Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane. Daily
Speaker 1: we bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg. Now
Speaker 1: a wonderful opportunity to speak to the fifteenth Chairman of
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve System, Janet Yellen. A FED chairs through
Speaker 1: some of the most difficult years of this nation. Of
Speaker 1: course we mentioned earlier her work on an American labor
Speaker 1: economy to bring it out of that slack of course,
Speaker 1: yelling of Yale of a time of Tobin and Stiglets,
Speaker 1: and now after the FED at the Brookings Institution with
Speaker 1: important work with a group of thirty on climate. I
Speaker 1: want to get to that chair yelling in a moment,
Speaker 1: but I really must ask about the weekend speculation of
Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary Yelling. If we were to get a Biden administration,
Speaker 1: would you be willing to serve for a President Biden? Um.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your asking and the notion that it's a
Speaker 1: job I can do, but I really have no comment
Speaker 1: on that. I'm sorry. Well, that would be good and we,
Speaker 1: of course I knew that would be the gracious answer
Speaker 1: from Janet yelling show Yellen away from the monetary discussion,
Speaker 1: and maybe we'll touch on that a bit. Here. We
Speaker 1: must speak about this important research you are steeped in.
Speaker 1: This long ago and far away. A Nobel laureate introduced
Speaker 1: us to auction theory speaking about Richards Scary and children's
Speaker 1: books at a Nobel Price speech in Stockholm. This is
Speaker 1: long ago and far away. You're very right. That was
Speaker 1: my Spause who won the Nobel prize, and um uh
Speaker 1: discussed the relevance of Richard's area to um his work.
Speaker 1: Mr Acker, last wonderful speech there that really advent with
Speaker 1: stiglets of what we're talking about here. Wilson and Milgram
Speaker 1: there at a small school across the Poncher yelling just
Speaker 1: to just took the trophy as well. Can auction theory
Speaker 1: help us solve climate change by fixing carbon pricing? I
Speaker 1: see no evidence that it can do it. Can we
Speaker 1: actually get to a legitimate, workable auction market for climate
Speaker 1: change through carbon pricing? Well, um let me let me say,
Speaker 1: referring to the group of thirty reports that we just
Speaker 1: put out. Um we urge governments to take the steps
Speaker 1: that are necessary to get a transition to nit zero,
Speaker 1: and carbon pricing is central to that. So we strongly
Speaker 1: believe that every government should price emissions. And uh, well
Speaker 1: that's not the only policy that's necessary. That is a
Speaker 1: critical um tool to create the right incentives for UM
Speaker 1: for a transition to KNIT zero. There are different ways
Speaker 1: of doing it. You said auction theory. So one way
Speaker 1: to do this is to limit emissions by requiring permits
Speaker 1: to amid greenhouse gases and uh, those they would create
Speaker 1: a market in which they would be priced. It's possible
Speaker 1: to auction the permits if the permits are auctions. I'm
Speaker 1: not aware of any country that's doing that now, but
Speaker 1: that would generate revenue that could be used for many
Speaker 1: different purposes, including compensating low income people. But a more
Speaker 1: straightforward way to do this, and it's what I would
Speaker 1: recommend for the United States that hopefully we will in
Speaker 1: the years ahead go in this direction, is simply to
Speaker 1: put in place a carbon tax. UM. A very efficient
Speaker 1: way to price carbon would be uh, to go to
Speaker 1: the mind head, the well um where where energy that
Speaker 1: creates carbon emissions enters the economy and to simply livy attacks.
Speaker 1: So UM, I think that's an easier and more efficient
Speaker 1: way than auctioning permits. But one way or another, UM,
Speaker 1: we think carbon pricing is important. With your report with
Speaker 1: Governor Carney and with all of the efforts Jacob Frankel
Speaker 1: and all of the Group of thirty. If we say
Speaker 1: that auction pricing has failed, where is the evidence that
Speaker 1: these societies will do a carbon tax? Are you optimi
Speaker 1: stick we can get a carbon tax initiated country to country. Well,
Speaker 1: different countries have taken different approaches, and what we're looking
Speaker 1: for is carbon pricing. UH. For the United States that
Speaker 1: doesn't have this in place, I would, and other countries
Speaker 1: that have not started going down this route, I think
Speaker 1: carbon carbon tax is a reasonable way to go. But
Speaker 1: UM auctioning off permits or simply putting in place a
Speaker 1: system where there needs to be a permit to admit.
