WEBVTT - Dollar to Weaken on Mexico Trade Tensions: Nordvig

0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:05.320
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Penl podcast. I'm Paul swing you

0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:07.760
<v Speaker 1>along with my co host Lisa Brahmawitz. Each day we

0:00:07.880 --> 0:00:10.399
<v Speaker 1>bring you the most noteworthy and useful interviews for you

0:00:10.520 --> 0:00:12.640
<v Speaker 1>and your money, whether at the grocery store or the

0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:15.960
<v Speaker 1>trading floor. Find a Bloomberg Penl podcast on Apple podcast

0:00:16.120 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>or wherever you listen to podcasts, as well as at

0:00:18.079 --> 0:00:23.400
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg dot com. We'll trade tensions between the US and

0:00:23.440 --> 0:00:27.200
<v Speaker 1>some of its leading trading partners continued to escalate. First

0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:30.480
<v Speaker 1>it was China, uh, then Mexico and now India. To

0:00:30.560 --> 0:00:32.280
<v Speaker 1>get a sense of where we go next, we welcome

0:00:32.280 --> 0:00:36.400
<v Speaker 1>our next guest, end Nordvig, founder in CEO of Exante

0:00:36.560 --> 0:00:40.920
<v Speaker 1>Data LLC, also a chief strategist there at Exante based

0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 1>in New York City, YenS, Thanks so much for joining us. Um.

0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 1>It just seems like these concentric circles of ever growing

0:00:47.640 --> 0:00:50.839
<v Speaker 1>trade tensions continue to widen. What is your sense of

0:00:50.880 --> 0:00:56.880
<v Speaker 1>how this will play out for US economic growth? Yeah,

0:00:56.920 --> 0:00:59.760
<v Speaker 1>I have to say it's rudy Stantin to be a

0:00:59.800 --> 0:01:02.960
<v Speaker 1>so a big compounding effect in the sense that, okay,

0:01:03.080 --> 0:01:06.880
<v Speaker 1>maybe the US economy could sort of take one trade

0:01:06.920 --> 0:01:09.320
<v Speaker 1>war but when you start to have multiple trade wars

0:01:09.360 --> 0:01:13.240
<v Speaker 1>at the same time, it becomes much harder to handle.

0:01:13.360 --> 0:01:19.959
<v Speaker 1>So obviously, having a small amount of tariffs on as

0:01:20.000 --> 0:01:23.240
<v Speaker 1>a small portion of trade is one thing, and we

0:01:23.360 --> 0:01:26.959
<v Speaker 1>had that initially with the steel terroriffs. But we're starting

0:01:27.000 --> 0:01:30.120
<v Speaker 1>to look at a situation where we could have tariffs

0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:34.600
<v Speaker 1>on all imports from China. And the process that we're

0:01:34.640 --> 0:01:38.080
<v Speaker 1>in now with Mexico starts from a low level of terrorists,

0:01:38.120 --> 0:01:42.039
<v Speaker 1>but it is potentially on all goods ramping up to

0:01:43.160 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 1>so if this goes the wrong way, we're really looking

0:01:47.160 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 1>at a situation where you have tariffs on a very,

0:01:50.120 --> 0:01:54.800
<v Speaker 1>very big number of imports. And most of the research

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:56.920
<v Speaker 1>has coming out on how this feed through into the

0:01:56.960 --> 0:02:00.880
<v Speaker 1>economy suggests that US consumers pay really the bulk of

0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:03.640
<v Speaker 1>the bill, and that's how you you get a really

0:02:03.720 --> 0:02:06.880
<v Speaker 1>big negative impact on the US economy. What's interesting to

0:02:06.960 --> 0:02:10.040
<v Speaker 1>me and is where the havens have been. I mean,

0:02:10.040 --> 0:02:13.440
<v Speaker 1>we've seen people flood into the dollar, the broad Dollar

0:02:13.600 --> 0:02:18.160
<v Speaker 1>index gaining about a half a percentage point last month. Meanwhile,

0:02:18.200 --> 0:02:21.200
<v Speaker 1>we're also seeing people flood into US treasury, so US

0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:24.720
<v Speaker 1>the sort of biggest beneficiary. UH, so far do you

0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:28.400
<v Speaker 1>think that's going to continue. Yes. I think when you

0:02:28.480 --> 0:02:33.400
<v Speaker 1>had the US China tension really driving things, it made

0:02:33.440 --> 0:02:36.839
<v Speaker 1>some sense that there was a sort of positive dollar

0:02:36.840 --> 0:02:40.160
<v Speaker 1>effect for a period of time, and that was linked

0:02:40.160 --> 0:02:42.000
<v Speaker 1>to the fact that, Okay, China is a big part

0:02:42.000 --> 0:02:45.720
<v Speaker 1>of the global economy, so the global growth situation with

0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:48.240
<v Speaker 1>the terra rate and also the Chinese currency is such

