1
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:07,200
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

2
00:00:08,119 --> 00:00:10,360
Speaker 2: He wants to abolish the penny. He doesn't want to

3
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:12,000
Speaker 2: abolish it as much as he wants to give his

4
00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:13,319
Speaker 2: boss a reason why we can't.

5
00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 1: Well it's stupid.

6
00:00:15,920 --> 00:00:16,600
Speaker 3: Yeah, The thing is.

7
00:00:16,520 --> 00:00:17,439
Speaker 2: It isn't really really.

8
00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:20,680
Speaker 1: Turns out, the majority of pennies not circulating, thin going jars,

9
00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:23,000
Speaker 1: sock drawers. Two thirds of the pennies produced in the

10
00:00:23,040 --> 00:00:24,720
Speaker 1: last thirty years have dropped out of circulation.

11
00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:36,320
Speaker 3: Well, it's taken more than twenty years. But in his

12
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:40,559
Speaker 3: efforts to save federal dollars, President Donald Trump has boldly

13
00:00:40,640 --> 00:00:44,800
Speaker 3: gone where no other president, fictional or otherwise you just

14
00:00:44,840 --> 00:00:48,160
Speaker 3: heard from a West Wing clip, has ever dared to go.

15
00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:52,800
Speaker 3: He's told the Treasury to stop printing pennies. Now, that

16
00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:56,120
Speaker 3: will definitely save money, maybe as much as one hundred

17
00:00:56,120 --> 00:00:59,360
Speaker 3: and seventy nine million dollars. After all, it each penny

18
00:00:59,360 --> 00:01:02,760
Speaker 3: costs more than three cents to make, apparently, but pennies

19
00:01:02,760 --> 00:01:04,600
Speaker 3: aren't going to fill the hole in the federal budget

20
00:01:04,800 --> 00:01:09,039
Speaker 3: for that. According to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, you need

21
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:13,720
Speaker 3: the Department of Government Efficiency DOGE to cut spending radically,

22
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:21,560
Speaker 3: and you need deregulation to raise US growth. I'm Stephanie Flanders,

23
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:24,399
Speaker 3: head of Government and Economics at Bloomberg, and welcome to

24
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:28,200
Speaker 3: trump Anomics, the Bloomberg podcast that looks at the economic

25
00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:31,520
Speaker 3: world of Donald Trump, how he's already shaped the global economy,

26
00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:36,920
Speaker 3: and what on earth is going to happen next. Our

27
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:41,639
Speaker 3: question this week is could the besant Trump musk plan

28
00:01:42,200 --> 00:01:46,280
Speaker 3: for keeping control of America's debt possibly work? We have

29
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:49,240
Speaker 3: the perfect Trump economists to help me do it. Bloomberg

30
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:52,400
Speaker 3: columnist and senior advisor to Bloomberg Economics, Bill Dudley, who

31
00:01:52,400 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 3: spent quite a large part of his career thinking about

32
00:01:54,800 --> 00:01:57,960
Speaker 3: the US treasury market as chief economist to Goldman Sachs

33
00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:00,960
Speaker 3: and then president of the New York Federal Reserve. Bill,

34
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:02,200
Speaker 3: welcome and thank you.

35
00:02:02,640 --> 00:02:03,520
Speaker 1: Great to be here.

36
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:07,440
Speaker 3: And back again. Anna Wong, chief US economist here at

37
00:02:07,480 --> 00:02:10,720
Speaker 3: Bloomberg and formerly also an economist at the Federal Reserve

38
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:15,480
Speaker 3: and Donald Trump's Council of Economic Advisors in his first term.

39
00:02:15,480 --> 00:02:23,600
Speaker 2: Thanks Stephanie, good to be here.

40
00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:25,320
Speaker 3: Now. People listening are probably fed up with people saying

41
00:02:25,520 --> 00:02:28,720
Speaker 3: Donald Trump as president is acting like the real estate

42
00:02:28,760 --> 00:02:31,480
Speaker 3: developer he used to be. Well for one thing, it's

43
00:02:31,560 --> 00:02:33,760
Speaker 3: just too easy to say, especially when he starts talking

44
00:02:33,800 --> 00:02:37,200
Speaker 3: about all that beachfront property he's going to build in Gaza.

45
00:02:37,800 --> 00:02:40,400
Speaker 3: But there is another way that President Trump has been

46
00:02:40,440 --> 00:02:43,480
Speaker 3: reminding me more and more of his former self. He

47
00:02:43,560 --> 00:02:45,799
Speaker 3: keeps talking as if the US government has a lot

48
00:02:45,840 --> 00:02:49,160
Speaker 3: more money than it really does. We're going to buy greenland,

49
00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:53,600
Speaker 3: invest hundreds of billions in Ai, do what oil rich

50
00:02:53,760 --> 00:02:56,800
Speaker 3: nations like Katara and Norway do, and set up a

51
00:02:56,800 --> 00:02:59,600
Speaker 3: sovereign wealth fund. Now, these are all things that require

52
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:03,520
Speaker 3: big bucks, and well, the US doesn't have a lot

53
00:03:03,520 --> 00:03:05,679
Speaker 3: of free money to spend. What it has, in fact,

54
00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:08,360
Speaker 3: is a whole lot of debt. Bill let me start

55
00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:12,320
Speaker 3: with you. You wrote a column in November after Scott

56
00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:15,840
Speaker 3: Bessont was nominated, saying he would face two big challenges

57
00:03:15,960 --> 00:03:19,400
Speaker 3: if confirmed by the Senate. Ensuring that the world's largest

58
00:03:19,440 --> 00:03:23,440
Speaker 3: government debt market functions properly was the first, and pursuing

59
00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:26,600
Speaker 3: a fiscal policy that doesn't send the country's debt service

60
00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:30,000
Speaker 3: costs soaring was the second. Now, we are obviously going

61
00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:32,600
Speaker 3: to focus on that one, the fiscal challenge in a

62
00:03:32,600 --> 00:03:35,560
Speaker 3: little bit, But given all the developments recently at the

63
00:03:35,560 --> 00:03:37,520
Speaker 3: Department of Treasury. I guess I have to ask you,

64
00:03:38,840 --> 00:03:42,880
Speaker 3: are you more or less confident today of this administration's

65
00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:46,760
Speaker 3: handle on the treasury market and its ability to make

66
00:03:46,800 --> 00:03:49,800
Speaker 3: sure it's functions smoothly than you were when you wrote

67
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:51,160
Speaker 3: that column in November.