Speaker 1: That's that's UM an approach that we see in many
Speaker 1: European countries, and we're not criticizing that is an alternative.
Speaker 1: Cherry Elen, As I was reading this report, I was
Speaker 1: struck by the firepower of the people who co authored this.
Speaker 1: It's who's who in Central banking weighing and on important policy,
Speaker 1: and I know you've been called on to weigh in
Speaker 1: on other important policy in the United States. In August,
Speaker 1: it was reported that you've had conversations with the Biden
Speaker 1: Harris camp about how to fix the economy going forward.
Speaker 1: Can you share anything from what you think we should
Speaker 1: do to get the economy back on track from here right? Well,
Speaker 1: let me say that I did meet with Biden and
Speaker 1: Harris and brief them about financial sector issues, but I'm
Speaker 1: not working with the campaign. UM. But you you asked
Speaker 1: me what I think we need to do to get
Speaker 1: the economy back on track. UM, so I would say
Speaker 1: what hits my list is dealing more effectively with the pandemic,
Speaker 1: with the health related issues, getting the infection level under
Speaker 1: control through contact tracing testing, UM, isolation of people who
Speaker 1: have it. I think we need a much more effective
Speaker 1: effort than we've had, and UM, if we have that
Speaker 1: will be good not only for health but for being
Speaker 1: able to open up the economy. And we've seen that
Speaker 1: in countries ranging from Germany to Korea to China that
Speaker 1: have been successful. And then we need UM support for
Speaker 1: the economy, both for monetary and fiscal policy and monetary
Speaker 1: policy has already done a huge amount. Fiscal policy response
Speaker 1: in the United States has been extremely impressive. But UM,
Speaker 1: actually it's it's much larger the fiscal support than what
Speaker 1: was done after the two thousand and eight nine financial crisis.
Speaker 1: But UM the fiscal support has now lapsed and UM
Speaker 1: so far spending has held up UM. Unemployed workers who
Speaker 1: got that extra six hundred dollars a week through the
Speaker 1: end of July UM they use that to stay current
Speaker 1: on their bills to support UM they're spending. They even
Speaker 1: stashed some of it away so that they've been able
Speaker 1: to get through this last couple of months and pay
Speaker 1: their bills. But it's running out, and I think we
Speaker 1: need to do that. And state and local governments also
Speaker 1: face huge budget shortfalls. I'm working on the task force
Speaker 1: with the governor of California to address the pandemic. They
Speaker 1: face a fifty four billion dollars shortfall this year. I
Speaker 1: think that's very important too. So in in the meantime,
Speaker 1: Steve Shoodo of Miszoojo just was on He said that
Speaker 1: if the if Congress were to pass a two trillion
Speaker 1: dollar fiscal support plan, that he expects the Federal Reserved
Speaker 1: potentially buy up all of that in order to help
Speaker 1: things along. Do you think that that's an advisable step?
Speaker 1: So the Federal Reserve's asset purchases, UM, they have not
Speaker 1: made clear their plans going forward, and I'm expecting them
Speaker 1: to offer more guidance. But their objective there is going
Speaker 1: to be to try to keep both long and short
Speaker 1: interest rates at low levels to support in economic recovery. UM.
Speaker 1: It is not their objective ever to directly try to
Speaker 1: help the federal government finance its um budget deficit, and
Speaker 1: that would be a very dangerous kind of support to provide.
Speaker 1: But I do expect I think asset purchases have worked there.