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:50.600
<v Speaker 1>a big drive of global currency markets that if the

0:02:50.680 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 1>Chinese currency was weakening, it was going to essentially push

0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:57.560
<v Speaker 1>a lot of other currencies down with it and sort

0:02:57.560 --> 0:03:00.399
<v Speaker 1>of implicitly generate dollar strength. But I think one once

0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:05.480
<v Speaker 1>you escalate the trade war to include Mexico, it becomes

0:03:05.480 --> 0:03:07.960
<v Speaker 1>different because number one day, the hit to the U

0:03:08.040 --> 0:03:12.839
<v Speaker 1>s economy is disproportionate larger, in part because Mexico has

0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:16.720
<v Speaker 1>more imports from the US that they can retaliate against,

0:03:17.120 --> 0:03:19.799
<v Speaker 1>but also just because those two effects start to stack

0:03:19.919 --> 0:03:22.120
<v Speaker 1>up to on top of each other and and the

0:03:22.200 --> 0:03:25.799
<v Speaker 1>FED really is forced to respond more forcefully. And that's

0:03:25.800 --> 0:03:29.120
<v Speaker 1>what you're started to see obviously in FED pricing having

0:03:29.120 --> 0:03:32.680
<v Speaker 1>moved very aggressively. So now not only are we pricing

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>a FED cut by September, but we're really starting to

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:38.280
<v Speaker 1>pry a high probability that the Fed will be forced

0:03:38.320 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 1>to move sooner than that. It's a pretty extraordinarily quick shift.

0:03:42.360 --> 0:03:45.160
<v Speaker 1>And the rate moves are now such that that the

0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:48.280
<v Speaker 1>dollar is starting to take a hit, And I think,

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:51.720
<v Speaker 1>right this so and I think the problem is that

0:03:51.760 --> 0:03:53.720
<v Speaker 1>we've we've come from a period where the dollar has

0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:57.720
<v Speaker 1>been strong for about a year, So momentum starts to turn,

0:03:58.440 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 1>there could be a lot of technical adjust ones that

0:04:00.480 --> 0:04:02.960
<v Speaker 1>that can really put the dollar on quite a bit

0:04:03.000 --> 0:04:05.680
<v Speaker 1>of pressure. And today might be a really important day

0:04:05.680 --> 0:04:09.200
<v Speaker 1>because the euros down to move. Gold is having a

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:11.880
<v Speaker 1>very big move today, which is typically a reflection of

0:04:11.920 --> 0:04:15.120
<v Speaker 1>the broader dollar direction. So it's a quite important day

0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:17.839
<v Speaker 1>for the currency market today, I would argue. So, yeah,

0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:20.679
<v Speaker 1>staying with the currency markets, the when we think about China,

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>in particular the trade tensions there to what extent I mean,

0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:27.320
<v Speaker 1>historically the Japanese yen has been perceived as a safe haven.

0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:31.040
<v Speaker 1>Do you still consider that to be the case? Yes,

0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:35.000
<v Speaker 1>I think the yen has has clearly participated in this

0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:39.080
<v Speaker 1>UH dynamic over the last few sessions where the dollar

0:04:39.160 --> 0:04:43.920
<v Speaker 1>is trading on the back foot, and that has generated

0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>a decent size move. Thow on dollar yen. It's not

0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 1>like a big break from the range we've seen the

0:04:49.400 --> 0:04:51.080
<v Speaker 1>last couple of years. We've sort of been in a

0:04:51.800 --> 0:04:54.640
<v Speaker 1>in a one oh five one of fifteen range, which

0:04:54.640 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 1>is relatively now a range over the last two three years.

0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:00.560
<v Speaker 1>So the big question is whether we're gonna really break

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:04.120
<v Speaker 1>out of that range. And I think there's two big

0:05:04.200 --> 0:05:07.480
<v Speaker 1>questions that The one question is, okay, a Japanese investor

0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:10.840
<v Speaker 1>is going to start to hitch the US assets Differently

0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:13.680
<v Speaker 1>if we're looking at potentially a big slow adown in

0:05:13.800 --> 0:05:17.080
<v Speaker 1>US growth and the fail actually cutting rates, So that's

0:05:17.120 --> 0:05:19.599
<v Speaker 1>something that that certainly will come into play if if

0:05:19.839 --> 0:05:23.480
<v Speaker 1>the FED really delivers and they carry involved in in

0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:26.320
<v Speaker 1>in this trade and therefore the cost of hedging comes down.

