Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Stephanomics, the podcast that brings the
Speaker 1: global economy to you. Well, we're doing something different this
Speaker 1: week because I'm sitting here in the Bloomberg offices in
Speaker 1: London in the presence of greatness the Nobel Prize winning
Speaker 1: economists Christopher Pisides, who's the regious Professor of Economics at
Speaker 1: London School of Economics and the joint winner of the
Speaker 1: Nobel Prize for Economics in twenty eleven for his work
Speaker 1: on labor markets and a theory of unemployment. Now, Stephonomics,
Speaker 1: we do have to pay some attention to the daily news,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to have a chat later with one
Speaker 1: of our reporters on the latest developments in Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: trade wars. But first I get to ask Professor Pister
Speaker 1: reid Is what he thinks about the state of the world,
Speaker 1: the state of economics, and pretty much anything else I want.
Speaker 1: So Professor of Pisides, Chris, welcome, Thank you very much,
Speaker 1: and thank you for those kind of works. Well we
Speaker 1: know that you justify them. Look, there are lots of
Speaker 1: things I'd like to talk to you about, but maybe
Speaker 1: start with the most recent research that I've seen from you,
Speaker 1: which has been about this hot topic of automation and
Speaker 1: the impact of technology on all of our lives, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people focus on the fear of lost
Speaker 1: jobs from technology. But I was interested to see that
Speaker 1: you took a broader approach which in some ways made
Speaker 1: it should make us feel better about the impact of technology,
Speaker 1: because you were asking how it's improved our welfare in
Speaker 1: ways beyond GDP. Can you can you tell us a
Speaker 1: bit about that? Yes, I mean, I think we should
Speaker 1: broaden our concept of well being and even growth, that
Speaker 1: we're looking at the quality of life, what we do
Speaker 1: to the environment, to how much leisure time we get,
Speaker 1: the quality of service as we get, how we spend
Speaker 1: our free time, and especially how we deal with poverty
Speaker 1: and finding ways to improve what these things could really
Speaker 1: make a difference to our society at whole. And I
Speaker 1: was struck that you mentioned in the paper that actually
Speaker 1: could make Europeans feel a bit better about themselves, because
Speaker 1: actually you were suggesting that overall welfare had actually grown
Speaker 1: faster in Europe at least until until the last few years,
Speaker 1: because they were sort of taking more advantage of technology,
Speaker 1: at least when it comes to having more leisure time
Speaker 1: where they are. That's what you find in the statistics
Speaker 1: when you look at it. The countries in the O
Speaker 1: c D, you know, the club of wealthy nations basically
Speaker 1: that work the least number of hours through the year
Speaker 1: a German in the Netherlands, the countries that have the
Speaker 1: highest stants of living And that's because they take longer
Speaker 1: AnGR breaks as which means that you have more time
Speaker 1: to enjoy life. You don't just work four seven and
Speaker 1: then at the end you say, oh, look how much
Speaker 1: money I made. Um. The other thing that makes you
Speaker 1: feel a little bit better about what better about Europe
Speaker 1: is that I think we do have better policy is
Speaker 1: about about the environment, and about protection of privacy, human rights,
Speaker 1: competition policy. So in general, the prospects on these on
Speaker 1: these dimensions are good in Europe. And that's why I'm
Speaker 1: not too worried that our rates of growth and are
Speaker 1: productively they are not matching those of China, even those
Speaker 1: of the United States, you know, I mean, it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I suspect a couple of the things that you said
Speaker 1: will go down very well with a lot of listeners,
Speaker 1: because one of the things people often say to me
Speaker 1: is why do you just focus on GDP, we should
Speaker 1: have broader measures and to have your research kind of
Speaker 1: take that on board in a really explicit way, particularly
Speaker 1: in this paper I think people will like. Of course,
Speaker 1: the other thing that plays certainly to European sense of
Speaker 1: UM sort of superiority, should we say, against some other
Speaker 1: models and maybe even the Americans, is that we like
Speaker 1: to feel like we have higher quality lives UM and
Speaker 1: you're kind of finding that in the data, but only
Speaker 1: I mean looking ahead, thinking about the big trends coming
Speaker 1: down the track for Europe of everybody else, automation but
Speaker 1: also demographic change, all the things that we talk about
Speaker 1: all the time. Do you think Europe is actually better
Speaker 1: placed to respond to those because of their history of
Speaker 1: government intervention and social contract And I think that's what
Speaker 1: Americans might find a little bit hard to swallow, that
Speaker 1: Europe is actually in a better place. I do think
Speaker 1: we're not doing enough as yet to embracing new technology
Speaker 1: and especially to protect UM workers who are going to
Speaker 1: lose their jobs in the sense of helping them through
Speaker 1: government to get the to move to the new sectors
Speaker 1: to get the new jobs. UM countries like Sweden, Denmark,
Speaker 1: the other analoagues are doing more than the rest. German
Speaker 1: is doing quite a lot. We need to broaden this
Speaker 1: out throughout Europe lot more. But we are doing much
Speaker 1: more than than the United States. And like very rightly
Speaker 1: you said, it's because we have a tradition with the
Speaker 1: government helping the market. If we live the market alone,
Speaker 1: it's going to give outcomes that they have many undesirables in.
