.200
<v Speaker 7>it's just in the national data. It's in every single

0:14:27.240 --> 0:14:30.600
<v Speaker 7>swing state as well, often by ten, eleven, twelve points.

0:14:30.680 --> 0:14:35.080
<v Speaker 7>It's particularly noticeable amongst young male voters and every other

0:14:35.120 --> 0:14:37.840
<v Speaker 7>female demographic, and it's even more pronounced between young male

0:14:37.920 --> 0:14:41.400
<v Speaker 7>voters and every other age demographic of older male voters.

0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:45.000
<v Speaker 7>So there is this extreme gender divide that is expanding

0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:48.200
<v Speaker 7>and becoming more obvious as the race wears on.

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:49.800
<v Speaker 4>What the Harris.

0:14:49.480 --> 0:14:51.440
<v Speaker 7>Campaign is going to do to dig into those numbers

0:14:51.480 --> 0:14:54.440
<v Speaker 7>a little bit further with their super PACs like Future

0:14:54.480 --> 0:14:56.920
<v Speaker 7>Forward is they're going to spend three hundred and seventy

0:14:57.080 --> 0:15:01.360
<v Speaker 7>million dollars on AD campaigns between now and November fifth.

0:15:01.560 --> 0:15:04.400
<v Speaker 7>So get ready to hear a lot about Kamala Harrison

0:15:04.440 --> 0:15:04.960
<v Speaker 7>her campaign.

0:15:05.200 --> 0:15:07.800
<v Speaker 4>How much is this gender divide really hinged to the

0:15:07.840 --> 0:15:11.480
<v Speaker 4>issue of abortion, and how much can can Trump really

0:15:11.560 --> 0:15:14.440
<v Speaker 4>counter that by coming out with things like what he

0:15:14.480 --> 0:15:16.840
<v Speaker 4>did over the weekend talking about how he believes that

0:15:17.280 --> 0:15:20.560
<v Speaker 4>states should decide for themselves, that they shouldn't be a

0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:23.160
<v Speaker 4>federal abortion law, but that each state can make their

0:15:23.200 --> 0:15:23.880
<v Speaker 4>own decisions.

0:15:25.320 --> 0:15:28.160
<v Speaker 7>You know, I think that the state decision piece is

0:15:28.240 --> 0:15:32.160
<v Speaker 7>really problematic because you have these state decisions being.

0:15:31.920 --> 0:15:33.600
<v Speaker 3>Made at the ballot in November.

0:15:33.920 --> 0:15:37.560
<v Speaker 7>In Florida, for example, where I think two thirds of

0:15:37.600 --> 0:15:40.320
<v Speaker 7>abortions in the South are conducted, there is a band

0:15:40.400 --> 0:15:42.160
<v Speaker 7>now at six weeks and they need to vote on

0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:47.400
<v Speaker 7>that to maintain it in November. Whether it's Louisiana, Arizona, Nevada.

0:15:47.440 --> 0:15:50.040
<v Speaker 7>I mean, these issues are on every single ballot. So

0:15:50.080 --> 0:15:52.920
<v Speaker 7>the last thing you want is our repeat of twenty

0:15:53.000 --> 0:15:55.840
<v Speaker 7>twenty two, which was a real problem for the Republican

0:15:55.880 --> 0:15:58.320
<v Speaker 7>Party at the Senate and in the House, and that's

0:15:58.360 --> 0:16:01.200
<v Speaker 7>what they're headed towards in twenty twenty four. And the

0:16:01.320 --> 0:16:04.280
<v Speaker 7>messaging from the Trump campaign with JD. Vans and Donald

0:16:04.280 --> 0:16:06.680
<v Speaker 7>Trump trying to come out as you know, pro IVF,

0:16:06.720 --> 0:16:12.920
<v Speaker 7>but really saying some fundamentally problematic things about family planning,

0:16:13.120 --> 0:16:15.920
<v Speaker 7>to put it nicely, is something that is alienating I

0:16:15.960 --> 0:16:18.920
<v Speaker 7>think a lot of voters, and it's not just women,

0:16:19.120 --> 0:16:24.040
<v Speaker 7>it's voters across the spectrum. Abortion is the number three

0:16:24.080 --> 0:16:27.600
<v Speaker 7>issue that voters care about after inflation and immigration right now,

0:16:27.600 --> 0:16:30.120
<v Speaker 7>and immigration and abortion are pretty neck and.