Speaker 1: They're holding down longer term rates, and I expect there
Speaker 1: to be ongoing purchases, but probably not geared to the
Speaker 1: federal deficit. Sure yell. And we are rebuilding our institutions
Speaker 1: out of this natural disaster. I want to go back
Speaker 1: to James Hope and a few years ago, who you
Speaker 1: took your PhD with, where he introduced with Nordhouse, the
Speaker 1: measure of our welfare system, just simply thinking about the
Speaker 1: welfare state within a capitalistic market. We now come up
Speaker 1: to where we are now with this historic election, and
Speaker 1: we've got the Democrats trying to get back to some
Speaker 1: form of social construct and Mr Trump and others with
Speaker 1: a lackey and individualistic nature as well. How do you
Speaker 1: perceive how we move forward with our new capitalism, our
Speaker 1: new welfare state, Given the fiscal deficits, given the trade
Speaker 1: deficit where it is, and given a monetary theory that
Speaker 1: seems to be extended and exhausted. What does the new
Speaker 1: system look like for you and the next few years. So, UM,
Speaker 1: that's a hard that's a very hard and comprehensive question,
Speaker 1: but I would save that I think fiscal policy needs
Speaker 1: to play an active role. UM. Once upon a time, UH,
Speaker 1: starting in the nineteen eighties, UM, there was a view
Speaker 1: that UM, the Fed can handle the job of keeping
Speaker 1: the economy operating at full employment, and fiscal policy should
Speaker 1: focus on allocative issues. And now we're faced with the
Speaker 1: world characterized by secular stagnation. There is a surfeit too
Speaker 1: much saving in the global economy, especially among developed countries,
Speaker 1: and weak investment demand, and it's been pushing down real
Speaker 1: rates of interest and depriving monetary policy of UM a
Speaker 1: lot of the ability it had to address um to
Speaker 1: address economic weakness. And uh, you know, I would never
Speaker 1: have imagined when two thousand and eight crisis hit that
Speaker 1: short rates would stay at zero for seven full years,
Speaker 1: and here we are back again with zero short rates.
Speaker 1: And of course there are unconventional tools as it purchases
Speaker 1: forward guidance that expand what monetary policy can do, but
Speaker 1: there are some limits and it's important for fiscal policy
Speaker 1: to um fill in that gap. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: I believe while the pandemic is still seriously affecting the economy,
Speaker 1: we need to continue extraordinary fiscal support. But even beyond that,
Speaker 1: I think it will be necessary. But a good side
Speaker 1: of low interest rates is that it reduces the interest
Speaker 1: burden of the debt, and I think it makes it possible.
Speaker 1: And it's not a short run phenomenon short rates. It's
Speaker 1: something that's going to probably be with us for many
Speaker 1: years to come, and we can afford to have more
Speaker 1: debt than we used to think was sustainable. Yellen, thank
Speaker 1: you so much, and most generous conversation, of course, and
Speaker 1: celebration of a group of thirty report with Governor Kearney
Speaker 1: on our place forward with climate control. The charge no
Speaker 1: principal Global Investors chief strategies seem were welcome to the
Speaker 1: goat rodeo. I'm sure that's what other people think. This
Speaker 1: is at the moment, seem as fantastic to see you.
Speaker 1: First question to you, I asked at the top of
Speaker 1: the hour, how much hinges on the next two weeks
Speaker 1: as you put togethers not that much? You know, we
Speaker 1: see this time. Sorry I'm discussing them. Yeah, we see
Speaker 1: this time and time again. You know, if you look
Speaker 1: at all the election years through time and actually you
Speaker 1: know the volatility tempt to ever way, the returns typically
Speaker 1: move with fundamentals. So at the end of all of this,
Speaker 1: won't you pass through the noise? The markets just go
Speaker 1: back to what really drive them, which, as we've seen
Speaker 1: this year, is going to be that demic and it's
Speaker 1: going to be central banks and a little bit of
Speaker 1: fiscal stimulats if we can see that. But those are
Speaker 1: the key drivers. It's not really going to be what
Speaker 1: happens in the next two weeks, Throve in the next
Speaker 1: three or four weeks, have long take SMA. We've been
Speaker 1: doing a lot on equity. Tell me what's tradeable and
Speaker 1: fixed income? Where he is a quote unquote opportunity in yield. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's a tough question at the moment. You know,
Speaker 1: we we have still liked investment grades, but of course
Speaker 1: we have been reducing some of our allocations. They've given
Speaker 1: then you're not getting too much. We actually like professed securities.
Speaker 1: You get a bit of a pickup um. It's still
Speaker 1: relatively safe area. So so there are some opportunities there,
Speaker 1: and of course we've been high yield. You have to
Speaker 1: be in the better part of that spectrum because you know,
Speaker 1: the economic recovery, it's slow, it's protracted, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of potholes ahead, and it's going to be those
Speaker 1: riskier companies that are going to see that playing out
Speaker 1: in So of course you have to be careful when
Speaker 1: we look at equity, as the story really has been
Speaker 1: do you buy into the rotation trade, the cyclical story
Speaker 1: rather than just big tech? Where do you stand on that?
