Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the last Stephonomics of In twelve months,
Speaker 1: we've been around the world many times with our reports
Speaker 1: from the front lines of the global economy, from the
Speaker 1: Fort Lauderdale Boat Show to the Canton Fair in Guandoux
Speaker 1: Via Santiago, Berlin, South Central India, and a farm equipment
Speaker 1: factory in Broadhead, Wisconsin. We've also talked to many world
Speaker 1: leading economists, including two winners of the Nobel Prize. Not
Speaker 1: bad when you consider that all the people involved in
Speaker 1: this podcast also have quite busy day jobs. And we're
Speaker 1: not putting our feet up this week just because it's Christmas.
Speaker 1: Oh No. Instead, you're going to hear from a third
Speaker 1: Nobel Prize winner, the economist Joe Stiglets, a conversation I
Speaker 1: had with him recently in London when he was here
Speaker 1: to deliver a lecture on progressive capitalism at the London
Speaker 1: School of Economics. If progressive capitalism was on your Christmas
Speaker 1: list this year, you should listen in. But first a
Speaker 1: return trip to Vietnam, a country we've talked about surprisingly
Speaker 1: often here on Stephanomics. Now, if you've paid attention, then
Speaker 1: you'll remember it's been a winner and a loser in
Speaker 1: the US China trade Wars. It's complicated, but what you
Speaker 1: probably don't know is that it might be about to
Speaker 1: light up your next Christmas. Here's our South Asian Economy
Speaker 1: correspondent Michelle jam Briskin to explain what good ah Yes Christmas, or,
Speaker 1: more specifically, the classic holiday movie National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.
Speaker 1: You just heard the part when Clark Griswold drains all
Speaker 1: the electricity in the city to light up what must
Speaker 1: be a million bulbs covering his big suburban house. Americans
Speaker 1: have been putting lights up since they became affordable in
Speaker 1: the mid twentieth century. It's a half billion dollar business
Speaker 1: even if you only count those US customers, and in
Speaker 1: recent years, virtually all the lights made in the world
Speaker 1: come from one place, China. As an American economic journalists
Speaker 1: based in Singapore, I found myself in a good position
Speaker 1: to explore this issue as it touches on two major stories,
Speaker 1: the US China Trade War as well as the rise
Speaker 1: of Vietnam's economy. My colleague win Win and I decided
Speaker 1: to head to a street and Hannoi's old quarter called
Speaker 1: hang Ma or Vodo Street in English. It's a spectacularly
Speaker 1: colorful road whose shops are overflowing with Christmas decorations. At
Speaker 1: other times of the year, there are goods for holidays
Speaker 1: like Lunar New Year, or paper products that are burned
Speaker 1: in rituals. Dead catd to lost loved ones. By early December,
Speaker 1: there are Santa suits, reindeer wreaths, snowmen, garland, and Christmas
Speaker 1: lights as far as the eye can see. But even
Speaker 1: if it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, the
Speaker 1: mood this year feels a little bit off. We met
Speaker 1: a shopkeeper named new in quan Hui. He's thirty five
Speaker 1: and has been selling on Hangma for five years. Sales
Speaker 1: have been slow this year due to too many reasons.
Speaker 1: One is because there are so many suppliers this year,
Speaker 1: they flooded the street with Chinese stuff. Secondly is people
Speaker 1: cutting down on spending this year. Take just one of
Speaker 1: those items flooding the streets Christmas lights. For many years,
Speaker 1: China was essentially the only country in the world producing them.
Speaker 1: The data suggests that might be changing. Of course, the
Speaker 1: trade war has been waged not in the name of
Speaker 1: Christmas lights. It's supposed to be about America's ballooning trade
Speaker 1: deficit with China and allegations over intellectual proper e theft.
Speaker 1: But the supply chain for Christmas lights shows just how
Speaker 1: difficult it is for the US to penalize China without
Speaker 1: also making things more difficult on American soil. We dug
Speaker 1: into US customs shipping data to figure it all out.
Speaker 1: Christmas lights actually have their own six digit international code
Speaker 1: and category. US imports from China this specific item by
Speaker 1: sea have declined over the past year and a half,
Speaker 1: while those from Vietnam have surged from almost nothing. Other data,
Speaker 1: which includes shipments by sea and air show Cambodia is
Speaker 1: also sending a lot of Christmas lights to America. All
Speaker 1: this is happening after Christmas lights got caught up in
Speaker 1: the trade war. They were originally slapped with a ten
Speaker 1: duty effective in September, that went up to and May
Speaker 1: of this year, and that phase one agreement between the
Speaker 1: US and China to reduce tariffs on some goods, it
Speaker 1: doesn't cover Christmas lights, so the higher duties remain. What's more,
Speaker 1: Christmas lights are tangled in a bigger trend. Chinese companies
Speaker 1: are trying to find ways to offset lost business directly
Speaker 1: to the US. One solution is to route those same
Speaker 1: products through third countries for final production. Another is to
Speaker 1: find new customer basis like Vietnam. Here's Jacque mor Say,
Speaker 1: the World Bank's lead Vietnam economist, talking about Vietnam's dilemma.
Speaker 1: Is a winning on a temporary basis because you have
Speaker 1: a press adjustment. So that was taking place and I
Speaker 1: think magnified what was taking place before, you know, moving
Speaker 1: from China to Vietnam. So I think it's a temporary again.
Speaker 1: At same time, just temporary again doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: too big because the way you will be on the
Speaker 1: radar screen of the U s stor it is more,
Speaker 1: Say says. The increase in the official data for Vietnam's
Speaker 1: exports is clear, but it isn't matched by figures on
Speaker 1: foreign direct investment or FDI. That makes it more difficult
Speaker 1: to calculate how much Vietnam is winning and whether the
Speaker 1: winning can be sustained. You would expect it being increasing
Speaker 1: in the dy from China. You don't see it to
Speaker 1: the data for items like Christmas lights that have shown
Speaker 1: a discernible shift, and all too often from made in
Speaker 1: China to made in Vietnam. The trend is concerning for
Speaker 1: Vietnam's government. That's because Vietnam is stuck in a delicate balance,
Speaker 1: almost as if trying to learn how to win quietly
Speaker 1: in the trade war. Investors have cheered an economy that's
Speaker 1: growing at an almost seven percent pace. K Sarah, Sharp,
Speaker 1: and Nintendo are among the big names that have been
Speaker 1: expanding in Vietnam amid the US China tensions. But Vietnam
Speaker 1: has also felt the sting of winning too much. In July,
Speaker 1: the U s slap tariffs of more than on steel
Speaker 1: from Vietnam. America accused the nation of not doing enough
Speaker 1: to prevent tear off goods from being trafficked through their ports.
Speaker 1: Vietnamese customs officials have taken the charge seriously, especially this year.
Speaker 1: They see a high risk of trade fraud, and they
Speaker 1: talk about not wanting to be used as a pawn
Speaker 1: in the trade war. They're keeping a list of items
Speaker 1: that have drifted from Chinese origin to Vietnamese origin. What
Speaker 1: they don't want to see are new labels on an
Speaker 1: item that was actually completed elsewhere. So what does meet
Speaker 1: in Vietnam actually mean? In the case of Christmas lights?
Speaker 1: It appears to mean finished or near finished Chinese goods
Speaker 1: finding their way over the border before export. That's what
Speaker 1: another shopkeeper back on Hangma is seeing. Here's new antih.
Speaker 1: There are some local companies that brought material and parts
Speaker 1: from China and assembled them into these Kai supplies to sell.
Speaker 1: They can't produce by themselves because it would cause them
Speaker 1: way more than importing paths from China to assemble. Likewise,
Speaker 1: on the u S side, companies that import Christmas lights
Speaker 1: emphasized the supply chain ships couldn't happen overnight, even if
Speaker 1: they were enthusiastic to buy from Vietnam. Doug Topham the
Speaker 1: owner of a business called Christmas Light Decorators in Arizona,
Speaker 1: so the search for supplier outside of China has been fruitless.
Speaker 1: He's been importing Christmas lights from China since two thousand
Speaker 1: five and was looking to avoid Hefty's hairriff bills this year.
Speaker 1: He forded an email from one supplier who suggested that
Speaker 1: he falsify his invoice with a lower value to offset
Speaker 1: the tariffs. Others offered to repackage the lights, either with
Speaker 1: an erroneous origin or with a different company name. Topham
Speaker 1: said he just wants to play by the rules. For
Speaker 1: this Christmas season. Topham kept his order similar to previous years,
Speaker 1: but he is looking elsewhere in Asia for next year's orders.
Speaker 1: He's unlikely to find a Vietnamese supplier. Several larger Vietnamese
Speaker 1: lighting companies don't produce Christmas lights specifically. They told us
Speaker 1: that they very much doubted that any Christmas lights exported
Speaker 1: from Vietnam were actually made by Vietnamese businesses. For those
Speaker 1: selling Christmas lights and other festive gear along Hangma, that's
Speaker 1: just fine. They don't see Vietnam trying to replicate the
Speaker 1: Chinese model of mass export of cheaper goods. Drawn nuc
Speaker 1: On is a fifty three year old veteran shopkeeper on Hangma.
Speaker 1: Here's how she put it, tank to you have even
Speaker 1: these companies cannot make these kinds supplies because it will
Speaker 1: cost them a lot more than Jennese products, so they
Speaker 1: can compete. I hadn't seen any locally made ones. When
Speaker 1: Jennese producers lower the prices of their products, the poet
Speaker 1: is also poorer. But it's very easy for us to
Speaker 1: sell this Chinese stuff because they have many new designs
Speaker 1: and the prices are so cheap. Some items just cost
Speaker 1: even less than a pup of tea or a bowl
Speaker 1: of foot back for those hawking goods along Hang Ma further,
Speaker 1: trade war piece could go a long way to making
Speaker 1: for a merrier Christmas next year. In the meantime, the
Speaker 1: price tag for Clark, Griswold and everyone else is at
Speaker 1: a high risk of staying more expensive. For Bloomberg News,
Speaker 1: this is Michelle Jammer. Still m M. I wonder whether
Speaker 1: we'll hear from Vietnam again in But now here's that
Speaker 1: conversation I had with the Nobel Prize being an economist,
Speaker 1: Joe Stiglets here in London. So, Professor Joe Stiglets, thank
Speaker 1: you very much for taking the time in London. You
Speaker 1: were here in London doing a lecture to the London
Speaker 1: School of Economics asking the question, is progressive capitalism an
Speaker 1: answer to America's problems? So do you think it is? Yes? Uh,
Speaker 1: Maybe I should explain what I mean by progressive capitalism
Speaker 1: in a way of a new card tract between the
Speaker 1: market of the states of a society. The market will
Speaker 1: play a role. Some people say progressive capitalism is an oxymoron.
Speaker 1: I think you cannot run a complex society without some
Speaker 1: degree of decentralization, and markets are going to play an
Speaker 1: important role. Corporations are going to play role in that
Speaker 1: decentralization process. But the kind of unbalanced market economy, unfettered
Speaker 1: capitalism that we've had in the United States and in
Speaker 1: many other countries is the central cause of many of
Speaker 1: the problems the United States is facing. The growing inequality,
Speaker 1: the oprioch prices, the child diabetes crices, the climate prices
Speaker 1: that we have not responded to, and even in to
Speaker 1: a larger them, the political crisis, you say, and Steals
Speaker 1: actually said that one of the reasons that we've got
Speaker 1: into a message that we failed to understand the true
Speaker 1: sources of What do you mean by that, Well, the
Speaker 1: true source the reason that we have such a higher
Speaker 1: standard living today than we did two hundred fifty years
Speaker 1: ago after centuries and centuries of stagnation, is the advance
Speaker 1: is brought about by science and the advances in social organization.
Speaker 1: Running a complex, innovative manufacturing post manufacturing economy requires a
Speaker 1: lot of cooperation and coordination, requires collective action, not only
Speaker 1: individuals acting individually, and needs regulations, and needs the role
Speaker 1: of the state to promote basic research, UH, infrastructure, technology, technology, education,
Speaker 1: and the dominant doctrine ideology of the last part of years.
Speaker 1: Neoliberalism didn't pay attention to these pub days. And it
Speaker 1: made one more mistake. UH. It confused what made individuals
Speaker 1: wealthy with what makes the wealth of a nation. So
Speaker 1: individuals can get wealthy by taking money from other individuals,
Speaker 1: by exploiting them, by using market power, by taking advantage
Speaker 1: of their vulnerabilities. And we see a lot of people
Speaker 1: becoming very wealthy through that kind of activity that economists
Speaker 1: referred to as rent seeking wealth grapping. UH. The real
Speaker 1: source of the wealth of nation and are as I said,
Speaker 1: these big advances the people who discovered DNA, people transistor lasers. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: none of these people are among the wealthiest people in
Speaker 1: our country. And among the wealthiest people are those who
Speaker 1: have become wealthy through him seeking. And of course there
Speaker 1: are some people who made a contribution, achieved some degreement,
Speaker 1: ample power, but really amplified their wealth through this kind
Speaker 1: of exploitation. I guess I should. It's a lot of people. Certainly,
Speaker 1: some economists I've seen recently have been highlighting how strong,
Speaker 1: how good the economy is looking relative to a lot
Speaker 1: of other past elections. If you look at the us
Speaker 1: UM I saw one estimate that kind of the tail
Speaker 1: winds for a presidential election. If you're looking at the
Speaker 1: level of unemployment, if you're looking at growth, you're looking
Speaker 1: at the level of inflation, Mortgage rates, debt levels are
Speaker 1: all actually much better than they have been in quite
Speaker 1: a long time. Even wages for the lower part of
Speaker 1: the wage spectrum, after a long time of stagnation, have
Speaker 1: actually been doing better in the last few years. So
Speaker 1: is this is this critique sort of failing to notice
Speaker 1: what's actually happening out there? No at no, I mean
Speaker 1: it's taking nada quarter by quarter, or by moderate month
Speaker 1: or day by day. Perspective is looking at it over
Speaker 1: a longer period at the time. But even if you
Speaker 1: look more narrowly what's been happening in the last few years,
Speaker 1: you see some real indicators that things are not going well. Uh.
Speaker 1: Growth for instance, is slow from three point one percent
Speaker 1: down to one after a massive tax cut, resulting in
Speaker 1: a trillion dollar deficit this year, probably the largest deficit
Speaker 1: that we've had in peacetime out of a recession. Life
Speaker 1: expectancy is in decline. This should happen in a country
Speaker 1: where we're breaking all the frontiers in medical research. It's
Speaker 1: because we have a broken healthcare system. Students are graduating
Speaker 1: with massive amounts of debt that's strangling their ability to
Speaker 1: start a family and UH live up to their dreams
Speaker 1: and aspirations. Median income is stagnante. Real wages at the
Speaker 1: bottom at the same level as they were sixty years ago.
Speaker 1: Media and income of a full time mail worker and
Speaker 1: the full time men are the lucky ones, is the
Speaker 1: same as it was more than forty years ago. This
Speaker 1: is not a picture that of a prosperous economy. The
Speaker 1: unemployment rate may be relatively low, but the employment rate
Speaker 1: is also relatively low. A lot of people dropped out
Speaker 1: of the labor force. So when I see the picture
Speaker 1: of the economy, and when I don't use a number
Speaker 1: of like GDP, it it is one of the indicators.
Speaker 1: But what really matters is how well ordinary citizens are doing,
Speaker 1: and in those terms, things aren't so rosy. I'm interested.
Speaker 1: I mean, you won your your Naval prosper Economics for
Speaker 1: your contributions to thinking about the way that information UH
Speaker 1: played produces market well. Information failures and the market failures
Speaker 1: in general asymmetries of knowledge and how they can contribute
Speaker 1: to to inefficient outcomes. Do you think whether it's Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Horn or anyone else, you know, a lot of people
Speaker 1: recognize the market power of this massive internet companies globally
Speaker 1: is posing an unprecedented issue for economies everywhere. The regulators
Speaker 1: and governments are really struggling with Do you think that
Speaker 1: she has a genuine answer? Do you think anyone has
Speaker 1: a rigorous approach to this? Yes, I do. The clearly
Speaker 1: the monopolies of century are different from standard royal and
Speaker 1: the monopolies of the end of the nineteenth century or
Speaker 1: twentieth century. UM. It's very clear that the anti drusservice,
Speaker 1: our competition wives have not kept up with the changing economy. UM.
Speaker 1: Our business leaders have had a kind of you might say,
Speaker 1: resolution to increased market power that has not been met
Speaker 1: with a publics. In fact, a major school in economics,
Speaker 1: the Chicago School, took the view that markets are naturally competitive,
Speaker 1: so don't worry about it. And actually there's been a
Speaker 1: weakening of antitrust laws over the last fifty years, so
Speaker 1: I think there is now a lot of focus on
Speaker 1: where we made a mistake, both in weakening our competition
Speaker 1: laws and in not keeping up with the new challenges
Speaker 1: posed by the changes in our technology. I've been uh
Speaker 1: participated in FTC hearings where these issues are are being discussed,
Speaker 1: and I think there is a growing consensus at least
Speaker 1: some elements that we need to begin with in making
Speaker 1: our economy more competitive once again. Do you think I mean?
Speaker 1: I was looking at some of the rulings over the years,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of people who are now written
Speaker 1: about how effective the internet companies have been, the likes
Speaker 1: of Google and Facebook and actually resisting regulatory pressure, even
Speaker 1: to the point of not responding to letters. I wonder
Speaker 1: what I mean when you look at some of these issues,
Speaker 1: do you think is there a question about whether they've
Speaker 1: just got too big to even respond to some of
Speaker 1: these challenges from government? Are they now bigger than any
Speaker 1: single government? They are even bigger than most governments. And
Speaker 1: what is so striking is the kind of arrogance that
Speaker 1: they've exhibited. Uh, they realize how powerful they are. Facebook
Speaker 1: famously signed an agreement to respect privacy and then when
Speaker 1: they had and violated it, well, they were fined over
Speaker 1: five billion dollars. So there's just nothing regular standpoints, but
Speaker 1: there's a lot by regular staying board, and they're put
Speaker 1: out notice that they will be fine a lot more
Speaker 1: if they don't comply with regulations. Tim Cook, the head
Speaker 1: of Apple, famously, uh, of course, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: pay taxes, uh, paraphrasing what he said in response to
Speaker 1: what Apple didn't in our own But then he said,
Speaker 1: but if you lowered the tax rate, then I'll comply.
Speaker 1: In fact, you acting and say if you have a
Speaker 1: tax rate that I agree with, then I'll pay. But
Speaker 1: if you don't, of course I'm going to avoid taxes. Well,
Speaker 1: countries around the world and are saying, you know, this
Speaker 1: is not the way society functions. The remarkable thing is
Speaker 1: that these tech giants grew on the basis of government
Speaker 1: funded research. The Internet was a result of government spending,
Speaker 1: The first browser was a result of government spending. All
Speaker 1: the basic insights that have led to all these advances
Speaker 1: were a result of government spending. So they're willing to take,
Speaker 1: but they're not willing to reciprocate. And I think that's
Speaker 1: not the basis of a social kind fract which you
Speaker 1: can mean to a successful society. I should ask you
Speaker 1: about the green new deal because I noticed we were
Speaker 1: talking recently in Beijing with Nick Starn, who had written
Speaker 1: the quite an important report or climate change, and think
Speaker 1: about ten years ago. I noticed that you actually lead
Speaker 1: a big report on environmental issues. Even longer ago, I
Speaker 1: think the mid nineties. If you look, if you think
Speaker 1: about the challenges you saw it then and you see
Speaker 1: now how far we've come in in terms of the
Speaker 1: warming of the planet, but also a new feeling of urgency. Finally,
Speaker 1: on the political side, do you think we are now
Speaker 1: in a better place, at least when it comes to
Speaker 1: confronting it, even though we've let a lot of time
Speaker 1: go by. Public reception is so much stronger today. Any
Speaker 1: scientific knowledge when we did our report, no new vibe.