Speaker 1: It is going to give us more equality that we
Speaker 1: like to take. It's going to give us more poverty, um,
Speaker 1: probably more unemployment contributing that probably in the sense of
Speaker 1: moving in ow the jobs at much faster rates than
Speaker 1: if you have a good sort of support network that
Speaker 1: helps work as retrain look for jobs that there will
Speaker 1: match too. And and we are moving in that direction.
Speaker 1: You know, I hear many encouraging sounds coming out of
Speaker 1: politicians and institutions. There still a lot to do, especially
Speaker 1: on longer term things like reform utucational system. Um. But
Speaker 1: we're on the right track. I mean, I think a
Speaker 1: lot of America because might listen to you. Certainly critics
Speaker 1: of Europeans would list of the European approach. We'll listen
Speaker 1: to this and say it's hopelessly complacent because if you
Speaker 1: look at you can't entirely ignore GDP. And if you
Speaker 1: look at Europe's growth rate, and if you look at
Speaker 1: the dynamism of their industries relative to the US leadership
Speaker 1: of some of these key sectors lacking um, they would say,
Speaker 1: it's all very well, You've got a nice social contract
Speaker 1: and it's going to take you right to the graveyard,
Speaker 1: or at least to it turn you into a sort
Speaker 1: of museum as the global economy moves forward. How would
Speaker 1: you respond to that? I mean growth doesn't matter. I
Speaker 1: mean growth matters. I'm not saying that ignore GDP. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean I go to China frequently,
Speaker 1: and I tell the walks in there, amazing shopping malls.
Speaker 1: I see a lot more European names there than American,
Speaker 1: I can tell you. In fact, you can hardly find
Speaker 1: an American names there. It's completely European. Go into any
Speaker 1: grow in the in the streets, you know, when you've
Speaker 1: sent you a car to pick your up, it's always
Speaker 1: the European cars. America. And going to people's homes, washing
Speaker 1: machines and vacuum community and that they use nine other
Speaker 1: things European. All right, Well, so we're sticking with the
Speaker 1: kind of what would be considered considered to be the
Speaker 1: slightly smug European approach. But that's fine. We you talk
Speaker 1: about needing to have political responses and interventions to make
Speaker 1: this process for automation and technology go better for people.
Speaker 1: And because you one other thing you would say looking
Speaker 1: at Europe at the moment is people don't like politicians
Speaker 1: very much. That the the main the system that had
Speaker 1: delivered these policies that often have helped to sort of
Speaker 1: shield people from the worst of the market, is also
Speaker 1: a system that people seem to be voting out of
Speaker 1: office with this big surge of populism. Are you how
Speaker 1: are politicians going to make these right choices if they're
Speaker 1: all being thrown out and replaced with maybe more irresponsible characters.