Speaker 1: So we have maintained a pretty significant positioning to big
Speaker 1: tech through all of this. We still really like that sector. There's,
Speaker 1: you know, so much to be said that as long
Speaker 1: as you've got the ongoing pandemic, there's continued concentration of
Speaker 1: working from home and reliance on technology. It still plays
Speaker 1: out even the macro environment. You know, if you've got
Speaker 1: economic bank drop, which is a little bit risky as
Speaker 1: today is right now, then companies investors just needs companies
Speaker 1: with strong balances balance, it's positive cash flow, you're getting
Speaker 1: that from Big tex and of course with a low
Speaker 1: bond yield environment where we know that central banks are
Speaker 1: not moving any time soon. Um, I think everything plays
Speaker 1: out well now. Having said that, there are um, there
Speaker 1: are hurdles ahead. We have to think about regulations, we
Speaker 1: have to think about even the fact that they have
Speaker 1: to meet really really higher EARNIS expectations. Now, through all
Speaker 1: of that, I don't want to say we haven't got
Speaker 1: any exposure to cyclicals, because I think this is the
Speaker 1: time to start thinking about adding a bit more exposure,
Speaker 1: because if we're looking at a continued recovery, then cyclicals
Speaker 1: should do better next year. Seemen a recovery where as
Speaker 1: soon as you look at things right now momentum in
Speaker 1: the United States, Tom and I were just talking about that,
Speaker 1: a really good recovery. It looks like emerging in China
Speaker 1: and just nothing of the sort in Europe. Where do
Speaker 1: you want that cyclical exposure, so a little bit in
Speaker 1: the US. I mean you look at I agree that
Speaker 1: you know. Europe's just it's a perennial disappointment. Every time
Speaker 1: we think it can come through, something else comes along.
Speaker 1: And I'm sending right now, it's not an error which
Speaker 1: is looking particularly attractive. UM you said it emerging Asia.
Speaker 1: Anything which has got any kind of close relationship with China,
Speaker 1: UM and even the new sectors of technology there really
Speaker 1: should do well. So that's where I think that's cyclically
Speaker 1: exposure can come from, and of course from from a
Speaker 1: kind of a large cap. I think there is an
Speaker 1: opportunity here to raise your exposure to small up smash
Speaker 1: of principal club investor Simoth, thank you great to catch
Speaker 1: help me this morning. I've got a big wall. Your
Speaker 1: focus was forty seven TV networks on it. I got
Speaker 1: TV Mound in Paris, not that I understand a word
Speaker 1: of it, but I've got medals on Fox. I got
Speaker 1: Radcliffe of Intelligence with Marie over on Fox Biz. And
Speaker 1: I guess that's the kind to it for the administration.
Speaker 1: John where Senator McConnell, you see out of doing any
Speaker 1: of these interviews, Lada McConnell was talking about a package
Speaker 1: of skinny deal of something in the region of five
Speaker 1: six hundred billion dollars. I imagine he'll listen. I think
Speaker 1: he said that over the weekend. If they come to
Speaker 1: a bipartisan deal, he'll take a look at it. But
Speaker 1: it's not up to him, isn't it. Lady McConnell has
Speaker 1: got to get it through the Senate, and there's been
Speaker 1: no evidence the last several months that he has the
Speaker 1: votes in his core constituencies in that Senate. Right now,
Speaker 1: Tom to pass a bill of two trillion. We focus
Speaker 1: on the stimulus with Jonathan Lieber. He is with your
Speaker 1: Asia group and thrilled that he could join us this morning.
Speaker 1: Jonathan Lieber, you've written tersely on stimulus as well. Meadows
Speaker 1: Is is pounding the drum. What's the chance anybody's gonna
Speaker 1: listen to the drum and join the band. I think
Speaker 1: it's a little late in the game to get this
Speaker 1: done right now. You had some support for a really
Speaker 1: fairly large stimulus deal earlier in the summer, but with
Speaker 1: Trump's re elections campaign prospects cratering, he just doesn't have
Speaker 1: the stroke he had in July to push something through
Speaker 1: the Senate Republican Conference, so they are a much smaller
Speaker 1: number than he is. I think it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: really heavy lift to get anything close to the kind
Speaker 1: of deal Nuchan is talking about through the Senate right now.