68
00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:54,680
Speaker 1: I actually am, Because Scott Besset is a market guy.

69
00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:58,760
Speaker 1: He understands markets, He understands the importance of good communication

70
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:02,440
Speaker 1: from the Treasury to markets about what the Treasury is

71
00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:05,040
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish in terms of debt issuance. And I

72
00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: think he's very sensitive to the level of long term meals.

73
00:04:08,960 --> 00:04:12,040
Speaker 1: One of his desires is to get long term meals down,

74
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:14,080
Speaker 1: and so that's also going to make him very careful

75
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:16,960
Speaker 1: about doing anything you know, radical in terms of changing

76
00:04:17,200 --> 00:04:20,720
Speaker 1: treasury debt management practices, are changing the schedule of issues.

77
00:04:20,800 --> 00:04:23,000
Speaker 1: So I think the big issue on you know, the

78
00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: treasury market function is really about fiscal policy. Sustainable physical policy,

79
00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:32,400
Speaker 1: probably pretty manageable treasury debt market. Non sustainable physical policy,

80
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:34,120
Speaker 1: then the treasure market.

81
00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:36,800
Speaker 3: Is going to bark with the doge guys or the

82
00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:38,919
Speaker 3: doge bags as some of them have been called. But

83
00:04:39,000 --> 00:04:42,240
Speaker 3: these sort of young coders getting access to the treasuries,

84
00:04:42,360 --> 00:04:45,520
Speaker 3: various systems which have had a lot more attention than

85
00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:47,559
Speaker 3: they've probably ever had in their lives, or the various

86
00:04:47,600 --> 00:04:50,240
Speaker 3: systems sitting in the Treasury. I've heard even from some

87
00:04:50,360 --> 00:04:54,440
Speaker 3: on Wall Street, some concern about accidentally, you know, a

88
00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:59,680
Speaker 3: bit of code going awry somehow, that damaging payment's going

89
00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:03,880
Speaker 3: out to the global market on treasury bills or other things.

90
00:05:03,920 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 3: We've had President Trump say they found irregularities in the

91
00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:10,680
Speaker 3: some of the debt. When you were sitting in the

92
00:05:10,680 --> 00:05:13,240
Speaker 3: New York Fed you were very closely involved, but certainly

93
00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:15,880
Speaker 3: very close to the day to day functioning of that market.

94
00:05:16,080 --> 00:05:21,000
Speaker 3: Should we take any of those sort of technical worries seriously, Well.

95
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:23,600
Speaker 1: It's hard to know exactly what's transpiring, so it's hard

96
00:05:23,640 --> 00:05:27,320
Speaker 1: to evaluate how big a concern you must you might have.

97
00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:29,480
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I can focus more on sort

98
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:32,680
Speaker 1: of the treasury issuance, and I'm not very worried about

99
00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:36,320
Speaker 1: that because the Federal Reserve handles the auctions of the

100
00:05:36,560 --> 00:05:39,720
Speaker 1: new TI Treasury debt on behalf of the Treasury, So

101
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:42,320
Speaker 1: I don't worry that that's going to be upset to

102
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:45,640
Speaker 1: any significant degree. But obviously, you know, if the payments

103
00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:49,400
Speaker 1: are you interfered with? And that reduces the confidence and

104
00:05:49,480 --> 00:05:53,680
Speaker 1: the timeliness of the US government making good on its obligations.

105
00:05:53,480 --> 00:05:57,200
Speaker 1: That could be obviously, you know, disturbing, But I just

106
00:05:57,240 --> 00:05:59,240
Speaker 1: think it's hard for us, you know, sitting where we

107
00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:01,520
Speaker 1: sit to value. Wait, I know how big of riskless is?

108
00:06:01,800 --> 00:06:01,880
Speaker 2: No?

109
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:04,080
Speaker 3: I think that's right. Well, I think we can evaluate

110
00:06:04,120 --> 00:06:08,440
Speaker 3: at least the plausibility of the bigger fiscal challenge that

111
00:06:08,520 --> 00:06:11,159
Speaker 3: Scott Besson is facing has set himself but is also

112
00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:14,440
Speaker 3: just facing in his current job. He's talked about three

113
00:06:14,600 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 3: three three as his goal. Three percent economic growth a

114
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:22,880
Speaker 3: year for the US, a three percent budget deficit, federal borrowing,

115
00:06:23,600 --> 00:06:28,080
Speaker 3: and an additional three million more barrels of oil produced today.

116
00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:31,400
Speaker 3: That sounds like it would all be quite good for

117
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,120
Speaker 3: keeping a handle on debt service costs. But I guess

118
00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:37,320
Speaker 3: the real question is can he get there? And I

119
00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 3: asked you that sort of in a very flippant version

120
00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:43,240
Speaker 3: of that question on Monday night in an email, and

121
00:06:43,279 --> 00:06:45,800
Speaker 3: then you, being you, spent a long time that night

122
00:06:45,880 --> 00:06:48,600
Speaker 3: calculating a very non flippant response, and I felt rather

123
00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:50,640
Speaker 3: guilty in the morning for having kept you up. But

124
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:54,119
Speaker 3: you did work out a way that the bestent plan

125
00:06:54,560 --> 00:06:57,640
Speaker 3: could be achieved. So just tell me what needs to

126
00:06:57,680 --> 00:06:59,320
Speaker 3: go right for that to happen.