Speaker 1: Well that that that that's the development that worries the
Speaker 1: most actually Europe. I was looking recently at some statistics
Speaker 1: of not only Europeans, but generally the o c D
Speaker 1: in the G seven. They're looking at their government and
Speaker 1: more more than half the people are dissatisfied with the
Speaker 1: way that their government is running the country. Um, most
Speaker 1: think that we're going to be worse off in the
Speaker 1: next twenty years that their countries on their own track
Speaker 1: all these needs. It needs to be reversed. It's easier
Speaker 1: said than done. Um, I do think something that's going
Speaker 1: to maybe would make me I'm popular with some of
Speaker 1: your bridge the sense, but I do think that central
Speaker 1: European institutions can do more that would apply to the
Speaker 1: whole of Europe where you see these developments taking place
Speaker 1: or other that that's we've done enough about that. In fact,
Speaker 1: some at least some of the political extremists that we're
Speaker 1: seeing is due to the policies that were followed within
Speaker 1: Europe during the financial crisis and the Dead crisis, after
Speaker 1: being a critical the way that Greece and other countries
Speaker 1: were dealt with, for example, And um, we we do
Speaker 1: need to work out than that, because we shouldn't just
Speaker 1: take it lightly and say, oh, well, you know it's politicians,
Speaker 1: ignore them. But then you know that's that was one
Speaker 1: of the famous comment that Chancellor Angela Merkel made the
Speaker 1: German Chancellor about you know, the answer to a lot
Speaker 1: of these problems if you look at how that what
Speaker 1: happened in the crisis sort of more Europe, you know,
Speaker 1: more cooperation and what people are saying in the ballot
Speaker 1: box is less Europe. So how do we reconcile Whenever,
Speaker 1: whenever there's a ballot in fact, not only in Britain
Speaker 1: but anywhere in Europe has the word Europe in it,
Speaker 1: the vote is always in the other direction. It's it's
Speaker 1: difficult to explain that where there's this reaction. I think
Speaker 1: we do need more Europe, but we need to Europe
Speaker 1: as well. We need a more collaborative Europe. The way
Speaker 1: the Dead Crisis was, for example, I think that I
Speaker 1: think like that left very bad legacy of the way
Speaker 1: Europe deals with its problems because it wasn't really a
Speaker 1: policy that European leaders sat together and agreed something that
Speaker 1: there was consensus throughout. It was more like, you know,
Speaker 1: Germany for example, which is which has a very different
Speaker 1: requirement from the Southern Europeans took the lead and basically said,
Speaker 1: you know, you should be like more like us, rather
Speaker 1: than converging. Fiscal policies did not well coordinated. Some of
Speaker 1: the populist backlash has been in response to to the
Speaker 1: to the response to the crisis, In response to Concert
Speaker 1: of Easing, people feel like it just gave a lot
Speaker 1: of money printed a lot of money and gave it
Speaker 1: to people who already had it, you know, in the
Speaker 1: stock market. Um, if we are basically going to be
Speaker 1: using the same tools to respond to the next crisis, Um,
Speaker 1: do you think we need to be? Is that going
Speaker 1: to create even more of a political backlash and maybe
Speaker 1: more economic problems down the road from the political backlash,
Speaker 1: just as we're dealing with now in the UK and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: I think we need to bring fiscal policy there if
Speaker 1: we get into another crisis like the one we had before,
Speaker 1: because I mean, QUEI has done well aking for for markets,
Speaker 1: but it did increase, it did contribute to this increasing inequality,
Speaker 1: and that it increased stock prices, which which came together
Speaker 1: with the bigger rises in the incomes of the labor
Speaker 1: incomes of top earners and reinforce them. And that's where
Speaker 1: you need fiscal policy to come in to support the
Speaker 1: lower incomes and those who don't have stocks to benefit
Speaker 1: from the big rises. In fact, on the contrary, those
Speaker 1: who have debt because most of the lower inca is
Speaker 1: not dead. So we need a better coordination of fiscal
Speaker 1: and monetary policy at European level. And that's where I've
Speaker 1: been most critical of the German policies for examined during
Speaker 1: crisis that they didn't want to use fiscal policy at
Speaker 1: all at the European level. I heard short play talk
Speaker 1: the German finance minister at the time, talking the world
Speaker 1: the Comment Forum for example, many times and saying, you know,
Speaker 1: in front of the cameras and saying I know how
Speaker 1: to do German fiscal policy, and then and and that's good,
Speaker 1: good for Germany, and that's what I'm going to do.
Speaker 1: Where it was it was how we handle fiscal policy
Speaker 1: at the time, but it needs to come along with
Speaker 1: monetary policy and be used in combination to avoid the
Speaker 1: problems that you were just pointing. And does that also
Speaker 1: mean that central banks? I mean, we've had a big
Speaker 1: debate in the last few months and a sort of
Speaker 1: a panic that Donald Trump is tweeting about the Fed
Speaker 1: and central banks independences are being is under threat from
Speaker 1: all these leaders? Should it? Is it maybe a good
Speaker 1: thing if if central banks are a bit less independent
Speaker 1: or a bit more at least more political in how
Speaker 1: they look at their lives. Well, I think so, actually,
Speaker 1: as they should. They should get away from the complete
Speaker 1: independence from everything and just look at inflation and nothing else.
Speaker 1: We pointed out one very important issue that they should
Speaker 1: be looking at, how their policies affect relative pay inequality. Basically,
Speaker 1: there are other things they should be looking at, see
Speaker 1: if lending is done properly to productive activities, because with
Speaker 1: all the supervision they're doing, maybe their acting is this incentive.
Speaker 1: But what I'd say is that we also need a
Speaker 1: more independent fiscal policy than we have now, So maybe
Speaker 1: a little bit less dependent, less independent monetary policy, more
Speaker 1: independent fiscal policy, and the two work together around the economy.
Speaker 1: It's funny because I remember years ago looking into how
Speaker 1: independent the European Central Bank was. As far as I
Speaker 1: can see, it's the most independent central bank of any
Speaker 1: in the world because politicians can't even ask, can't even
Speaker 1: change its target, or they can they can appoint the
Speaker 1: people in charge, but that is it, and I think
Speaker 1: there's I think it's unique in the world. Are certainly
Speaker 1: among the major ones that politics elected politicians are not
Speaker 1: able to even change the target that it then independently pursues,
Speaker 1: and maybe that's one thing that Europeans haven't necessarily got right.
Speaker 1: I've got one final question, which was a is a
Speaker 1: sort of big one, but you don't have to give
Speaker 1: a complete answer. There is in this in the populism
Speaker 1: you see, whether it's Donald Trump or many of the
Speaker 1: different movements in Europe. There's sort of a critique of
Speaker 1: mainstream economics embedded in there, the kind of economics um
Speaker 1: that was followed in the policies before the cris. It's
Speaker 1: about less so fair, but it's not just about leaving
Speaker 1: the market alone. Do you think you're sitting in London
Speaker 1: School of Economics do you think economists as as a
Speaker 1: profession have responded to that critique? Do you see enough
Speaker 1: change in the way economists view themselves relative to say
Speaker 1: ten years ago. We we we've responded by emphasizing more
Speaker 1: things that might go wrong. Of course that's always been
Speaker 1: my research. And labor markets some I never I started
Speaker 1: my research asking why is an employment rising? And the
Speaker 1: conclusion was that because labor markets done operate very well,
Speaker 1: there's completely free markets and they need government help their
Speaker 1: frictions in the labor markets. That was the citation. That's
Speaker 1: what you got the price for us. And now ecurremys
Speaker 1: are looking at these frictions in other markets as well,
Speaker 1: especially if fin action markets. They've been applying many on
Speaker 1: the techniques that we had in labor market to look
Speaker 1: at frictions. Now, the other thing I should say, though,
Speaker 1: is that they criticize economist for say, getting wrong before
Speaker 1: or whatever, but in fact it's those who use economic
Speaker 1: theory that should be criticized. You know, if you step
Speaker 1: with me academia, the LS or elsewhere, you will see
Speaker 1: that the alternatives are there, or what we're doing there
Speaker 1: where there hidden in research. You know, maybe academic croomics
Speaker 1: should should have come out more out of universities trying
Speaker 1: to influence all that, but it's not the way it happens.
Speaker 1: So that I mean policymakers outside and those who operate
Speaker 1: outside in the market, they will have their own views
Speaker 1: about how they see the market working, and then they
Speaker 1: will look through the many alternative economic theories. There might
Speaker 1: be a theory of the pure market, the theory of
Speaker 1: market with frictions, the theory of Marxist theory of the
Speaker 1: complete breakdown, and then they will take the that's closest
Speaker 1: to that believes and applied not thinking that maybe the
Speaker 1: markets out there has features of those markets with frictions
Speaker 1: and we should take especially information, you know, he cancel
Speaker 1: information frictions and markets. They're normals. I like that. So
Speaker 1: that's the basically guns guns don't kill people. People kill
Speaker 1: people kind of approach it so you you can blame
Speaker 1: it on the on the users of the tools. I
Speaker 1: don't think that there is a sense in which economists
Speaker 1: have um lost a bit of their awareness of political
Speaker 1: economy that they had mainstream economics would have had a
Speaker 1: hundred or two hundred years ago, and there was something there.
Speaker 1: Someone and a very senior officials said to me once
Speaker 1: that he thought it's true that politicians often ignore the
Speaker 1: rules of act like the rules of economics and arithmetic
Speaker 1: don't operate, and that causes lots of problems when they
Speaker 1: ignore that. But actually economists also sometimes act like the
Speaker 1: rules of politics don't operate, and that's a big problem
Speaker 1: where they where they're now taking more and more into
Speaker 1: accounting fact that political economy and the influence of politics.
Speaker 1: So I can predict with fairly certainty that there will
Speaker 1: be a Nobel Prize for a political economy. But I'm
Speaker 1: not going to venture to professors, thank you very much
Speaker 1: for coming on, thank you, thank you for thanking me.
Speaker 1: So there was plenty to chew on there, but I
Speaker 1: did also promise you a quit report from the front
Speaker 1: lines of the US China trade wars. And our senior
Speaker 1: trade reporter frequent contributor to this podcast, Sean Donan, is
Speaker 1: just back from China. Sean, the Chinese are looking certainly
Speaker 1: less conciliatory at this point. We've had a white paper
Speaker 1: out complaining about US tactics. We've had also some announcement
Speaker 1: of investigation into the US company FedEx. Has Donald Trump
Speaker 1: pushed them too far? Well, I think that's the big
Speaker 1: question here. And there's a real sense in China right
Speaker 1: now that people are are looking at this trade conflict
Speaker 1: and actually preparing for it to last into the longer term.
Speaker 1: This is no longer a short term aberration. Uh. This
Speaker 1: is something that businesses and officialdom and the think tanks
Speaker 1: are all adapting to right now. You really get the
Speaker 1: sense of people already playing a longer game. J And
Speaker 1: Ping famously invoked the Long March. Said China needed to prepare,
Speaker 1: be prepared to to engage in in this long march
Speaker 1: as it approached this economic conflict. And what you really
Speaker 1: pick up on the ground is that march is already
Speaker 1: underway and it's well underway. Does that mean that they
Speaker 1: have basically given up on trying to conclude a deal
Speaker 1: with the US administration and they're just sort of trying
Speaker 1: to hoping that it won't get any worse. I I
Speaker 1: think what what you really pick up is not that
Speaker 1: they've given up on a deal, but that they're not
Speaker 1: going to do a deal on Donald Trump's terms, uh,
Speaker 1: and that they feel that they are in a position
Speaker 1: of strength that Donald Trump doesn't necessarily see. And of course,
Speaker 1: you know, the worst thing you can get in a
Speaker 1: trade war or in any negotiation is both sides thinking
Speaker 1: they're the stronger party at the table and not being
Speaker 1: ready to compromise. Well. And it's interesting because of course
Speaker 1: with the Donald Trump and those who support the use
Speaker 1: of tariffs would say, well, America's got the upper hand
Speaker 1: because America is the place that's receiving all these imports,
Speaker 1: and the very fact that China is not getting a
Speaker 1: lot of imports from the US means there's there's less
Speaker 1: room for for China to retaliate. But I guess what
Speaker 1: do we see this in the last few days that
Speaker 1: seemed just it was a reminder that China have other
Speaker 1: ways that they could do a sort of tip for
Speaker 1: tat here. Yeah. Absolutely, I think if you just think
Speaker 1: about it in the narrow kind of tit for tat
Speaker 1: Tariff's world, the US has the upper hand. But what
Speaker 1: we forget is that China has an important role as
Speaker 1: a supplier of a number of commodities like rare earths,
Speaker 1: and we've seen them. These are these kind of rare
Speaker 1: minerals that are key elements in all sorts of new
Speaker 1: technologies UH and vital to kind of twenty one century life,
Speaker 1: and China really controls a big chunk of the supply
Speaker 1: of those to the fact that it is an enormous
Speaker 1: market and that it has the ability to to harass
Speaker 1: American companies in different ways that want to do business
Speaker 1: in that market, and that's a powerful lever that the
Speaker 1: Chinese can pull. We've seen that. We've seen the Chinese
Speaker 1: start to pull. That day when Huawei, the big Chinese
Speaker 1: telecommunications company, was was placed on a Commerce Department Entity
Speaker 1: list UH, the US effectively was banning or potentially banning
Speaker 1: US suppliers from doing business with Huawei, this big company.
Speaker 1: The Chinese have responded by announcing their own Unreliable Entities list,
Speaker 1: and that effectively is aimed at any US company that
Speaker 1: for non commercial reasons refuses to do business with a
Speaker 1: Chinese company, and that means shutting them out of that
Speaker 1: potentially enormous Chinese market. We've also UH seen an investigation
Speaker 1: into UH Forward, one of its UH and and and
Speaker 1: its joint venture over some potential monopoly behavior. We've seen
Speaker 1: this FedEx investigation that you've talked about. So there's all
Speaker 1: of these other ways that they can that they can
Speaker 1: apply pressure on US companies, and at the same time
Speaker 1: they're also just kind of planning for the longer term.
Speaker 1: We had an interview with Ye Gang, the PBOC Government
Speaker 1: People Bank People's Bank of China governor a few days
Speaker 1: ago in which he just pointed to all the different
Speaker 1: ways they had to to bolster the economy, from monetary
Speaker 1: policy UH to some kind of fiscal UH tax credit
Speaker 1: policy that they that they could roll out, and in
Speaker 1: fact they've already given a big tax holiday to semiconductor
Speaker 1: producers and software companies and so on. There's a much
Speaker 1: bigger array of policy tools that the Chinese have other
Speaker 1: than tariffs. And you said you talked to US business
Speaker 1: people operating. There are people with joint ventures with the
Speaker 1: US in the tech world in particular, are they looking
Speaker 1: at their relationship with China being permanently changed by this?
Speaker 1: And of course the fear is that China is going
Speaker 1: to say, Okay, we're dependent on American semiconductors now, and
Speaker 1: Jnald Trump has that potential leverage over us, but we
Speaker 1: don't intend to be very long. Yeah, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: already that fear is already being realized. I think we
Speaker 1: need to be clear about that. Where I was at
Speaker 1: Huawei as part of this this visit and you talk
Speaker 1: to them, they have their own chip unit and they're
Speaker 1: just accelerating work there to to kind of replace the
Speaker 1: U S chips that they now rely on. They're also
Speaker 1: developing their own operating system for smartphones that would replace
Speaker 1: Google's Android system that they now rely on. They know
Speaker 1: that it's going to take them some time to transition.
Speaker 1: That's that stuff, But actually in terms of the smartphone OS,
Speaker 1: for example, they're already talking about rolling that out in
Speaker 1: the Chinese market this year. Those are all the sorts
Speaker 1: of measures that mean that US companies and US tech
Speaker 1: companies are going to potentially lose access to a big
Speaker 1: market like China. Is this trade war backfires on them,
Speaker 1: but also that they're going to have new competitors that
Speaker 1: are enabled and that are going to become more aggressive
Speaker 1: in the years to come. Well, something we keep coming
Speaker 1: back to. There's there's the headlines that we get very
Speaker 1: excited about, what's going to happen with the tariffs, what's
Speaker 1: happening to the economic numbers right now, and then there's
Speaker 1: what's happening under the surface to global supply chains and
Speaker 1: relationships as a result of this trade war. Watch this space.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Sean Donna, thanks for having me,
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to Stephanomics. We'll be back next week
Speaker 1: with more on the ground insights into the global economy.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, you can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal, website, app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcast. We'd love it you
Speaker 1: took the time to rate and review our show so
Speaker 1: it can reach more listers. But for more news and
Speaker 1: analysis during the week from Bloomberg Economics, follow as Economics
Speaker 1: on Twitter. You can also find me on at my Stephanomics.
Speaker 1: This episode was produced by Magnus Hendrickson with assistance from
Speaker 1: Amelia Roberts, Laura Carlson, and tofa forehes. Our executive producer
Speaker 1: is Scott Landman. The special thanks to Professor Christopher Peter
Speaker 1: Reads and Seawan Donald. Francesca Levy is the head of
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Podcast