0:16:30.080 --> 0:16:33.400
<v Speaker 4>Neck in the meantime. Your first point, inflation is something

0:16:33.560 --> 0:16:36.040
<v Speaker 4>that we've not heard that much about. We heard, of course,

0:16:36.080 --> 0:16:39.840
<v Speaker 4>the price gouging type of discussion from Kamala Harris, although

0:16:39.840 --> 0:16:41.920
<v Speaker 4>we've seen some of her people walk it back and

0:16:41.960 --> 0:16:43.560
<v Speaker 4>talk about how she's not actually going to get it

0:16:43.600 --> 0:16:46.680
<v Speaker 4>passed and that it actually isn't, you know, an effort

0:16:46.760 --> 0:16:50.080
<v Speaker 4>to take money away from grocery stores and things of

0:16:50.080 --> 0:16:53.040
<v Speaker 4>that nature. I'm just wondering, how much are you getting

0:16:53.080 --> 0:16:56.120
<v Speaker 4>a sense that the criticism of Kamala Harris that she

0:16:56.280 --> 0:16:59.040
<v Speaker 4>isn't coming out with real policy how much is that landing.

0:17:00.760 --> 0:17:04.120
<v Speaker 7>I think that it's landing amongst sort of the media groups,

0:17:04.160 --> 0:17:06.919
<v Speaker 7>but amongst the general electorate. You don't see any of

0:17:06.920 --> 0:17:09.560
<v Speaker 7>that translating to either her polls or fundraising. I mean,

0:17:09.600 --> 0:17:12.520
<v Speaker 7>they made eighty six million dollars just last week alone.

0:17:13.000 --> 0:17:16.280
<v Speaker 7>So the issue is not that she is not getting

0:17:16.280 --> 0:17:18.199
<v Speaker 7>out in front of journalists and the press. That's an

0:17:18.200 --> 0:17:20.920
<v Speaker 7>issue for the Trump campaign, but the American voter that's

0:17:20.960 --> 0:17:24.280
<v Speaker 7>now newly galvanized. You know, Democrats are eighty three percent

0:17:24.720 --> 0:17:28.600
<v Speaker 7>enthusiastic about this election versus seventy one percent of Republicans.

0:17:28.800 --> 0:17:31.440
<v Speaker 7>It's not resonating with the average voter. And I think

0:17:31.440 --> 0:17:33.239
<v Speaker 7>the real problem for Trump is that she doesn't need

0:17:33.280 --> 0:17:35.720
<v Speaker 7>to get specific on policy. You know, we don't really

0:17:35.760 --> 0:17:38.240
<v Speaker 7>need to have a robust discussion about where do you

0:17:38.240 --> 0:17:40.600
<v Speaker 7>think carried interest tax rates should be, or capital gains

0:17:40.600 --> 0:17:42.280
<v Speaker 7>tax rates, what kind of revenue are you trying to

0:17:42.280 --> 0:17:44.440
<v Speaker 7>bring in to offset the cost of the child tax credit.

0:17:44.480 --> 0:17:45.239
<v Speaker 4>We don't need any of that.

0:17:45.840 --> 0:17:49.879
<v Speaker 7>We just need this sort of forward campaign versus do

0:17:49.920 --> 0:17:52.800
<v Speaker 7>you want to go back to the Trump administration of

0:17:52.840 --> 0:17:54.800
<v Speaker 7>the four years that he was in office? And that's

0:17:54.840 --> 0:17:56.919
<v Speaker 7>really what the campaign is about and don't see that

0:17:57.080 --> 0:17:58.720
<v Speaker 7>changing of the next seventy one days.