127
00:06:59,680 --> 00:07:03,440
Speaker 2: Okay, So to evaluate whether the mass works out, we

128
00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:09,000
Speaker 2: utilize the Bloomberg Economics fiscal sustainability model, where I could

129
00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:14,600
Speaker 2: input paths of nominal GDP growth and primary balances, assumptions

130
00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:18,320
Speaker 2: and primary balances, and also assumptions of interest rate, the

131
00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 2: term structure.

132
00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:21,240
Speaker 3: So just to go back, just to give people a sense,

133
00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:23,160
Speaker 3: it's sort of a tool that we have for playing

134
00:07:23,240 --> 00:07:28,240
Speaker 3: around with different scenarios for US fiscal policy. And the

135
00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 3: things that you're changing, among other things, is the cost

136
00:07:32,440 --> 00:07:37,800
Speaker 3: of borrowing, the bond yield, but also the primary budget balance,

137
00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:41,120
Speaker 3: which is kind of how much you're borrowing before you

138
00:07:41,160 --> 00:07:43,040
Speaker 3: get to the money you need to pay off your

139
00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 3: debt to be doing servicing the debt.

140
00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 2: Correct and also GDP growth. The three pillars of besons

141
00:07:51,240 --> 00:07:54,960
Speaker 2: ideal scenario or his goals in the next few years

142
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:59,160
Speaker 2: is this three three three right. The first three refers

143
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:04,200
Speaker 2: to three percent fiscal deficit currently Untracked hit about six

144
00:08:04,320 --> 00:08:09,320
Speaker 2: percent this year of GDP, and our baseline forecast has

145
00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:12,880
Speaker 2: it going out to nine percent of GDP in ten years. Time,

146
00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:15,840
Speaker 2: and Scott Besson's goal is to reduce it to three

147
00:08:15,880 --> 00:08:20,040
Speaker 2: percent of GDP. The second pillar of his three refers

148
00:08:20,160 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 2: to three million additional barrels per day of oil production.

149
00:08:25,800 --> 00:08:29,280
Speaker 2: He thinks that by doing so it will generate non

150
00:08:29,320 --> 00:08:35,040
Speaker 2: inflationary growth. And the third final pillar is three percent

151
00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:39,040
Speaker 2: real GDP growth. So real GDP growth in the past

152
00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:43,240
Speaker 2: year was two point three percent, and it was already

153
00:08:43,360 --> 00:08:47,640
Speaker 2: quite a phenomenal year. The long term potential GDP growth

154
00:08:47,720 --> 00:08:51,800
Speaker 2: rate for US economy is about one point seven percent.

155
00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:56,760
Speaker 2: So basically, in Besson's ideal scenario, every year we're seeing

156
00:08:57,040 --> 00:09:01,520
Speaker 2: one point three percent additional percentage of growth. So I

157
00:09:01,559 --> 00:09:04,520
Speaker 2: know Bill is going to talk about the plausibility of

158
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:07,960
Speaker 2: these assumptions, but you know what, I was just going

159
00:09:08,040 --> 00:09:12,040
Speaker 2: to put all these three assumptions into the model and

160
00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:14,360
Speaker 2: see what it spits out. So what it did spit

161
00:09:14,440 --> 00:09:17,920
Speaker 2: out is that, Oh, by the way, another additional assumption

162
00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 2: I put in is DOGE. So I am assuming that

163
00:09:21,840 --> 00:09:26,480
Speaker 2: DOGE is able to successfully reduce spending by four hundred

164
00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:30,920
Speaker 2: billion per year. And just to give some context of

165
00:09:31,160 --> 00:09:35,640
Speaker 2: what that means, So in the current fiscal year, about

166
00:09:35,800 --> 00:09:41,400
Speaker 2: twenty five percent of US government spending is indiscretionary purchases

167
00:09:41,520 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 2: versus seventy five percent in mandatory for as things such

168
00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:49,880
Speaker 2: as medicare, social Security, and also paying off the interest

169
00:09:50,400 --> 00:09:51,640
Speaker 2: on your fiscal debt.

170
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:54,240
Speaker 3: So what DOESE is working with is only twenty five

171
00:09:54,280 --> 00:09:56,240
Speaker 3: percent of the overall spending.

172
00:09:56,360 --> 00:09:59,679
Speaker 2: Correct if they want to keep Trump's promise, which is

173
00:09:59,840 --> 00:10:05,760
Speaker 2: not to touch anything related to the mandatory social security payments.

174
00:10:06,040 --> 00:10:09,960
Speaker 2: So even within the discretionary that twenty five percent discretionary,

175
00:10:10,679 --> 00:10:16,200
Speaker 2: twelve percent is defense. And surely we cannot really reduce

176
00:10:16,559 --> 00:10:20,240
Speaker 2: defense spending in the midst of elevated geopolitical tensions.

177
00:10:20,320 --> 00:10:22,359
Speaker 3: What he wants to increase it in fact.

178
00:10:22,440 --> 00:10:26,760
Speaker 2: Right, So really we are talking about about one trillion

179
00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:33,040
Speaker 2: non defense discretionary spending. So in fact Elon Musk's original

180
00:10:33,080 --> 00:10:38,920
Speaker 2: pledge of cutting by one trillion is unattainable by this,

181
00:10:39,320 --> 00:10:44,000
Speaker 2: you know, if he they are really touch the right

182
00:10:45,240 --> 00:10:48,400
Speaker 2: change right, right, right, But anyway, I digress. So the

183
00:10:48,440 --> 00:10:51,680
Speaker 2: point is, let's assume that DOGE is able to cut

184
00:10:51,720 --> 00:10:54,000
Speaker 2: spending by four hundred billion for a year, which is

185
00:10:54,080 --> 00:10:58,480
Speaker 2: half of the almost half of the non defense discretionary spending.

186
00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:02,120
Speaker 2: How do I come up with four hundred billion per year.