Speaker 1: Are Kevin Surli sees the benefit to the president, he
Speaker 1: sees the benefit to moderate Democrats. Does the stimulus benefit
Speaker 1: Vice President Biden? No? I don't think so. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that Biden gets it done one way or
Speaker 1: the other, so it's basically neutral for him. But it's
Speaker 1: a risk that this is some kind of bipartisan deal
Speaker 1: President Trump strikes a couple of weeks before the election
Speaker 1: and that helps him. So if you're Biden or your Pelosi,
Speaker 1: do you really want to take that risk? I mean,
Speaker 1: can you imagine being Nancy Pelosi. You cut a deal
Speaker 1: with the president through two weeks before the election, and
Speaker 1: then he wins, You're gonna be the greatest goat in
Speaker 1: democratic political history. So I just don't think that this
Speaker 1: is something Pelosi really wants to do. I think it's
Speaker 1: a real risk for Biden if it happens. I'm sud naive, John.
Speaker 1: I thought that policy was about out pink the country,
Speaker 1: not about just winning the election, dice to go, fifteen
Speaker 1: days to go, John, and last time around, those polls
Speaker 1: narrowed aggressively in the President's favor. In the final two weeks,
Speaker 1: there's doubling down on the existing strategy, get it done.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a lot of differences between now and
Speaker 1: the biggest one being just the size and consistency of
Speaker 1: Biden's national lead. This guy's been between seven and nine
Speaker 1: points since he clinched the nomination. There were times in
Speaker 1: sixteen where Trump was within two of Hillary Clinton, and
Speaker 1: that's not even come close to happening now. What's unique
Speaker 1: about predicting this election is that the swing states are
Speaker 1: all closer than the national polls tell you. But this
Speaker 1: has not really been There's not been much variance in
Speaker 1: this election, so it would be really surprising to see
Speaker 1: it tightened suddenly without a major game change in the narrative,
Speaker 1: like a big screw up at the debates or something
Speaker 1: like that for Joe Biden. John. Let's say you're right.
Speaker 1: Let's say markets are right that president that President Trump
Speaker 1: loses the election, that former Vice President Biden wins, that
Speaker 1: we get some sort of blue wave. Our markets adequately
Speaker 1: pricing in the potential change to taxes and other fiscal
Speaker 1: approaches of a Democratic a majority Senate right now, given
Speaker 1: where people are positioning, are they are they really gaming
Speaker 1: this out correctly? Well? I think that the variable here
Speaker 1: is that most of our clients we talked to are
Speaker 1: expecting there to be a really large stimulus in Q
Speaker 1: one of next year. And that happens, then sure, that's
Speaker 1: positive for the economy. That's a big fiscal stimulus. That's
Speaker 1: probably good for earnings. But once you start looking through that,
Speaker 1: you look out six to twelve eighteen months, that's when
Speaker 1: you start seeing the tax increases and the new levels
Speaker 1: of regulations starting to bite. And I would expect markets
Speaker 1: maybe a little slow to catch up to that, given
Speaker 1: that there's going to be this flood of cash in
Speaker 1: the first half half of next year. So you're uniquely
Speaker 1: positioned to talk about this because you help you helped
Speaker 1: craft tax policy under former President Barack Obama's regime, which
Speaker 1: sectors which types of companies could get hit hardest by
Speaker 1: a new attacks regime such as the like that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is proposing. Well, the biggest threats that Biden's making
Speaker 1: are to US multinational companies so you're talking about raising
Speaker 1: the corporate tax rate blow where it was during the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, but higher than it is today. But I
Speaker 1: think in some ways more importantly, you're talking about changing
Speaker 1: the way that they tax overseas earnings in the US,
Speaker 1: and that's gonna make US business is less competitive, make
Speaker 1: it harder for them compete in foreign markets. And I
Speaker 1: think that you know, in a year or two from now,
Speaker 1: once we're under this regime, we're gonna be back to
Speaker 1: the battle days of talking about inversions and losing companies
Speaker 1: to foreign UH jurisdictions. There's gonna be rules in place
Speaker 1: to stop that from happening. But I do think that
Speaker 1: that's a bad look for the multinationals in the US.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna ask this question, Jonathan, very quickly here and
Speaker 1: very important on the first Wednesday of November. Whatever the
Speaker 1: results are, everybody's gonna dash to two thousand twenty two.