0:17:58.840 --> 0:18:01.280
<v Speaker 2>Can we talk about policy, forgive me, but we want

0:18:01.320 --> 0:18:03.280
<v Speaker 2>to talk about policies, so hopefully we can do that.

0:18:03.480 --> 0:18:05.600
<v Speaker 2>This news came out from Canada from our team just

0:18:05.640 --> 0:18:08.359
<v Speaker 2>moments ago. According to people familiar with the matter, Canada

0:18:08.359 --> 0:18:11.480
<v Speaker 2>would impose new tariffs on Chinese made electric vehicles, aluminum

0:18:11.520 --> 0:18:13.920
<v Speaker 2>and steel, lining up behind what we've heard from the

0:18:14.040 --> 0:18:16.359
<v Speaker 2>United States already previously, the government plans to announce a

0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:19.719
<v Speaker 2>one hundred percent levy on electric vehicles twenty five percent

0:18:19.760 --> 0:18:22.720
<v Speaker 2>on steel and aluminum. Canada agrees with the United States.

0:18:22.760 --> 0:18:24.359
<v Speaker 2>It seems to be by the world is when it

0:18:24.359 --> 0:18:27.280
<v Speaker 2>comes to tariffs and China. How much daylight is there

0:18:27.320 --> 0:18:30.040
<v Speaker 2>between Trump and Harris on this very key issue for

0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:31.120
<v Speaker 2>a lot of voters.

0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:34.880
<v Speaker 7>Well, I mean, let's be mindful that the Biden administration

0:18:35.119 --> 0:18:37.080
<v Speaker 7>just a couple of weeks ago, months ago, put in

0:18:37.119 --> 0:18:40.200
<v Speaker 7>the one hundred percent electric vehicles tiff, the three times

0:18:40.280 --> 0:18:44.800
<v Speaker 7>higher steel on aluminum tariffs or steel tariffs. There is

0:18:44.960 --> 0:18:49.800
<v Speaker 7>no question that the Trump administration started with tariffs, and

0:18:49.880 --> 0:18:53.840
<v Speaker 7>the tariffs under Biden are higher and more exhaustive now

0:18:53.880 --> 0:18:57.879
<v Speaker 7>than they were under Donald Trump, the USTR, the Department

0:18:57.920 --> 0:19:03.720
<v Speaker 7>of Commerce, all the investment restrictions, export control restrictions.

0:19:03.119 --> 0:19:04.120
<v Speaker 6>Are only growing.

0:19:04.440 --> 0:19:06.399
<v Speaker 7>I don't see any scenario where any of these tariffs

0:19:06.440 --> 0:19:08.840
<v Speaker 7>come off once they get put on. Think about what

0:19:08.880 --> 0:19:11.639
<v Speaker 7>you'd have to see in order to take the tariffs up.

0:19:11.680 --> 0:19:15.080
<v Speaker 7>You'd have to see China capitulate, China prove and then

0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:18.240
<v Speaker 7>sustain that they had made changes on force, tech transfer,

0:19:18.320 --> 0:19:22.439
<v Speaker 7>climate change, human rights, state subsidization. None of that has occurring.

0:19:22.760 --> 0:19:25.760
<v Speaker 2>Henretta, thank you, Henritta Trace their Vada partner squeezed in

0:19:25.880 --> 0:19:30.520
<v Speaker 2>some policy. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you

0:19:30.800 --> 0:19:34.280
<v Speaker 2>the best in markets, economics, angiopolitics. You can watch the

0:19:34.280 --> 0:19:37.280
<v Speaker 2>show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am

0:19:37.440 --> 0:19:40.600
<v Speaker 2>to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple,

0:19:40.880 --> 0:19:43.720
<v Speaker 2>Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on

0:19:43.720 --> 0:19:46.200
<v Speaker 2>the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app