187
00:11:02,679 --> 00:11:06,760
Speaker 2: Scott Besson mentioned the Grace Commission Report, which is a

188
00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:10,240
Speaker 2: report commissioned by Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty two to

189
00:11:10,360 --> 00:11:15,040
Speaker 2: come up with recommendations on how to increase government efficiency

190
00:11:15,080 --> 00:11:20,360
Speaker 2: and reduce fiscal spending. And that Grace Report basically came

191
00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:25,840
Speaker 2: up with in today's dollar, one point three trillion dollar

192
00:11:26,000 --> 00:11:30,600
Speaker 2: of cost saving across three years, which average to be

193
00:11:30,640 --> 00:11:32,280
Speaker 2: about four hundred billion per year.

194
00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:34,400
Speaker 3: And I think if he managed that, he would declare

195
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:36,280
Speaker 3: a great success because he said a trillion. He never

196
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:38,959
Speaker 3: said a trillion a year, I guess, so yeah, he

197
00:11:39,000 --> 00:11:41,880
Speaker 3: would count four hundred billion as a massive win.

198
00:11:42,200 --> 00:11:45,600
Speaker 2: Yes, four hundred billion would be a massive, massive win

199
00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:49,600
Speaker 2: because that is forty percent of non defense discretionary spending.

200
00:11:49,920 --> 00:11:53,160
Speaker 2: So in putting all of that into our model, what

201
00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:56,040
Speaker 2: we were able to find is that whoe that indeed

202
00:11:56,160 --> 00:12:00,559
Speaker 2: could lower the federal debt to GDP ratio from our

203
00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:05,080
Speaker 2: current baseline of one point thirty do about one hundred

204
00:12:05,120 --> 00:12:10,120
Speaker 2: percent of GDP growth, So thirty percentage point decline in

205
00:12:10,440 --> 00:12:11,840
Speaker 2: debt to GDP ratio.

206
00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:14,320
Speaker 3: So just to be clear, it's we're nearly at one

207
00:12:14,360 --> 00:12:18,280
Speaker 3: hundred now, So the stock of debt is almost the

208
00:12:18,320 --> 00:12:22,160
Speaker 3: whole value of our annual output. In our sort of

209
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:25,800
Speaker 3: what we would consider to be more plausible scenario without

210
00:12:25,800 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 3: all of this happening, groat's not picking up massively, without

211
00:12:30,320 --> 00:12:34,240
Speaker 3: having an enormous reduction in non discretionary spending. We thought

212
00:12:34,440 --> 00:12:36,560
Speaker 3: that debt was going to go to about one hundred

213
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:41,000
Speaker 3: and third thirty. Yes, and you could basically stop all

214
00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:44,479
Speaker 3: of that by doing by following this scenario.

215
00:12:45,200 --> 00:12:50,760
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly, it's not going to go down. No, it's no, No,

216
00:12:50,880 --> 00:12:53,840
Speaker 2: it's unfortunately it's not going to go down. But when

217
00:12:53,880 --> 00:13:00,199
Speaker 2: you further look into what component of these I deal

218
00:13:00,280 --> 00:13:04,640
Speaker 2: scenariow generate this thirty percentage point decline in debt to

219
00:13:04,679 --> 00:13:09,680
Speaker 2: GDP ratio rather relative to baseline, the most important part

220
00:13:09,840 --> 00:13:13,840
Speaker 2: really is the nominal GDP growth part, the growth pillar

221
00:13:14,040 --> 00:13:18,800
Speaker 2: of Scott Besson's three three three. Because without the growth pillars,

222
00:13:19,280 --> 00:13:24,240
Speaker 2: just DOSH alone, which possibly four hundred billion per year

223
00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:29,560
Speaker 2: in savings, would reduce primary balance by about point nine

224
00:13:29,600 --> 00:13:33,320
Speaker 2: percent of GDP per year. That will get you their

225
00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:37,280
Speaker 2: debt to GDP racial down by ten percentage point over

226
00:13:37,320 --> 00:13:40,840
Speaker 2: ten years. But to get the other twenty percentage point,

227
00:13:40,960 --> 00:13:45,920
Speaker 2: it's really interest payments getting the interest long term interest

228
00:13:46,040 --> 00:13:50,320
Speaker 2: rightdown and GDP growth up. And one of the most

229
00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:55,839
Speaker 2: challenging part of this debt dynamics. It is indeed the

230
00:13:55,880 --> 00:13:59,080
Speaker 2: interest payment, the debt servicing part of US debt because

231
00:13:59,120 --> 00:14:03,280
Speaker 2: of the stock of debt and the increasing flow of that.

232
00:14:03,440 --> 00:14:08,440
Speaker 2: Even with doche assuming four hundred billion reduction and fiscal spending,

233
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:13,800
Speaker 2: and in fact, by twenty seven, our net interest payment

234
00:14:14,320 --> 00:14:19,760
Speaker 2: will exceed how much we're spending in non defense discretionary payments.

235
00:14:19,840 --> 00:14:22,400
Speaker 2: So our net interest payments on our debt would be

236
00:14:22,520 --> 00:14:26,560
Speaker 2: one point one trillion as of twenty twenty eight.

237
00:14:26,800 --> 00:14:29,360
Speaker 3: That's if they didn't go up significantly. I mean that's

238
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:32,760
Speaker 3: of interest rates stay broadly on the path we're expecting.

239
00:14:33,120 --> 00:14:37,120
Speaker 2: Correct, Okay, I think Bill might get into this why

240
00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:40,040
Speaker 2: it is that the debt service payment is blowing up.

241
00:14:40,320 --> 00:14:43,800
Speaker 2: So I think that the bottom line of this exercise

242
00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:48,040
Speaker 2: that I did is that it reveals what an uphill

243
00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:54,040
Speaker 2: battle the new administration has to contain the fiscal situation.

244
00:14:54,920 --> 00:14:58,000
Speaker 2: Just because even if they do everything right they are,

245
00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:03,000
Speaker 2: interest costs paid is set to rise and will become

246
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:09,120
Speaker 2: about a fifth of US GDP every year. US would

247
00:15:09,120 --> 00:15:13,960
Speaker 2: be spending about twenty percent of the GDP in paying interest.

248
00:15:14,400 --> 00:15:18,240
Speaker 2: And on top of that, even in Scott Besson's ideal scenario,

249
00:15:18,840 --> 00:15:22,520
Speaker 2: the fiscal deficit would still be at six percent by

250
00:15:22,840 --> 00:15:27,280
Speaker 2: twenty thirty five, where four percent of those six percent

251
00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:29,160
Speaker 2: of the deficit would be interest payments.

252
00:15:29,960 --> 00:15:33,800
Speaker 3: Okay, so this is pretty salutary for those who think

253
00:15:33,880 --> 00:15:36,800
Speaker 3: that even the slash and burn will at least have

254
00:15:36,880 --> 00:15:39,520
Speaker 3: this sort of positive side that you'll get control of

255
00:15:39,760 --> 00:15:45,000
Speaker 3: America's debt bill. You've been around the block a few

256
00:15:45,000 --> 00:15:48,080
Speaker 3: times when you hear that kind of arithmetic, and we

257
00:15:48,120 --> 00:15:51,400
Speaker 3: still end up with a pretty large debt service cost.

258
00:15:51,760 --> 00:15:54,920
Speaker 3: How plausible do you think any of this conversation is not.

259
00:15:55,040 --> 00:15:58,360
Speaker 1: Very plausible, probably for the numbers that to an outline,

260
00:15:58,360 --> 00:16:01,160
Speaker 1: But it's also not plausible because think about the three

261
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:04,880
Speaker 1: percent GDP growth target. We're starting to deport workers from

262
00:16:04,920 --> 00:16:08,000
Speaker 1: the United States, so we're actually lowering the growth rate

263
00:16:08,040 --> 00:16:09,560
Speaker 1: of the labor force. The layor force isn't going to

264
00:16:09,560 --> 00:16:11,520
Speaker 1: grow at all, probably over the next couple of years,

265
00:16:11,640 --> 00:16:14,400
Speaker 1: both because of deportations and because of the retirement of

266
00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:17,960
Speaker 1: the Baby Boom generation. So to get to three percent

267
00:16:18,040 --> 00:16:20,600
Speaker 1: GDP growth, it's got to all be come through productivity.

268
00:16:20,640 --> 00:16:22,960
Speaker 1: You need enormous productivity games to get to three percent

269
00:16:23,280 --> 00:16:26,400
Speaker 1: GDP growth. I don't see how that happens, especially when

270
00:16:26,400 --> 00:16:29,640
Speaker 1: you're disrupting the global trading system by putting teris on

271
00:16:30,720 --> 00:16:33,120
Speaker 1: across a lot of different products and it against a

272
00:16:33,120 --> 00:16:35,840
Speaker 1: lot of different countries. So you're introducing a lot of

273
00:16:35,880 --> 00:16:39,560
Speaker 1: friction into the global economy, into the US economy. So

274
00:16:39,920 --> 00:16:43,600
Speaker 1: I think the three percent GDP goal is not feasible.

275
00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:46,920
Speaker 1: We're at full employment today, so GDP growth is going

276
00:16:47,000 --> 00:16:50,480
Speaker 1: to be basically labor force growth and productivity. No labor

277
00:16:50,520 --> 00:16:53,840
Speaker 1: force growth, so you're talking about productivity growth. Productivity growth

278
00:16:53,880 --> 00:16:55,480
Speaker 1: is good, maybe you can get one and a half

279
00:16:55,520 --> 00:16:58,520
Speaker 1: two percent. So I think three percent GDP growth is

280
00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:01,960
Speaker 1: not doable under the current regime. So the deficit, you're

281
00:17:01,960 --> 00:17:04,040
Speaker 1: going to have slower GDP growth, you can have less

282
00:17:04,080 --> 00:17:07,080
Speaker 1: tax revenue from a faster GDP. You can have the

283
00:17:07,119 --> 00:17:10,000
Speaker 1: retirement of the baby boom generations that drives up entitlement

284
00:17:10,040 --> 00:17:13,800
Speaker 1: spending sor automatically on Medicare and Social Security, which the

285
00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:17,359
Speaker 1: Trump administration has ruled is off off out of bounds.

286
00:17:17,400 --> 00:17:19,920
Speaker 1: They can't they're not going to touch that. And then

287
00:17:19,920 --> 00:17:21,919
Speaker 1: we have the repricing of all the debt that was

288
00:17:22,200 --> 00:17:25,119
Speaker 1: issued over the last few years at much lower interest rates.

289
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:28,440
Speaker 1: Death service costs are going to go significantly. So it's

290
00:17:28,480 --> 00:17:31,480
Speaker 1: a cleverest slogan, the three three three, But I think

291
00:17:31,520 --> 00:17:34,640
Speaker 1: the chances of it actually being accomplished is very remote.

292
00:17:34,960 --> 00:17:39,040
Speaker 3: If this was an emerging market economy, you might say, well,

293
00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:41,560
Speaker 3: hang on a minute, with numbers like this, surely they're

294
00:17:41,560 --> 00:17:44,240
Speaker 3: just going to inflate away the debt. What would a

295
00:17:44,240 --> 00:17:46,760
Speaker 3: bit of higher inflation. I mean, it certainly helps with that.

296
00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:49,600
Speaker 3: That Anna was talking through the arithmetic of the nominal GDP,

297
00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:53,359
Speaker 3: the cash GDP that gets bigger relative to the debt

298
00:17:53,440 --> 00:17:54,640
Speaker 3: if you have inflation.

299
00:17:55,280 --> 00:17:58,960
Speaker 1: Bill Well, absolutely, we saw the debt to GDP ratio

300
00:17:59,000 --> 00:18:01,879
Speaker 1: go down during the pandemic, not because the counting was

301
00:18:01,880 --> 00:18:04,920
Speaker 1: doing well, but because nonmal GDP was growing very quickly

302
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:08,520
Speaker 1: because of very high inflation. So yeah, higher inflation, faster

303
00:18:08,600 --> 00:18:11,480
Speaker 1: nomal GDP growth, that you can actually reduce debt. But

304
00:18:11,880 --> 00:18:14,800
Speaker 1: as we've seen, that's not really a politically feasible solution

305
00:18:14,960 --> 00:18:19,440
Speaker 1: because we've seen that people hate inflation. So if the

306
00:18:20,440 --> 00:18:23,000
Speaker 1: Trump administration goes down the path of sort of saying

307
00:18:23,040 --> 00:18:26,359
Speaker 1: let's have more inflation, and that will inflate away the

308
00:18:26,400 --> 00:18:29,280
Speaker 1: debt that's not going to be politically feasible. Also, you know,

309
00:18:29,280 --> 00:18:31,080
Speaker 1: the Fed Reserve is going to continue to do their job.

310
00:18:31,119 --> 00:18:33,240
Speaker 1: I mean, there is a lot of questions about, you know,

311
00:18:33,400 --> 00:18:36,520
Speaker 1: the Trump administration raining in the independence of the FED,

312
00:18:37,160 --> 00:18:40,280
Speaker 1: But first of all, I don't think that's easily easy

313
00:18:40,320 --> 00:18:43,600
Speaker 1: to accomplish, and before it's accomplished, the FED is going

314
00:18:43,640 --> 00:18:46,199
Speaker 1: to continue to be on the case of trying to

315
00:18:46,200 --> 00:18:50,160
Speaker 1: push inflation back sustainably down to two percent. I think

316
00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:53,000
Speaker 1: the Fed's credibility is still quite high, and you can

317
00:18:53,040 --> 00:18:56,280
Speaker 1: see that by the fact that despite inflation running above

318
00:18:56,320 --> 00:18:59,560
Speaker 1: the FED subjective for four years now, long term inflation

319
00:18:59,680 --> 00:19:02,359
Speaker 1: expert dictations are still pretty well anchored around two percent.

320
00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:04,840
Speaker 1: So markets believe that the Federal Reserve is going to

321
00:19:04,840 --> 00:19:07,040
Speaker 1: do their job. I believe that the Federal Reserve is

322
00:19:07,040 --> 00:19:09,160
Speaker 1: going to do their job. Doing their job, though will

323
00:19:09,200 --> 00:19:12,520
Speaker 1: probably make the Trump administration unhappy with the FED.

324
00:19:12,800 --> 00:19:14,920
Speaker 3: I suspect if I was Elon Musk, I would think

325
00:19:14,960 --> 00:19:19,000
Speaker 3: that all of us, and certainly you and Anna were

326
00:19:19,000 --> 00:19:22,560
Speaker 3: sort of trapped in a very kind of narrow mindset

327
00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:26,080
Speaker 3: that you weren't realizing the potential of this exciting world,

328
00:19:26,160 --> 00:19:30,840
Speaker 3: you know, deregulation, AI, all of those things could transform

329
00:19:30,880 --> 00:19:32,000
Speaker 3: productivity in growth.

330
00:19:32,040 --> 00:19:34,679
Speaker 1: Now they could, but it takes these things take a

331
00:19:34,680 --> 00:19:37,119
Speaker 1: long time to sort of play out. I mean, you

332
00:19:37,200 --> 00:19:40,200
Speaker 1: look at you know, the in the development of electricity

333
00:19:40,280 --> 00:19:43,480
Speaker 1: generation in the US in the late nineteenth century. It

334
00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:45,920
Speaker 1: took about twenty years for that actually to change how

335
00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:47,840
Speaker 1: we actually did man in factoring. So you have the

336
00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:50,639
Speaker 1: invention and then and then and you have to figure

337
00:19:50,640 --> 00:19:54,480
Speaker 1: out how do you actually use it in your business processes,

338
00:19:54,840 --> 00:19:57,879
Speaker 1: And to really get the benefits of things like artificial intelligence,

339
00:19:57,920 --> 00:20:00,600
Speaker 1: you actually have to change how you're organized, how you

340
00:20:00,640 --> 00:20:03,919
Speaker 1: conduct business, and that takes quite a bit of time. So,

341
00:20:04,119 --> 00:20:05,720
Speaker 1: you know, we can, you know, we can debate about

342
00:20:05,720 --> 00:20:07,439
Speaker 1: how big AI is going to turn out to be,

343
00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:10,240
Speaker 1: but even if it does turn out to be transformational,

344
00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:12,440
Speaker 1: I think it's going to take quite a long time

345
00:20:12,480 --> 00:20:14,520
Speaker 1: to play on. And I think that same it's true

346
00:20:14,560 --> 00:20:17,960
Speaker 1: for deregulation. I don't think you you know, can deregulate,

347
00:20:18,280 --> 00:20:21,720
Speaker 1: you know, very quickly. And even if you deregulate, how

348
00:20:21,800 --> 00:20:24,280
Speaker 1: much benefit are you going to get it? People think about, well,

349
00:20:24,280 --> 00:20:26,440
Speaker 1: what's going to happen four years from now, when maybe

350
00:20:26,440 --> 00:20:30,320
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is not empowered and all those regulations

351
00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:32,760
Speaker 1: come back. Are you really going to change your investment

352
00:20:32,800 --> 00:20:35,800
Speaker 1: behavior because things are better now? Or are you going

353
00:20:35,840 --> 00:20:39,399
Speaker 1: to be concerned that this deregulation effort is going to

354
00:20:39,440 --> 00:20:43,200
Speaker 1: fade away once we get to the to the next administration.

355
00:20:43,880 --> 00:20:47,280
Speaker 3: Anna, I will say, looking at your numbers, it did

356
00:20:47,359 --> 00:20:50,280
Speaker 3: make sense to me why Scott Besendon his interview that

357
00:20:50,359 --> 00:20:54,359
Speaker 3: he did with US with Salaiah Mosen last week, he

358
00:20:54,520 --> 00:20:58,520
Speaker 3: was focused so much on bond yields, on long term

359
00:20:58,680 --> 00:21:01,720
Speaker 3: borrowing costs for the government. That's the key factor in

360
00:21:01,960 --> 00:21:04,879
Speaker 3: even making your numbers add up right exactly.

361
00:21:05,119 --> 00:21:09,520
Speaker 2: I mean, after I conducted that exercise, it's clear why

362
00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:13,120
Speaker 2: It's not just Scott Bessons. We also have heard from

363
00:21:13,480 --> 00:21:17,480
Speaker 2: Trump a week agode that all of a sudden he

364
00:21:17,600 --> 00:21:21,400
Speaker 2: approved the way that Federal Reserve is conducting monetary policy.

365
00:21:21,440 --> 00:21:24,920
Speaker 2: He said he thinks the Fed is correct to keep

366
00:21:25,040 --> 00:21:30,200
Speaker 2: rates constant, which was a very surprising thing because.

367
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:31,760
Speaker 3: Just so earlier this week he seems to have gone

368
00:21:31,760 --> 00:21:38,119
Speaker 3: back on that. He's tweeted or truthed that he wanted

369
00:21:38,240 --> 00:21:41,120
Speaker 3: he thought interestrates should go down as he's putting tariffs in.

370
00:21:41,560 --> 00:21:43,160
Speaker 1: Well, don't expect consistency here.

371
00:21:45,200 --> 00:21:47,960
Speaker 2: Is he saying that Fed should lower rates or is

372
00:21:48,000 --> 00:21:49,639
Speaker 2: he referring to the tenure yields?

373
00:21:49,720 --> 00:21:51,840
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good question. I don't know that he's.

374
00:21:51,760 --> 00:21:56,000
Speaker 2: Actually talking to the market now because he realized after

375
00:21:56,200 --> 00:21:59,119
Speaker 2: the one hundred bases point spike in ten year yields

376
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:03,000
Speaker 2: since the Fed started reducing rates, Trump realized that the

377
00:22:03,040 --> 00:22:06,399
Speaker 2: Fed doesn't hold the key to long term interest rates.

378
00:22:06,640 --> 00:22:12,119
Speaker 3: H that's interesting. So the final thought, I think we

379
00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:16,719
Speaker 3: all agree that making growth, getting growth up, increasing productivity

380
00:22:16,800 --> 00:22:21,520
Speaker 3: is really hard. Seriously slowing the path of spending and

381
00:22:21,520 --> 00:22:24,360
Speaker 3: cutting the budget deficit, it's hard. Actually, the last time

382
00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:26,480
Speaker 3: we did both of those things we saw a significant

383
00:22:26,480 --> 00:22:29,160
Speaker 3: increase in productivity and a significant reduction in the budget

384
00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:32,480
Speaker 3: deficit was in the Clinton years, as Anna pointed out

385
00:22:32,520 --> 00:22:34,800
Speaker 3: on doing Boy Television the other day. And you know,

386
00:22:34,920 --> 00:22:38,760
Speaker 3: times were very different then, especially in Washington, and people

387
00:22:38,760 --> 00:22:40,880
Speaker 3: tend to say, oh, he could do that, he could

388
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:44,399
Speaker 3: cut the deficit because politics was much less polarized. But

389
00:22:44,480 --> 00:22:47,520
Speaker 3: I was reminding myself that actually there wasn't much bipartisanship

390
00:22:47,560 --> 00:22:49,480
Speaker 3: in that area. Even then, there was not a single

391
00:22:49,520 --> 00:22:53,520
Speaker 3: Republican who voted for the Clinton Deficit Reduction Act. So

392
00:22:54,160 --> 00:22:56,400
Speaker 3: I guess i'd ask both of you, whatever we think

393
00:22:56,440 --> 00:23:03,639
Speaker 3: about the way that DOGE is going about well constitutionality

394
00:23:03,680 --> 00:23:06,119
Speaker 3: of some of what's happened, is there an advantage to

395
00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:10,040
Speaker 3: having a strong executive and a rather supine Congress if

396
00:23:10,080 --> 00:23:12,560
Speaker 3: you're going to actually make progress on any of these things.

397
00:23:12,600 --> 00:23:14,080
Speaker 3: I guess I'll start with you Anna.

398
00:23:14,280 --> 00:23:17,800
Speaker 2: Well, Stephanie. You know, it's funny because the other day

399
00:23:17,840 --> 00:23:22,640
Speaker 2: I met with somebody who actually tried to deregulate but failed,

400
00:23:23,160 --> 00:23:26,680
Speaker 2: and I asked him what's the lessons? Were the lessons?

401
00:23:26,840 --> 00:23:31,520
Speaker 2: So he is actually Lord Dominic Johnson from UK, who

402
00:23:31,560 --> 00:23:35,480
Speaker 2: is the co chair of the UK Conservative Party, and

403
00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:38,719
Speaker 2: he was just speaking about DOGE at Harvard Kennedy School

404
00:23:38,840 --> 00:23:42,960
Speaker 2: also and he said the reason why it's very difficult

405
00:23:43,280 --> 00:23:48,000
Speaker 2: to get the support for degregulation, which is a key

406
00:23:48,040 --> 00:23:53,000
Speaker 2: pillar of the Trump administration's vision to generate non inflationary growth,

407
00:23:53,280 --> 00:23:59,120
Speaker 2: Lord Johnson, it's because the beneficiaries of deregulation is very diffuse,

408
00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:02,800
Speaker 2: Whereas there are a lot of wetted constituents who are

409
00:24:02,920 --> 00:24:07,280
Speaker 2: benefiting from the regulations and who would really complain very loudly.

410
00:24:07,640 --> 00:24:09,359
Speaker 2: So at the end of the day, it's very hard

411
00:24:09,359 --> 00:24:11,480
Speaker 2: to get the kind of support you need to push

412
00:24:11,520 --> 00:24:16,080
Speaker 2: through these policies. So as a result, he would advocate

413
00:24:16,080 --> 00:24:20,840
Speaker 2: that the way to conduct to really cut government spending

414
00:24:20,960 --> 00:24:25,600
Speaker 2: and deregulate is to go bold and break things and

415
00:24:25,640 --> 00:24:28,600
Speaker 2: then start from scratch again. He at least from a

416
00:24:28,640 --> 00:24:31,960
Speaker 2: person who has done this and failed. He said, that's

417
00:24:32,000 --> 00:24:36,120
Speaker 2: the way. So I think that's pretty interesting. Bill.

418
00:24:36,960 --> 00:24:39,480
Speaker 1: Well, you can certainly do more if you act in

419
00:24:39,520 --> 00:24:44,040
Speaker 1: this kind of aggressive fashion. But you know, I worry

420
00:24:44,040 --> 00:24:48,199
Speaker 1: about the indiscriminate nature of this approach because there is

421
00:24:48,240 --> 00:24:52,840
Speaker 1: some regulation that actually does good. For sure. I certainly

422
00:24:52,840 --> 00:24:55,560
Speaker 1: like the fact that we have an FDA that make

423
00:24:55,640 --> 00:24:57,879
Speaker 1: sure that drugs are safe. I'm glad we have a

424
00:24:57,920 --> 00:25:02,480
Speaker 1: Transportation Environment Transfer Tation that makes sure that the planes

425
00:25:02,480 --> 00:25:07,639
Speaker 1: sight flies safely and uh, real traffic moves safely. So

426
00:25:08,040 --> 00:25:10,440
Speaker 1: this idea that you know, all the all the regulation

427
00:25:10,560 --> 00:25:13,800
Speaker 1: we have is sort of for non productive uses, you know,

428
00:25:13,960 --> 00:25:16,960
Speaker 1: has not productive benefits. I think that's that's something that

429
00:25:17,040 --> 00:25:19,639
Speaker 1: I think is just not true. And then the question

430
00:25:19,760 --> 00:25:22,119
Speaker 1: is how do you determine the good stuff from the

431
00:25:22,160 --> 00:25:24,919
Speaker 1: bad stuff? And I think that's really really difficult to do.

432
00:25:25,280 --> 00:25:27,320
Speaker 1: I think the approach that's being taken right now is

433
00:25:27,320 --> 00:25:30,280
Speaker 1: pretty indiscriminate. So I would imagine that, you know, some

434
00:25:30,720 --> 00:25:33,800
Speaker 1: regulation that should go away is probably going to be eliminated.

435
00:25:33,920 --> 00:25:36,480
Speaker 1: But I also worry that some regulation is actually very

436
00:25:36,680 --> 00:25:40,240
Speaker 1: supportive to the well functioning economy and protects the households

437
00:25:40,240 --> 00:25:42,320
Speaker 1: and businesses is also going to be you know, so

438
00:25:42,440 --> 00:25:43,800
Speaker 1: it's going to be throwing it and the baby out

439
00:25:43,840 --> 00:25:45,760
Speaker 1: with the bathwater. That's what I'd be worried about.

440
00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:47,879
Speaker 3: Well, this is the way to find out. I guess

441
00:25:48,040 --> 00:25:50,920
Speaker 3: that you get rid of everything and then see whether

442
00:25:50,960 --> 00:25:53,240
Speaker 3: anyone notices, or you get rid of quite a lot

443
00:25:53,240 --> 00:25:56,200
Speaker 3: to see if anyone notices. I mean, I say that flippantly,

444
00:25:56,240 --> 00:25:59,760
Speaker 3: but actually the fiscal the austerity quote unquotes that was

445
00:26:00,240 --> 00:26:03,719
Speaker 3: in the UK after the global financial crisis, the really

446
00:26:03,760 --> 00:26:09,080
Speaker 3: significant cut was in local government spending, and it took

447
00:26:09,240 --> 00:26:11,760
Speaker 3: quite a long time for people to realize that those

448
00:26:11,800 --> 00:26:14,399
Speaker 3: cuts had come in places that we were really going

449
00:26:14,440 --> 00:26:17,520
Speaker 3: to notice down the road. So it might take longer

450
00:26:17,560 --> 00:26:21,040
Speaker 3: than you thing. Thank you very much, Bill, and Anna

451
00:26:21,200 --> 00:26:24,240
Speaker 3: occurred to me. I've been saying over the last few

452
00:26:24,280 --> 00:26:26,159
Speaker 3: weeks that Wall Streets seemed to be betting on the

453
00:26:26,200 --> 00:26:28,640
Speaker 3: best of all possible trumps. But I realized, because we're

454
00:26:28,640 --> 00:26:31,840
Speaker 3: going through as numbers, it's the bestn't of all possible trumps.

455
00:26:32,040 --> 00:26:40,040
Speaker 3: Ho ho. Thank you for listening to Trumpnomics from Bloomberg.

456
00:26:40,119 --> 00:26:42,320
Speaker 3: It was hosted by Me, Stephanie Flanders, and I was

457
00:26:42,400 --> 00:26:46,000
Speaker 3: joined by Bill Dudley and Anna Wong. Trumpnomics is produced

458
00:26:46,000 --> 00:26:48,639
Speaker 3: by Sammer Sadi and Moses and Am with help from

459
00:26:48,720 --> 00:26:53,959
Speaker 3: Chris Martlou. Sound designed by Blake Maples. Brendan Francis Newnham

460
00:26:54,160 --> 00:26:57,160
Speaker 3: is our executive producer and please do help other people

461
00:26:57,200 --> 00:27:00,000
Speaker 3: to find this show by rating and reviewing it high

462
00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:01,760
Speaker 3: me wherever you listen to your podcast

463
00:27:08,680 --> 00:27:09,080
Speaker 2: Mm hmm