Speaker 1: What is that gonna look like? Well, I think the Democrats,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the Demo Guts are fairly well
Speaker 1: positioned if you look at the Senate. They also have
Speaker 1: the opportunity to redistrict coming out of the census, in
Speaker 1: which should help them in the House. But you know,
Speaker 1: the historical pattern here is that presidents lose seats in
Speaker 1: their first midterm elections because of the backlash. So a
Speaker 1: lot of that question comes on how much overreach you
Speaker 1: see from the first two years of a Biden administration
Speaker 1: and what's so important here, John As I know you
Speaker 1: tried to redistrict me out of Bloomberg surveillance three or
Speaker 1: four years ago. I mean, you know he's talking to
Speaker 1: John Farrell LL. He's absolutely talking to making redistricting down
Speaker 1: White John, I'm working on it. Jerryman, get that one
Speaker 1: day Salem mass Science. You're not directly on the pandemic
Speaker 1: from the JOHNS. Hompkins University. Johnshrew Sharpstein, Well, the first
Speaker 1: of all, I point out that there really, at least
Speaker 1: states aren't lockdowns at the moment. People are not recommending knockdowns,
Speaker 1: They're recommending reasonable steps in vigilance, and you know, not
Speaker 1: pretending that the virus isn't here. And I remind them
Speaker 1: that two fifteen thousand people have already died in the
Speaker 1: United States and it is not hard at all to
Speaker 1: imagine another two d fifteen thousand, and then another two
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand dying if we decide that we're just gonna
Speaker 1: let everybody get the virus um, which seems to be
Speaker 1: some people's strategy, but really is the strategy of giving
Speaker 1: up what we know about the Visor vaccine. It seems
Speaker 1: that they actually would be ready to, you know, start
Speaker 1: for an application in November. November is a couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: you know, a way are the first ones to get
Speaker 1: it right, But we have no idea because they haven't
Speaker 1: reported the studies yet. I think what they're saying is
Speaker 1: that they will have the first read of the studies
Speaker 1: UM with including data on safety, sometime in November, and
Speaker 1: I certainly hope that it's positive, that it looks good,
Speaker 1: and that the FDA will look at it carefully, convene
Speaker 1: an advisory committee, and then we'll all be able to
Speaker 1: look at the data. And if that happens, I think
Speaker 1: we'll at least have a one vaccine, which is great,
Speaker 1: and then there will be other UM studies that will
Speaker 1: read out and we'll have a chance to get more.
Speaker 1: How do you you know, convince citizens that we're not
Speaker 1: doing this too fast, that it's you know, the track
Speaker 1: record of safety that will dictate the timeline. Well, I
Speaker 1: think the stout and Drug Administration has a very important
Speaker 1: role to play, as do all political leaders in saying, well,
Speaker 1: the study is done, let's take it one step at
Speaker 1: a time, and you know, in short order, convene independent experts,
Speaker 1: release upunto the data, allow people to look at it
Speaker 1: and give you a little bit of room for people
Speaker 1: to really take a look and say, wow, this really
Speaker 1: works and it has a very strong safety record. And
Speaker 1: if people do that, I think the medical professional feel confident,
Speaker 1: Many people will feel confident, and it will be the
Speaker 1: science driving the discussion rather than people hopping up and down,
Speaker 1: you know, and just pointing and saying, you know, just
Speaker 1: take the vaccine. That's what we don't want. Why we
Speaker 1: in so many new cases in the US and Europe?
Speaker 1: Is it a second wave or is it seasonal? Or
Speaker 1: is it because some of the restrictions were relaxed too
Speaker 1: soon or by too much? Is there an all of
Speaker 1: the above option? I mean, I think all of those
Speaker 1: things are contributing. Um, you know, clearly there's pandemic fatigue.
Speaker 1: Clearly there were restrictions that were some restrictions were relaxed quickly,
Speaker 1: and I just think in general, the weather is probably
Speaker 1: not helping because describing people indoors and that's why we're
Speaker 1: going to get a wave that that is exactly what's
Speaker 1: happening now. And the question is how big a wave
Speaker 1: are we going to get and can we get control
Speaker 1: of it um And that is really going to depend
Speaker 1: on leadership, and it's going to depend on people's ability
Speaker 1: to really, you know, go back to the basics of
Speaker 1: what kept this under control. Joshua Sure stud the Johns
Speaker 1: Hopkins University on a Monday on a Monday, really changeable
Speaker 1: for the pandemic as well. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio.