Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Along
Speaker 1: with Jonathan Ferrell and Lisa Brownwitz Jay Lee. We bring
Speaker 1: you insight from the best and economics, finance, investment, and
Speaker 1: international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcast, Suncloud, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Terminal. Andrew
Speaker 1: hollen Horst the City joins us now the chief US economist.
Speaker 1: And Andrew has just been fantastic through the whole of
Speaker 1: this year. I have to s Andrew, congrats to you
Speaker 1: in the whole of the team, because I remember when
Speaker 1: you first came out with those calls for fifty basis
Speaker 1: point at every meeting, then definitely five and everyone started
Speaker 1: to laugh Andrew, and it quickly became consensus. Where are
Speaker 1: you now going into year? Rand is the rest of
Speaker 1: the pack on Wall Street talks about a step down
Speaker 1: of financial conditions, starts to weez, Yeah, thanks so much, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: and thanks for having me on. We're you know, for
Speaker 1: our base case, we still think that the Fed might
Speaker 1: and somewhat below five percent policy rates, but we would
Speaker 1: not be surprised by levels above five percent. I think
Speaker 1: anything up to five and a half percent would not
Speaker 1: be too surprising at this point, and you know, it
Speaker 1: really goes back and kind of thinking all the way
Speaker 1: back in terms of why this Fed has been more
Speaker 1: hawkish and why we're getting higher policy rates. That's what
Speaker 1: you were just talking about it in the European context,
Speaker 1: we just have inflation data that continues to surprise to
Speaker 1: the upside, that continues to push policy rates higher. Actually
Speaker 1: think the Chairman navigates this conversation in the news conference
Speaker 1: center this week. Given that they don't have the full
Speaker 1: costs no fresh s EP until December, it's really difficult.
Speaker 1: In December, you do have a lot more variables that
Speaker 1: you can use to try to guide towards a step
Speaker 1: down in the pace of policy rate increase, but at
Speaker 1: the same time not trigger a loosening of financial conditions.
Speaker 1: And I think we saw a little of that last
Speaker 1: week as the market got excited about the fact that
Speaker 1: the FED might be slowing the pace from a seventy
Speaker 1: point hike at this week's meeting to a fifty basis
Speaker 1: point hike in December. And we think that is what's
Speaker 1: going to happen, and that's not necessarily a do wish outcome. You,
Speaker 1: the hiking fifty basis points is still a larger than
Speaker 1: usual sized hike. The Fed could continue to hike at
Speaker 1: those larger sized hike sizes for extended period of time
Speaker 1: get to higher policy rates. So there's nothing inherently dobish
Speaker 1: about hiking at a slower pace. What the Fed needs
Speaker 1: to do is communicate that, and you're right. At the
Speaker 1: December meeting there's a summary of economic projections that can
Speaker 1: show higher dots suggesting the policy rates will move higher.
Speaker 1: It's really just gonna come down to communication. In the
Speaker 1: press conference at Wednesday's meeting, Ken Powell talk about slowing
Speaker 1: down the pace, but still indicate resolve on fighting inflation.
Speaker 1: What's more damaging for the economy getting to five or
Speaker 1: five and a half percent and then cutting perhaps six
Speaker 1: months later. We're getting to four and three quarters percent
Speaker 1: and holding it for two years straight, I think, but
Speaker 1: would be damaging for the economy, and I think to
Speaker 1: their credit, FED officials have recognized this is to allow
Speaker 1: inflation to persist levels that are well above target. I mean,
Speaker 1: you you were just talking, and you know, we're kind
Speaker 1: of joking about the idea, could we get a three percent,
Speaker 1: four percent, five percent inflation target. But implicitly that's what
Speaker 1: happens if the FED continues to miss on their inflation mandate.
Speaker 1: If you continue to miss to the upside on inflation,
Speaker 1: then you embed in the economy higher rate of inflation.
Speaker 1: And I think we're already seeing some of the costs,
Speaker 1: some of the uncertainty associated with not knowing how much wages,
Speaker 1: how much prices will be going up. That's the real
Speaker 1: risk for FED officials. And that's why stopping too early
Speaker 1: is a risk and could imply actually hiking further at
Speaker 1: a later date. So so you do have upside risk,
Speaker 1: you have downside risk. It's a complicated scenario. I think
Speaker 1: the primary risk right now is still the risk that
Speaker 1: inflation remains too high. Andrew, you said something really important
Speaker 1: there that by basically undershooting inflation again and again, they're
Speaker 1: basically communicating the inflation is going to remain higher than
Speaker 1: their target. This sort of speaks to what Diane Swank
Speaker 1: was talking about their projections being fantasy land. How much
Speaker 1: do you think they've already done that by not really
Speaker 1: communicating some sort of downturn or something that is more realistic.
Speaker 1: According to the economists, projections in terms of what kind
Speaker 1: of pain needs to happen in this economy to get
Speaker 1: inflation under control. I think it would be helpful if
Speaker 1: FED officials concentrated a little bit more on the fact
Speaker 1: that labor markets likely need to loosen significantly to bring
Speaker 1: down inflation. It's a very unfortunate reality. It's a reality
Speaker 1: that nobody wants to be dealing with. But the empirical
Speaker 1: fact is that to bring inflation down from levels like
Speaker 1: the levels that we're seeing in the US and Europe
Speaker 1: elsewhere involves a significant loosening of the labor market. And
Speaker 1: that's almost a euphemism for saying the unemployment rate rises.
Speaker 1: Millions of people who currently have jobs no longer have jobs.
Speaker 1: It's a horrible outcome for the economy. That is the
Speaker 1: cost of aation that's too high, and the issue now
Speaker 1: is minimizing the further cost of that. So I think
Speaker 1: that's right least. I think there should be more direct
Speaker 1: communication about the pain that's associated with breaking down inflation.
Speaker 1: Andrew A consensu even you're hesitating to say out loud,
Speaker 1: I'm waiting two around the program, around the table, and
Speaker 1: surveillance every single morning. And Andrew, I think they've still
Speaker 1: got to do a better job of communicating this, and
Speaker 1: it's not for me to do it for them. Andrew,
Speaker 1: how did they tell us the higher unemployment is a
Speaker 1: price worth paying to get inflation down. What's the answer
Speaker 1: to that. Yeah, it's a very hard message to deliver, frankly,
Speaker 1: and I think that the answer is to be clear
Speaker 1: the forthright, to talk about the historical evidence, talk about
Speaker 1: the theory the theory that we have. You look at
Speaker 1: the employment cost index last week, up one point two
Speaker 1: percent quarter on quarter. This is well above a pace
Speaker 1: of wage increase that would be consistent with two percent inflation.
Speaker 1: And so I think that's just one indication a very
Speaker 1: height labor market that's going to drive inflationary pressure. There's
Speaker 1: strong theoretical reasons, they're strong empirical reasons to think that
Speaker 1: that doesn't change without a loosening of the labor market.
Speaker 1: So I just think that we need to be clear
Speaker 1: and forthright about that. And and to your point, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: it is an unfortunate reality, and I think that means
Speaker 1: that FED officials and others have been reluctant to comment
Speaker 1: on it openly. Andrew. We get unemployment from Friday, we
Speaker 1: get the jobs report in America right now, I'm looking
Speaker 1: at pay rolls, the survey, the matin estimate about one
Speaker 1: ninety from a previous two sixty three. Andrew, can you
Speaker 1: tell me if the year ist progressed, if you sense
Speaker 1: that perhaps this unemployment rate needs to go higher than
Speaker 1: you thought it did at the start of the year.
Speaker 1: So I think there is a sense that maybe the
Speaker 1: unemployment rate doesn't need to go higher, but that the
Speaker 1: amount of restriction needed in the economy may need to
Speaker 1: be more to get to a higher unemployment rate. So
Speaker 1: we think that the unemployment rate may need to get
Speaker 1: to something around five and a half percent to bring
Speaker 1: down inflation. That would be a lot higher than three
Speaker 1: point five percent where we are now Historically, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be as high as what we've seen in other recessions. Um.
Speaker 1: So there is some good news there if you want
Speaker 1: to see it that way. UM. I think that the
Speaker 1: the issue is the labor market. Data continues to be
Speaker 1: very resilient. A hundred and ninety thousand new jobs in
Speaker 1: a month is going to be strong enough to continue
Speaker 1: to put downward pressure on the unemployment rate. So we
Speaker 1: have a tight labor market generating wage pressure that's too high,
Speaker 1: and that labor market looks like it may be tightening further.
Speaker 1: The only evidence of the contrary job openings the Joeld's
Speaker 1: job openings numbers. Those have started to come down. We
Speaker 1: get a new reading on that this week, so I
Speaker 1: think that's going to be important. But overall, low initial
Speaker 1: jobless claims, there's just a lot of evidence that this
Speaker 1: is a labor market that has not slowed sufficiently to
Speaker 1: bring down that wage of pressure. And Joe starts to
Speaker 1: coming up tomorrow with the SEMs Wealth and then onto
Speaker 1: the Federals IF on Wednesday, and onto the Pyros report
Speaker 1: on Friday. Would awake Andrew, Thank you sir as always
Speaker 1: Andrew Hollen, host of sitting on the lightest and what
Speaker 1: they're looking for from this FET this week. I'm going
Speaker 1: to send you on this right now. The Director of
Speaker 1: Research Energy Aspects Emorrator. Can we start there. Typically we
Speaker 1: talk about the near term story, let's get out to
Speaker 1: next year, just briefly. How vulnerable is the United States
Speaker 1: now with the SPR at a four decade low. I
Speaker 1: think it's the great question. Um, We've calculated this and
Speaker 1: even before Prince Ample Lizzie said this last week, we
Speaker 1: kind of highlighted the fact that right now the SPR
Speaker 1: is actually being used to uh, pretty much influenced prices,
Speaker 1: whereas its objective was very much for supply mitigation. So remember,
Speaker 1: the SPR also has legislative releases that was agreed back
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. So that's another hundred million barrels that's
Speaker 1: going to come out. Will end the year this year
Speaker 1: at just below four hundred million barrels about three hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty. Deduct another hundred from the legislative releases over
Speaker 1: the next three years. It doesn't leave the administration with
Speaker 1: much more than sixty million barrels. We believe that they
Speaker 1: could do without running into issues with the e e
Speaker 1: S at least requirement to have at least ninety days
Speaker 1: of net import cover. Now, of course, you can continue
Speaker 1: to run it down below that number, but I will
Speaker 1: can I will say this again and again that this
Speaker 1: is a time of energy security and running down sprs
Speaker 1: to influence prices is probably not the most prudent strategy.
Speaker 1: Do you think it leaves America even more exposed to
Speaker 1: the whims of opening next year if you don't have SPR,
Speaker 1: or rather, let me rephrase, if you were using SPR
Speaker 1: to offset um supply disruptions, that's very different. But if
Speaker 1: you're using SPR to just keep a cap on prices,
Speaker 1: then yeah, absolutely, because we've said this before as well.
Speaker 1: But if you are going to use the SPR to
Speaker 1: combat OPEC, that's like turning up to a gunfight with
Speaker 1: a knife, because it's OPEC has millions of barrels per
Speaker 1: day of production that they could cut or raise, where
Speaker 1: the SPR is ultimately a finite volume which also will
Speaker 1: need to be replenished at some stage. I'm going to
Speaker 1: given the fact that there isn't this relief valve of
Speaker 1: the SPR that potentially could be tapped in a major
Speaker 1: way next year, and given the facts OPEC plus has
Speaker 1: that leverage over the US and other nations, are we
Speaker 1: ever going to see seventy two dollars a barrel kind
Speaker 1: of price levels where this administration said they would like
Speaker 1: to refill the SPR. We don't think so. No. I mean,
Speaker 1: if anything, fifth of December, when the EU embargo and
Speaker 1: Russian crew starts, that's when you're going to see the
Speaker 1: real supply disruptions kick in. Because this is about shipping disruptions, right,
Speaker 1: We're just having to tie up so many ships now
Speaker 1: to move Russian crewed all the way to the east.
Speaker 1: We will start to see some Russian productions shot in
Speaker 1: and that's only going to get worse next year. So
Speaker 1: we just do not see how we get down to
Speaker 1: the seventies unless and until the economy really collapses and
Speaker 1: China doesn't actually start to get better, which we expect
Speaker 1: should start to happen from April next year. I'm ready
Speaker 1: based on some of the supply disruptions that you're expecting
Speaker 1: heading into the winter, and we are getting signs that
Speaker 1: you know, it has been mild so far, but the
Speaker 1: UK there are just reports that they could see a
Speaker 1: colder winter than usual. Where could you see oil prices
Speaker 1: going and how does that translate to gasoline prices at
Speaker 1: this highly political moment. I mean, look, we are expecting
Speaker 1: prices to go towards hundred dollars produced into into the
Speaker 1: year end and really trade into the hundred and tents
Speaker 1: and hundred and twenties for most of next year. Uh.
Speaker 1: And the biggest upside, like you mentioned, is the winter.
Speaker 1: Of course, weather is always going to be a erratic,
Speaker 1: and you know, nobody can really predict weather, but even otherwise,
Speaker 1: stocks are just very very low. Now you do ask
Speaker 1: about gasoline, it's a fair question. Gasoline prices in the
Speaker 1: US have continued to rise because there's so many refineries
Speaker 1: that are still down, and let's not forget the French
Speaker 1: strikes that are still ongoing. We're not producing enough. But
Speaker 1: I will highlight its diesel that we need to be
Speaker 1: really worried about. Diesel stocks are at near record lows.
Speaker 1: We just haven't built over the summer, and that's what
Speaker 1: we tend to use in the winter if it does
Speaker 1: get very, very cold. And I think that's a much
Speaker 1: bigger concern for the administration right now. So we are
Speaker 1: expecting potentially some form of intervention by the administration, should
Speaker 1: maybe saying you have to hold x amount of diesel
Speaker 1: stocks in the New York Harbor before you can export
Speaker 1: from Path three and Rita. I've got about forty seconds
Speaker 1: on the clock. I want to squeeze this in. We've
Speaker 1: been talking about this now for the best part of
Speaker 1: what eight months, called it nine months close to and Rita.
Speaker 1: Have you seen any effort either from Europe or the
Speaker 1: United States to build out refining capacity in a material way. No,
Speaker 1: quite the opposite. And it's a great question, because you know,
Speaker 1: if anything, Europe is talking about windfall taxes on refining
Speaker 1: um and this is going to be the biggest bottleneck.
Speaker 1: Next year. We have a few Midleastern refineries starting up,
Speaker 1: but after that after we just don't have enough refining
Speaker 1: capacity to meet all demands. And that right there is
Speaker 1: the problem. I'm really send thank you, Director of Researcher
Speaker 1: and as you aspects, thank you. If you get me one,
Speaker 1: I will do it. Is standing by the head of
Speaker 1: US Multi sector fixed income as should as at least
Speaker 1: at FED of aselve on Wednesday. All this chat about
Speaker 1: a step down. What even the team thinking about when
Speaker 1: you go into this November matin. Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't see any reason for them to commit to down
Speaker 1: shifting on Wednesday. UM. I think that they will let
Speaker 1: us know that they're considering it. But we have, as
Speaker 1: you said, John, two CPI prints between now. We're between
Speaker 1: Wednesday and the December meetings. So what's the point in
Speaker 1: saying here's what we're going to do, it's time to downshift.
Speaker 1: I think they're gonna say, hey, look, if we see
Speaker 1: inflation moderating to some degree, will will We're open to it.
Speaker 1: We realized we piped a lot. It's going to take
Speaker 1: some time for this policy, these this tighter policy to
Speaker 1: actually have an effect. Um. But as you said, they've
Speaker 1: the central banks have been wrong before, and they've they've
Speaker 1: said they're going to back off a bit and then
Speaker 1: they end up having to kind of go full throttle.
Speaker 1: So I just don't see why they pre commit quite yet.
Speaker 1: They don't have much to point to in the way
Speaker 1: of inflation moderating here. In the meantime, people are looking
Speaker 1: long term and they're trying to get a better sense
Speaker 1: of long terms and short term is so difficult to project.
Speaker 1: And Brian why scene of Morgan Stanley earlier this morning
Speaker 1: saying that he likes long dated treasuries because regardless of
Speaker 1: what they're gonna do, it's gonna slow growth and slow
Speaker 1: inflation over the longer term to make four percent yield
Speaker 1: on a tenure treasury attractive. Do you agree? I think that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of merit to that. I
Speaker 1: think it depends on your time horizon. If you're a
Speaker 1: long term investor now, certainly will you have a better
Speaker 1: entry point tactically between now and the next six months, probably, Um,
Speaker 1: But again it depends on your your time horizon. On
Speaker 1: this nice feature over for the weekend in a Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal had about five or six investors being interviewed
Speaker 1: about three and the opportunities just jumped down from Rick
Speaker 1: reader FROMO he said, I'm more excited going into three
Speaker 1: than I've been in a really long time. You hear
Speaker 1: that a lot from the fixed income team, don't you
Speaker 1: A lot? I really do. Okay, I hear that also
Speaker 1: because I lived through the era of people railing and
Speaker 1: comployed ero rates complaining we're not getting anything. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. Now they're getting nine percent
Speaker 1: average yields on things that actually look better because these
Speaker 1: companies have preserved cash for those people who have been
Speaker 1: sitting in cash complaining about low rates. I haven't heard
Speaker 1: enough from them about saying, yes, we're going to take
Speaker 1: take some opportunities here at Lisa. Does that resonate with
Speaker 1: you what Rick really said over the weekend, I'm more
Speaker 1: excited going into three than I've been in a really
Speaker 1: long time. It absolutely does. I mean that was basically
Speaker 1: the title of our market paper as well. And you
Speaker 1: know it's to Lisa's point, you don't even need to
Speaker 1: go to high yield to get interesting yields. I mean,
Speaker 1: HSBC came with a bond deal last week seventh north
Speaker 1: of seven percent. It's a four year piece of paper.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think they're gonna be paid. You're gonna
Speaker 1: be well compensated for that. Again, time horizon matters, but
Speaker 1: over the next four years return, I think that that's
Speaker 1: gonna I think that's going to be a good investment.
Speaker 1: And you're just sticking in the investment grade market. There
Speaker 1: A Lisa, how has business changed? Then? Can you walk
Speaker 1: us through that? Just over the last six months, you
Speaker 1: get the sense that people see the world the way
Speaker 1: you see the world in fixed income going into next year,
Speaker 1: this more interest from people that would typically be allocated
Speaker 1: to equities or somewhere else. Yeah, I absolutely do so.
Speaker 1: I've been to a few presented at a few conferences,
Speaker 1: and the interest in fixed income now is is much
Speaker 1: much higher. It's it's it's palpable. People are excited about it.
Speaker 1: I think there's still a little bit of nerves, right.
Speaker 1: It feels a bit like catching a falling knife here,
Speaker 1: and so there's a there's a bit of a we
Speaker 1: want to allocate but not quite yet. So I do
Speaker 1: feel like there's there, there's the risk. And we've had
Speaker 1: this a couple of times this year where you get
Speaker 1: a bit of a rally and then all of a
Speaker 1: sudden you get alert even tighter because everybody realized, I think,
Speaker 1: oh this isn't we passed the peak. We need to
Speaker 1: get in and then it's been past the last year.
Speaker 1: It's been kind of false starts. Um, But I do
Speaker 1: think that that could be the template. You know, everybody
Speaker 1: is sort of waiting, sitting on their hands a bit,
Speaker 1: but they want to get invested, but they're not. We're
Speaker 1: not quite there yet, so when we do, it could
Speaker 1: be fairly sharp. Um. But I think there's a lot
Speaker 1: of interest. I mean when you compare fixed income to
Speaker 1: private markets, when you compare them to other other public markets,
Speaker 1: I mean, fixed income is corrected a lot. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's yeah, my favorite stet right now is uh It's
Speaker 1: credit of Deutsche Bank, but they basically have the Treasury
Speaker 1: index going back to sight and I believe this was
Speaker 1: the worst return since that period. So it just gives
Speaker 1: you some context for we use the word unprecedented a
Speaker 1: lot in markets, but I think that's that's truly unprecedented.
Speaker 1: Truly is Lisa, Thank you, Lisa Homebi that suttis, thank
Speaker 1: you very much. Gregfied this now chief US policy strategy,
Speaker 1: that HF investments. Greg, Let's talk about energy, and that's
Speaker 1: been a big problem for this White hastroy this year.
Speaker 1: How is that playing in the mid terms, the lack
Speaker 1: of a caherent energy strategy in the minds of so
Speaker 1: many people, Greg, I think it's playing really poorly. A
Speaker 1: great editorial in the Wall Street Journal, I think it
Speaker 1: was this morning, all the day start to blur, but
Speaker 1: talking about how dysfunctional to this energy policy has been.
Speaker 1: I mean, Joe Biden just comple aiming about prices, but
Speaker 1: in reality, one of the reasons prices have gone up
Speaker 1: is because of his policies. We can you elaborate on that, Greg,
Speaker 1: because a lot of people think that his policies have
Speaker 1: been to unleash the spr on the energy market, on
Speaker 1: the gasoline market, and that's brought down prices. What's the
Speaker 1: other side of the story. Well, the other side, Lisa,
Speaker 1: I think, is how adversarial the White House has been,
Speaker 1: starting within days of his inauguration when he killed the
Speaker 1: Keystone pipeline and then he's gone from there, you know,
Speaker 1: really beating on fossil fuels, coal, oil, natural gas and
Speaker 1: saying that renewables is the way to go. I think
Speaker 1: renewables will play a major role for the rest of
Speaker 1: this decade. But right now we need fossil fuels. Okay,
Speaker 1: So that's the case. At the same time, perhaps it's
Speaker 1: just the coherence in the message from this administration, because
Speaker 1: they have actually confirmed that kind of view and said
Speaker 1: we need to encourage investment by some of the oil majors.
Speaker 1: Where could they be more consistent? What could be the
Speaker 1: message that could read through better that perhaps the Republicans
Speaker 1: are giving In your view, well, I'd say probably regulatory policy,
Speaker 1: which has been quite restrictive. I think the industry senses
Speaker 1: regulatory policy that's quite harsh, and therefore the industry is
Speaker 1: not doing much drilling or refining or shipping. Craig, if
Speaker 1: they can keep hold of the house in a Senate,
Speaker 1: what do you think this administration would like to do next?
Speaker 1: What do you expect to happen? It's a good question, John.
Speaker 1: I think that because both sides are so bitterly divided,
Speaker 1: we have to lower our expectations for much but I
Speaker 1: do think there's a chance they'll talk about immigration. Everywhere
Speaker 1: I go around the country, I hear the same refrain,
Speaker 1: we don't have enough cooks, waiters, waitresses, carpenters, whatever. And
Speaker 1: I do think more legal immigration is really quite would
Speaker 1: be very beneficial, and I think both parties might agree
Speaker 1: on that. Greg. In the meantime, a lot of people
Speaker 1: are thinking that it's going to be good luck and
Speaker 1: markets like guid luck, and that seems to be the
Speaker 1: feeling right now. Is this going to be grid luck
Speaker 1: that's good for markets? Yeah? I think so. I think
Speaker 1: that there's not going to be anything radical, certainly nothing
Speaker 1: new on taxes, capital gains, the estate tax, the top rate.
Speaker 1: I think all of that stuff gets frozen for at
Speaker 1: least two more years. In that kind of predictability is
Speaker 1: a good story for the markets. What does that do
Speaker 1: to our alliances with other nations? And I think about
Speaker 1: some of the potential for restricted exports of natural gas
Speaker 1: of diesel, especially in light of some of the up
Speaker 1: in price that we've seen recently in both of those categories.
Speaker 1: How much could that really create some longstanding fissures in
Speaker 1: classic alliances? It could, You can't rule it out. I
Speaker 1: would say, though, the biggest fear that I would have
Speaker 1: in terms of fissures is Ukraine policy. We're starting to
Speaker 1: see a lot of ads on TV in the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, UH talking about why are we spending
Speaker 1: this kind of money on Ukraine? We got lems right here.
Speaker 1: If there starts to become a perception in Western Europe
Speaker 1: and in Russia and Ukraine that the US is losing
Speaker 1: some of its resolve on Ukraine, that's a big deal
Speaker 1: in a very negative story. Well correctly, prospect of any
Speaker 1: kind of trade restrictions on energy projects products out of
Speaker 1: the United States would only exacerbate that in places like Europe.
Speaker 1: Greg that trial balloon has been floated a few times
Speaker 1: this year. They haven't gone forward with it. Is that
Speaker 1: what's holding them back? I guess it is what would
Speaker 1: push them forward? What would make them go through with
Speaker 1: a policy like that? Well, I think what first and
Speaker 1: forward would be a sense of the US economy is
Speaker 1: starting to weaken sharply. I don't see it yet. The
Speaker 1: data looks pretty good. But if at some point next
Speaker 1: year the US economy is starting to slump, then I
Speaker 1: think there will be a serious debate over how much
Speaker 1: we're doing for Ukraine, and the Republicans may lead a
Speaker 1: fight to give them a lot less. Greg. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your time. Greg. Now doubt we'll catch up
Speaker 1: with for next week. Greg find of h g F Investments.
Speaker 1: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Thanks for listening. Join
Speaker 1: us live weekdays from seven to ten am Eastern on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio and on Bloomberg Television each day from six
Speaker 1: to nine am for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. And subscribe to the Surveillance podcast on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot com, and of course on
Speaker 1: the terminal. I'm Tom Keene, and this is Bloomberg