Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
Speaker 2: with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordert. Join us each day
Speaker 2: for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics
Speaker 2: from our global headquarters in New York City. We are
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine
Speaker 2: am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or
Speaker 2: anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. Then that's that one hundred,
Speaker 2: as you all know. On Trackford's third straight weekly last,
Speaker 2: Tom forty of Maxim Group covers Apple and Amazon with
Speaker 2: a by rating on both. Tom joins us now for more. Tom,
Speaker 2: The anxiety is overwhelming this week in the tech sector.
Speaker 2: I don't even know if it's reached the main street
Speaker 2: just yet, but on Wall Street the faar is skyheigh
Speaker 2: in two names that you cover, Apple, Amazon. Let's start
Speaker 2: with Amazon. Lisa mentioned this eight day run of declients
Speaker 2: eighteen percent lower on Amazon. What has made that stop
Speaker 2: fall out of bed over the last week.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So when you think about the weakness in Amazon.
Speaker 3: I think it's entirely related to the two hundred billion
Speaker 3: dollar capex guidance by the company, and if you look historically,
Speaker 3: without downplaying the significance of a two hundred million dollar
Speaker 3: capex number for Amazon, but Amazon has a track record
Speaker 3: of ramping investing when necessary to take advantage of opportunities,
Speaker 3: and I do think that Amazon can take advantage or
Speaker 3: capitalize in AI in ways other megacaps can't. They have
Speaker 3: one point five sorry, one point five million employees, many
Speaker 3: at the large fulfillment center level. To the extent that
Speaker 3: they roll out robotics add automation, they can have greater efficiency.
Speaker 3: Now you've been talking a lot about AI displacing jobs,
Speaker 3: so I think that if you do the math equation
Speaker 3: for Amazon, it would be to the extent that automation
Speaker 3: reduced the headcount at the warehouse level. But at the
Speaker 3: same time, you have to think about the new jobs
Speaker 3: that automation would create, to the extent that someone has
Speaker 3: to make the robots service the robots, things of that nature. So, yes,
Speaker 3: I'm concerned about job loss from artificial intelligence, but I
Speaker 3: think it's going to be an offset of job loss,
Speaker 3: but also some job gains.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: Tom John opened the show asking about this conflict that
Speaker 4: I think really is the conflict. Either this capex that
Speaker 4: all of these big tech companies are spending is not
Speaker 4: worth it and ultimately is going to backfire on them
Speaker 4: for a becoming asset heavy and not as profit heavy,
Speaker 4: or people are just totally mispricing the story and the
Speaker 4: disruption is actually yes significant on the other side, but
Speaker 4: is going to benefit these companies in a significant way.
Speaker 1: Which is it?
Speaker 3: Well, okay for Amazon again of the belief that it'll
Speaker 3: be worthwhile. And I think what's interesting is a student
Speaker 3: of you know, having started covering the Internet in the
Speaker 3: elite nineties, I remember the build out of dark fiber
Speaker 3: and things of that nature. So I worry that we're
Speaker 3: going to have this, you know, ghost data centers in
Speaker 3: the future and things of that nature. But the good
Speaker 3: news I think for Amazon and for other megacap tech
Speaker 3: companies that are ramping their cap x is that presumably
Speaker 3: if they don't see their returns, they can scale back
Speaker 3: the numbers. It isn't that Amazon Amazon spending two hundred
Speaker 3: billion in one day. So if you look at Amazon again,
Speaker 3: they've scaled back some of their leasing commitments when they
Speaker 3: determined that they didn't need as much fulfillment center square
Speaker 3: footage because there wasn't a demand. So I do think
Speaker 3: that as it pertains to Amazon, if they're not seeing
Speaker 3: the positive performance, that they're expecting greater efficiency at the
Speaker 3: warehouse level, a greater efficiency also at the software engineering level,
Speaker 3: better sales from e commerce, things of that nature. It's
Speaker 3: not like they can't stop the spending. They can, they
Speaker 3: can turn it off.
Speaker 1: Tom, is a tech really that good?
Speaker 4: Is the air really that good to disrupt all of
Speaker 4: these potential industries? Is the sort of heat seeking missile
Speaker 4: that Joe A Motto of newberg Erman was talking about?
Speaker 4: Is it truly that in terms of its effect efficacy?
Speaker 3: So you're asking me, so today we'll call it, you know,
Speaker 3: a day before Valentine's Day twenty twenty six. Is the
Speaker 3: technology that good to the extent that I have, you know,
Speaker 3: spent a lot of time with Alexa and Siri as
Speaker 3: an example of you know, AI and things of that nature.
Speaker 3: The answer is absolutely not. The question is in the
Speaker 3: future will it be that good? And it remains to
Speaker 3: be seen. But I would say, Lisa, I would say
Speaker 3: today I'm convinced that tech is not that good, But
Speaker 3: that doesn't mean directly we're not heading to a point
Speaker 3: where it will be much better than this today. And
Speaker 3: I think that's, you know, very much possible.
Speaker 2: Tom. I'm not going to ask you if you're spending
Speaker 2: Valot time's with Alexa and Siri. I'm not going to
Speaker 2: ask that question. It is you basically asked it yourself taking.
Speaker 3: My wife to dinner. But thanks Jonathan for worrying.
Speaker 2: About otherwise you could have joined us. I was consented.
Speaker 2: I'm going to follow up on Apple. I want to
Speaker 2: talk about Apple very quickly. Five percent move. Is this
Speaker 2: the thread of a margin squeeze from memory or is
Speaker 2: it about falling behind with AI? What's the move about?
Speaker 3: It has to be the margin squeeze on memory. So, Jonathan,
Speaker 3: I was sticking back to last year being on your
Speaker 3: show and wondering if we had a supercycle for AI
Speaker 3: for Apple, twenty percent growth in iPhones in the December
Speaker 3: quarter would make us think yes, But they absolutely they
Speaker 3: are nowhere with AI. So I think that the five
Speaker 3: percent move is concerned on memory. Apple historically does very
Speaker 3: well when they have a product selling as well as
Speaker 3: iPhone seventeen and improving the margin over time, they could
Speaker 3: take price managing supply chains Tim Cook's forte. So I'm
Speaker 3: not worried about memory, maybe as much as the market
Speaker 3: is right now.
Speaker 2: Stay with us. More Bloomberg surveillance coming up after this.
Speaker 2: Tiffany want to get Pincock joins usnaps talk about the days. Tiffany,
Speaker 2: welcome to the program. How much weight can we put
Speaker 2: on this week's data? Halted, un expected payrolls soft that
Speaker 2: expected CPI.
Speaker 5: Well, I think this morning's inflation print, even though it
Speaker 5: was in line with the Bloomberg consensus expectations, was actually
Speaker 5: pretty encouraging under the surface. You know, I think there's
Speaker 5: two things that we would highlight in that regard. You know,
Speaker 5: one is just that shelter inflation, which had been stubbornly,
Speaker 5: you know, just persistent since the pandemic. You know, it's
Speaker 5: finally really decelerating, and we saw that in today's report.
Speaker 5: You know, rental dynamics for new tenant rents actually suggests
Speaker 5: that that you're seeing a pretty stagnant rental market and
Speaker 5: that will ultimately feed into OERE with a lag. So
Speaker 5: that's good news for the FED. I think the other
Speaker 5: good news in this report, you know, is that the
Speaker 5: terrorf related effects are largely fading. You know, so we
Speaker 5: probably did get a little bit of a bounce back
Speaker 5: in core goods prices retail goods prices from the discounting
Speaker 5: that happened over the holiday season, you know, but ultimate
Speaker 5: looks like terriff effects of kind of they're behind us
Speaker 5: at this point. They were passed through to the extent
Speaker 5: that companies were going to do it. So as that fades,
Speaker 5: you know, you you should have a federal reserve that
Speaker 5: that feels more comfortable, you know, cutting interest rates, you know,
Speaker 5: it does look like they are a little bit restrictive
Speaker 5: relative to the media and long term estimate of the
Speaker 5: long run neutral interest rate. You know, so getting a
Speaker 5: couple of more cuts in this year seems very reasonable
Speaker 5: to us.
Speaker 2: It's if we not, all right, cuts now created equally.
Speaker 2: Do you see then a federal reserve that's cutting interest
Speaker 2: rights because inflation gives them the space, or because the
Speaker 2: labor market gives them a reason, you.
Speaker 5: Know, so I think so for us, the outlook for
Speaker 5: you know, for the labor market is pretty stable here.
Speaker 5: You know, ultimately, we think growth is going to be Okay,
Speaker 5: this year, you know, we're looking for two percent, you know,
Speaker 5: that should support the labor market, but nevertheless, you do
Speaker 5: have this AI related adjustment that's happening, you know, under
Speaker 5: the surface, so you know, those those factors are sort
Speaker 5: of offsetting. We're looking for the unemployment rate to kind
Speaker 5: of stay where it is, and then outside of that,
Speaker 5: we're looking for inflation to moderate, you know, moderate back
Speaker 5: to target this year, so that in our view, would
Speaker 5: be consistent with the Fed that that's easing somewhat.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 5: Of course, if the unemployment rate were to rise much more,
Speaker 5: you know, than that, that would that would warrant more
Speaker 5: easing from the Fed.
Speaker 1: Tiffany, do you think.
Speaker 4: That this actually opens the door to three rate cuts
Speaker 4: this year, as the market seems to be implying right now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, we'll we'll definitely have to see. I mean,
Speaker 5: it's certainly possible that they could get in three.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 5: Again, I think as kind of a rough estimate, we're
Speaker 5: looking at the mid the midpoint of the long run
Speaker 5: neutral estimate, which is which is right around three percent.
Speaker 5: You know, they're at three and a half now, so
Speaker 5: that implies two more cuts. You know, I think getting
Speaker 5: another one in would you know, be the result of
Speaker 5: more disinvationary pressure potentially target below target inflation or the
Speaker 5: unemployment rate moving up.
Speaker 1: I understand the idea of celebrating disinflation.
Speaker 4: We're still at two point four percent year over year
Speaker 4: for CPI.
Speaker 1: And people are saying this is winning.
Speaker 4: I mean, how strong is the disinflationary force coming from
Speaker 4: the housing sector that gives you confidence that we're actually
Speaker 4: going to get down to two percent even with FED
Speaker 4: rate cuts, given that we've been above two.
Speaker 1: Percent for five years.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well so in the housing sector has certainly been
Speaker 5: one of the reasons why that we've had stickier inflation.
Speaker 5: So the housing, oh we are and rents, rental inflation
Speaker 5: have been incredibly sticky, you know. You know that's in
Speaker 5: part because of it just takes them longer to adjust,
Speaker 5: you know, so they didn't accelerate as much as as
Speaker 5: home prices did during the pandemic. But but now they're
Speaker 5: decelerating at a slower pace. That's finally over. It looks
Speaker 5: like that ketchup has happened in the rental market, you know,
Speaker 5: and you can and you're now seeing more more stagnant
Speaker 5: rental trends so that is import ortant.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 5: But again, the other thing is is that the thing
Speaker 5: that's held up overall inflation over the last year is
Speaker 5: some pass through of the additional costs that companies have
Speaker 5: to pay as a result of tariffs. But that's a
Speaker 5: one time price level adjustment, and when we look at
Speaker 5: core goods price behavior, you know, it looks like that
Speaker 5: adjustments largely happen. So now that it's happened, you should
Speaker 5: see core goods uh, you know, price inflation also starting
Speaker 5: to decelerate. So again, all that is is good news
Speaker 5: for the Fed.
Speaker 1: Definitely.
Speaker 2: Just one final comment if we can on the committee
Speaker 2: that Kevin Walsh will ultimately at some point this year
Speaker 2: be taken over. How contentious will things be? How divided
Speaker 2: is that committee currently?
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, you know, again, I think you I
Speaker 5: think you want to look at where everybody is as
Speaker 5: you know, where everybody's sort of writing down where they
Speaker 5: think the long run neutral interest rate is, because because
Speaker 5: that's going to be the debate this year, we think,
Speaker 5: you know, and of course that the AI you know,
Speaker 5: and the technology related diffusion will have implications for that
Speaker 5: our star debate.
Speaker 1: But there's a good.
Speaker 5: Majority of the Committee that still thinks that the current
Speaker 5: policy rate is above their estimate of our star, which
Speaker 5: means policy is slightly restrictive, you know. And if you
Speaker 5: have employment that is consistent with maximum levels, and you
Speaker 5: have inflation that's running at target, you should be at
Speaker 5: neutral policy. And so again the real debate this year
Speaker 5: on the FED is where neutral policy is going to be,
Speaker 5: you know. And again we're kind of looking at the
Speaker 5: midpoint of their estimated range of three percent.
Speaker 2: Stay with US mult Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this
Speaker 2: Global lead is gathering at the Munich Security Conference, the
Speaker 2: US Secretary of Saint Marco Rubio leading a delegation as
Speaker 2: the Trump administration pushes Transatlantic ties potentially to their limits.
Speaker 2: The Republican Senator Tom Tillis is on the ground in
Speaker 2: Munich and he joins US now for more. Senator, welcome
Speaker 2: back to the program. Forgive me for doing this life
Speaker 2: in the moment. But the news just crossed. This is
Speaker 2: on Ali Baba reporting from Reuters. So the Trump administration
Speaker 2: is expected to add Ali Baba to a list of
Speaker 2: firms that allegedly help China's military. This according to reports
Speaker 2: just moments ago. Senator clearly the US administration and Congress
Speaker 2: for that matter, is looking to put a bit of
Speaker 2: a squeeze on China landing in Europe and Munich, Germany.
Speaker 2: Do you believe that you have the Europeans on site
Speaker 2: in this effort.
Speaker 1: I think we do.
Speaker 6: But let's go back to Ali, Bob and honestly, any
Speaker 6: business that's domiciled in China, does anybody really believe that
Speaker 6: there's separation between the CCCP and the state owned enterprises
Speaker 6: and other supposedly independent businesses.
Speaker 1: I think the President is on.
Speaker 6: The right track to make sure that we're starting to
Speaker 6: hold China accountable. We need a good relationship with them,
Speaker 6: but it needs to be one that's founded on trust.
Speaker 6: And quite honestly, there are moves in China that I
Speaker 6: don't trust.
Speaker 2: So Senator, with that in mind, should US based investors
Speaker 2: be able to have access to investing in these companies?
Speaker 7: Well, look, I've got a real problem with We had.
Speaker 6: A Banking Committee com meeting yesterday with Adkins before from
Speaker 6: the SEC, and I've got a real problem with the
Speaker 6: US getting into a trend of buying into some of
Speaker 6: our companies. I feel like we should let the free
Speaker 6: market really drive innovation and also back to the segment
Speaker 6: before I watched your prior segment, we've also got.
Speaker 7: On leiche I. We can't be afraid of it.
Speaker 6: We have to embrace it, we have to leverage it,
Speaker 6: and we have to be the leader in innovating it.
Speaker 2: Well, Senator, let's talk about that. Creative destruction is a
Speaker 2: feature of the US economy and American dynamism is something
Speaker 2: Lisa was talking about earlier on this morning. Senator, I
Speaker 2: feel like there's an aversion to that these days, and
Speaker 2: a fear associated with some of the headlines we've all
Speaker 2: seen over the past suite, the prospect of white collar
Speaker 2: jobs being wiped down. How do we prepare for a
Speaker 2: moment that and ensure that what globalization did to manufacturing
Speaker 2: doesn't happen to services with AI A sure, well, we.
Speaker 7: Have to be ever watchful, but the bell has been wrong.
Speaker 6: We can either decide to be the innovation leader and
Speaker 6: work with our partners and allies, the nations that we
Speaker 6: have military alliances with, to make sure that the Western.
Speaker 7: World is still in the front of it.
Speaker 6: But I'm reminded of books that I read about the
Speaker 6: Industrial Revolution and anytime that we've had a major leap
Speaker 6: in technology.
Speaker 7: We can't pretend like it didn't happen.
Speaker 6: We have to figure out how to master it and
Speaker 6: be the best practice and executing it and dealing with
Speaker 6: all the potential negative consequences and job displacement. I think
Speaker 6: the jury is still out on what the job displacement's
Speaker 6: going to be. Does it mean that we've got to
Speaker 6: put more money in education and retooling expertise around the
Speaker 6: needs of the AI future, Probably almost certainly, But we
Speaker 6: should resist it.
Speaker 7: We should make sure.
Speaker 6: Sure that we get rid of the patchwork of laws
Speaker 6: that are being implemented at the state level that are
Speaker 6: impediments to our own indigenous innovation and AI, come up
Speaker 6: with rules of the road at a federal level, and
Speaker 6: just unleashed the power of the US innovation economy to
Speaker 6: lead the world to get into right.
Speaker 4: Senator, do you feel like internationally there's the same skepticism
Speaker 4: you're in Europe, it's known for regulating their experts in it,
Speaker 4: and it seems like a growing number of people feel
Speaker 4: like that is hampering some of the progress.
Speaker 1: I mean, is there the same kind of enthusiasm.
Speaker 4: What's the mood like around some of the AI story
Speaker 4: that's causing a lot of a lot of volatility, certainly
Speaker 4: here in the United States.
Speaker 6: For years, I've been trying to remind everyone of how
Speaker 6: critical we were of the GDPR data privacy, data breach
Speaker 6: policies of the EU implement it.
Speaker 7: They made mistakes, they corrected.
Speaker 6: Some of them, but then states started gold plating some
Speaker 6: of those policies California and other ones that are again
Speaker 6: to our tech sector. What we need are national rule.
Speaker 6: This is clearly interstate commerce. We need to preempt these laws,
Speaker 6: make them better if we find the best practice, be
Speaker 6: instructed by that at some state level. But we need
Speaker 6: to set that platform right or the maligne users of
Speaker 6: AI are going to outpace our ability to stay up
Speaker 6: with them.
Speaker 1: That's why I.
Speaker 7: Think it's so important. I was the one, the.
Speaker 6: Only one, actually nine to nine members voted against that.
Speaker 6: There was an amendment last year to try and preempt
Speaker 6: the AI laws at the state level come up with
Speaker 6: a national standard. I think that we need to do
Speaker 6: that very quickly, and we should throw data privacy data
Speaker 6: breach out there so that we get it right and
Speaker 6: maybe we have a gold plated state or that Europe
Speaker 6: can be instructed by.
Speaker 4: In the meantime, as people are concerned about this leave
Speaker 4: and market transition and the pain that could come alongside it.
Speaker 4: It's one reason why there's been so much focus on
Speaker 4: the FED to reserve. It's one reason why people are
Speaker 4: saying it might behoove the FED to cut rates more
Speaker 4: aggressively in order to ease the pain for a number
Speaker 4: of individuals that otherwise might be losing their job. I mean,
Speaker 4: how much are you feeling satisfied in the process that
Speaker 4: you could get a hearing for the nominee Kevin worsh
Speaker 4: in the.
Speaker 1: Not so distant future. Do you think that that's feasible.
Speaker 6: Well, we could have a hearing all we want, but
Speaker 6: until the investigation is done. I still believe that the
Speaker 6: initial inquiry and the investigation was a flex to try
Speaker 6: and get the current chair to step aside. Chair Powell
Speaker 6: has a term as chair that expires in May. He
Speaker 6: also has a term that could extend for two more years.
Speaker 6: I have no intention allowing any FED Board nominee to
Speaker 6: move forward out of committee and to be confirmed until
Speaker 6: this matter is subtled. Well, this is foundational to FED independence,
Speaker 6: and I for one, I'm going to stand on the
Speaker 6: side of certainty and FED independence.
Speaker 7: Is what delivers certainty in our markets.
Speaker 2: So Senator is intriguing because we heard from the Treasury
Speaker 2: Secretary earlier on this morning speaking to the American press,
Speaker 2: and he said the following that I spoke with Republican
Speaker 2: senators early this week, and I think we have agreement
Speaker 2: to go ahead with the Wash hearing. Do you have
Speaker 2: an understanding of where he's getting that impression from.
Speaker 6: Well, you know, I've said that if they shouldn't confuse
Speaker 6: or conflate two issues, the suggestion that we should have
Speaker 6: an oversight hearing to see how well this building project
Speaker 6: with the FED has gone, It's fine with me. In fact,
Speaker 6: I think we should have that kind of oversight for
Speaker 6: the East Wing construction, the upfit of the air Force
Speaker 6: one that's kind of a mini air Force one because
Speaker 6: it can't fly out of US barners.
Speaker 7: All of that is just good governance oversight.
Speaker 6: None of that has anything to do with an investigation
Speaker 6: that I believe was dead on arrival. We are talking
Speaker 6: about two minutes of testimony that seven members of the
Speaker 6: Banking Committee, Republican members including the chair.
Speaker 7: Have all said did not constitute a crime.
Speaker 6: We've got a prosecutor who's not listening to the eye
Speaker 6: witnesses and continuing that's not productive, and I'm not going
Speaker 6: to I'm not going to allow it.
Speaker 2: Maybe they can commit.
Speaker 7: It's Democrats to vote with them, but as long as
Speaker 7: I'm the.
Speaker 6: Deciding vote, we can have mister Warsh, who I would
Speaker 6: love to be the next FED chair, but I'm not
Speaker 6: going to confirm the next FED chair until I can
Speaker 6: be absolutely certain that these sorts of flexes do not
Speaker 6: always have members of the Federal.
Speaker 7: Reserve Board or the Chair looking over.
Speaker 6: Their shoulder wondering when they get the call from some
Speaker 6: US attorney with a dream.
Speaker 2: The Senator, if you had the call from Treasury or
Speaker 2: from the White House about this, when was the last
Speaker 2: time you had the conversation on the issue.
Speaker 6: Well, I've had a conversation with the American people in
Speaker 6: c SPAN yesterday on the floor, and I don't think
Speaker 6: I was mincing words.
Speaker 7: I'm not really known for that.
Speaker 6: But if I need to make it very clear this
Speaker 6: is about an end for our resolution, I'll get the
Speaker 6: prosecutor the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 7: Provide me with evidence beyond the two.
Speaker 6: Minutes of testimony and the committing that seven Republican members
Speaker 6: said it was not criminal, it was not misleading the
Speaker 6: there was no criminal intent. It's like an indictment looking
Speaker 6: for a crime, and to me, it just it's at
Speaker 6: the edge.
Speaker 7: Of absurdity that I can't accept. And the only thing
Speaker 7: I know that I can do is.
Speaker 6: Exercise my right as an individual Senator to hold up
Speaker 6: future nominations until this investigation is done. But to the
Speaker 6: Assistant US Attorney bring me evidence beyond the two minutes
Speaker 6: has been rejected out of hand by members, by the
Speaker 6: majority of Republican members on the committee, or proved to
Speaker 6: me that there's been an instance where a referral. What's
Speaker 6: really odd about this? And I spoke about this on
Speaker 6: the Senate for yesterday.
Speaker 7: This is the first time that I can find where a.
Speaker 6: Prosecutor moves forward with an investigation without a referral from
Speaker 6: the chair or a member of the committee. Maybe somebody
Speaker 6: can prove me wrong, But if that prosecutor has compelling information,
Speaker 6: either the way they read that two minutes or something
Speaker 6: else that no one's aware of, let me see.
Speaker 2: It, Senator, before you go, time for one final question.
Speaker 2: You're in Munich. Let's finish when we starts it. Chancellor
Speaker 2: Marze just spoke moments ago and said the Transatlantic partnership
Speaker 2: is no longer self evident. Senatetor how received, how well
Speaker 2: received was your delegation in Munich?
Speaker 6: Well, you know we're going to have I think we're
Speaker 6: going to have a lively discussion here.
Speaker 7: I had someone ask me about JD.
Speaker 6: Vansa's vice president of Vance's speech last year. I said
Speaker 6: that I wouldn't have given that speech, but I would
Speaker 6: not have missed the opportunity to let my family of
Speaker 6: nations in NATO know that one of the reasons we're
Speaker 6: here is because of the two trillion dollar deficit over
Speaker 6: twenty years. Johnathan, can you imagine how much more ready
Speaker 6: we could be if all the demand signals that would
Speaker 6: have come from two trillion dollars in weapons and our
Speaker 6: mutual defense had actually been purchased by the countries of
Speaker 6: NATO who had failed even meet their minimum requirement.
Speaker 7: So I think there's frustration there that we.
Speaker 1: Need to get passed.
Speaker 6: But I am speaking I believe for the majority of
Speaker 6: Congress who who knows that the Natal Alliance is the
Speaker 6: most profound and impactful alliance and the history of mankind,
Speaker 6: and we stand behind it, and we will as we
Speaker 6: go through this discussion to get things back to normal.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you the best
Speaker 2: in markets, economics, and geopolitics. You can watch the show
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from six am to
Speaker 2: nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 2: or anywhere else you listen, and as always, on the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app.