Speaker 1: We were aware that global warming would lead to more
Speaker 1: extreme events, but we didn't say that in our report
Speaker 1: because the there was not overwhelming evidence of that. Today,
Speaker 1: there is overwhelming evidence. The US has been losing almost
Speaker 1: two percent of GDP using extreme events. People are realizing
Speaker 1: we got extreme cold, its, fires, floods, hurricane cyclones, and
Speaker 1: the young people particularly get it. And since the young
Speaker 1: people are going to be the future of our of
Speaker 1: our world. Uh, I am hopeful I am worried that
Speaker 1: the you know, mistakes that we made is we did
Speaker 1: not anticipate how fast things would change. And we understood
Speaker 1: that there was an urgency, but we didn't understand how
Speaker 1: urgent it was. Now we do and that why are
Speaker 1: we responding fast enough? And next that I give you
Speaker 1: trying it behind the Green New Deal, we need real
Speaker 1: mobilization to arrest this issue. And when you look, I mean,
Speaker 1: there are some who've said that the Green New Deal
Speaker 1: is just so ambitious, um and so aggressive in its
Speaker 1: timing that it could ultimately be be counterproductive because of
Speaker 1: the sheer pace of what it's suggesting, you know, retrofitting
Speaker 1: every single building in the country within ten years, decarbonizing
Speaker 1: the economy within ten years, which even the most committed
Speaker 1: experts in this field says is really not plausible. That
Speaker 1: there's not enough people in the workforce to do some
Speaker 1: of these things. I mean, do you think, um, do
Speaker 1: you think it is potentially counterproductive or better to have
Speaker 1: a more urgent goal. I don't know. I think it's
Speaker 1: really important to have an urgent goal. But the broader
Speaker 1: perspective that people have focused on, you know, carbon reality,
Speaker 1: I think that's clearly attainable, but that isn't the green
Speaker 1: you did agree you do something much more aggressive. I
Speaker 1: guess the question is do you do you make it
Speaker 1: harder to reach the reasonable goal by by trying too
Speaker 1: hard and actually maybe imposing too aggressive to changes on people.
Speaker 1: I think that what we need is a kind of
Speaker 1: wartime mobilization, and we need to do what we can.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, some of the things that people
Speaker 1: say are very difficult aren't really that difficult. Putting installation
Speaker 1: in housing, this is not require high skilled labor. We
Speaker 1: have a lot of unskilled labor unemployment. We could brain
Speaker 1: people to do it. Uh. So to me, addressing these
Speaker 1: issues would actually make our economy stronger if everybody were
Speaker 1: aware of the issue, if we commit ourselves to having
Speaker 1: finance to enable people to do the expulation that they
Speaker 1: need with actually would more than pay for itself, So
Speaker 1: they would actually be better off if they can get
Speaker 1: the finance to do it. Um. I think we would
Speaker 1: have a very hard take up, right. So, whether it's
Speaker 1: going to be or even the real issue here is
Speaker 1: very quickly changing norms and expectations. And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we've been dawdling since we became aware of the problem
Speaker 1: more than thirty years ago, and what the Great New
Speaker 1: Deal is really a statement, let's stop dawdling, let's start
Speaker 1: doing something. Do you think, looking at where we are,
Speaker 1: looking at where policies are, that the next recession will
Speaker 1: be another will produce another major crisis the way we've
Speaker 1: seen we saw in two thousand and eight, Or do
Speaker 1: you look at that and say, no, this will be
Speaker 1: you like a more normal recession, but we will continue
Speaker 1: to have all the problems. Yeah, it will be. My
Speaker 1: best bet is that it would be more like a
Speaker 1: more normal reception, but coming on top of a situation
Speaker 1: where we haven't fully recovered from the last major doctor.
Speaker 1: So that means that it will be in some sense
Speaker 1: ugly harder for a lot of the people at the bottom.
Speaker 1: And because interest rates are already very low, monetary policy
Speaker 1: will be hard to respond. And because the US, for instance,
Speaker 1: squandered UH fiscal policy, not using UH using it when
Speaker 1: we needed it in two thousand and ten, but using
Speaker 1: it when we didn't need it in two thousand seventeen,
Speaker 1: we will be in a much harder position respond effectively.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you, thanks listening to Stephanomics. Will be
Speaker 1: back next year. With a special roundtable discussion on what
Speaker 1: to expect from the global economy in in the meantime.
Speaker 1: You can find us on the Bloomberg Terminal website at
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts, and we would love
Speaker 1: it if you took the time to rate and review
Speaker 1: our show. For more news and analysis from Bloomberg Economics,
Speaker 1: follow at Economics on Twitter, and you can also find
Speaker 1: me on at my Stephanomics. The story in this episode
Speaker 1: was written and reported by Michelle jam Rusco and Uya Naguyan,
Speaker 1: with assistance from Kevin Varley. It was produced by Magnus
Speaker 1: Hendrickson and edited by Scott Lamman, who is also the
Speaker 1: executive producer of Stephanomics Special thanks to Joe Stiglett's Nazarene
Speaker 1: Syria and hung True On the head of Bloomberg Podcasts
Speaker 1: is Francesco Levy five