0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:28.840
<v Speaker 1>And then the other thing that that's really important to

0:05:28.880 --> 0:05:32.760
<v Speaker 1>the end is Japanese companies have been on a bit

0:05:32.839 --> 0:05:35.280
<v Speaker 1>of a buying spree in terms of buying up other

0:05:35.360 --> 0:05:38.800
<v Speaker 1>companies around the world m and a activity that could

0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:41.440
<v Speaker 1>be in question if we have a real sort of

0:05:41.480 --> 0:05:45.359
<v Speaker 1>tense global environment, and that would also see the end

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:48.480
<v Speaker 1>strength and if that outflow stops. So I think there's

0:05:48.480 --> 0:05:51.080
<v Speaker 1>a chance we can break out of this range. The

0:05:51.360 --> 0:05:53.560
<v Speaker 1>big thing to watch in the short term is is

0:05:53.640 --> 0:05:58.080
<v Speaker 1>this theme of escalation sticking, Like are we going to

0:05:58.160 --> 0:06:01.000
<v Speaker 1>have the escalation on June ten with the tariffs actually

0:06:01.040 --> 0:06:05.160
<v Speaker 1>coming into effect in relation to Mexico, and then are

0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:09.040
<v Speaker 1>we going to have some kind of positive headlines at

0:06:09.040 --> 0:06:11.400
<v Speaker 1>the G twenty meeting when when it takes place in

0:06:11.680 --> 0:06:14.200
<v Speaker 1>Japan at the end of the month, or are we

0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 1>just going to literally move to the full blown trade

0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 1>war versus China. I think those are the really key

0:06:18.720 --> 0:06:21.040
<v Speaker 1>things to watch there. How much for the dollar weaken

0:06:21.120 --> 0:06:25.240
<v Speaker 1>in your view? So I think if if the FED

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:29.880
<v Speaker 1>is really delivering cuts here in coming months, and we

0:06:30.000 --> 0:06:36.200
<v Speaker 1>have an environment where where perhaps the Chinese actually hold

0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:39.360
<v Speaker 1>their currency, so that's a key one. But if the

0:06:39.440 --> 0:06:42.400
<v Speaker 1>Chinese don't allow their currency to move, then I think

0:06:42.440 --> 0:06:45.680
<v Speaker 1>we're in an environment where the dollar can weaken meaningfully.

0:06:45.680 --> 0:06:50.159
<v Speaker 1>But if the Chinese allow their currency to break seven,

0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:54.400
<v Speaker 1>so a depreciation beyond what they've allowed in recent years,

0:06:55.040 --> 0:06:58.320
<v Speaker 1>then you have a sort of tricky situation with as

0:06:58.960 --> 0:07:02.880
<v Speaker 1>dollar bearish impulse from the FED, but actually accounts of

0:07:03.000 --> 0:07:05.440
<v Speaker 1>force from the direction of the Chinese currency. So it's

0:07:05.560 --> 0:07:09.120
<v Speaker 1>absolutely crucial whether the Chinese are going to hold the

0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:12.640
<v Speaker 1>currency here as they've done in recent weeks, or whether

0:07:12.680 --> 0:07:15.400
<v Speaker 1>they're going to allow a break of seven if we

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:19.400
<v Speaker 1>move to a full blown trade war. So yeah, it's

0:07:19.440 --> 0:07:23.160
<v Speaker 1>just given the uncertainty surrounding global trade, are there pockets

0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:28.440
<v Speaker 1>of relative safety that you're looking at in terms of currencies? Um, well,

0:07:28.600 --> 0:07:31.000
<v Speaker 1>I think I think one thing that's been very interesting

0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:33.640
<v Speaker 1>over the last week or so that I actually think

0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:39.120
<v Speaker 1>can continue is that we're now seeing that emerging market

0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:42.800
<v Speaker 1>currencies that had a really bad year over the last

0:07:42.880 --> 0:07:51.120
<v Speaker 1>year or so can actually start to perform better. So, um,

0:07:51.160 --> 0:07:54.160
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a situation where we have a sort of

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:59.520
<v Speaker 1>bearish positioning in e M space that is now perhaps

0:07:59.520 --> 0:08:02.600
<v Speaker 1>too bare if we have a much low environment for

0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:06.160
<v Speaker 1>global yields, So I think EM currencies can start to

0:08:06.200 --> 0:08:09.640
<v Speaker 1>ironically do better, especially relative to other risk asses. So

0:08:09.680 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 1>for example, if to compare with the S and P,

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:15.200
<v Speaker 1>I think currencies can do better. Nord Vig, thank you

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 1>so much for being with us. A really interesting call

0:08:17.280 --> 0:08:19.960
<v Speaker 1>there about how emerging market currencies will do well as

0:08:20.000 --> 0:08:23.400
<v Speaker 1>yields continue to go lower here in the United States.

0:08:23.480 --> 0:08:27.080
<v Speaker 1>YenS nord vigas founder and chief executive officer of Exante Data,

0:08:27.280 --> 0:08:44.760
<v Speaker 1>also chief strategist at Elexante Advisors. There's been a market

0:08:45.000 --> 0:08:47.920
<v Speaker 1>shift in sentiment from oh, China and the US will

0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:50.320
<v Speaker 1>come to some sort of deal to what will it

0:08:50.400 --> 0:08:53.480
<v Speaker 1>protracted trade war look like? Joining us now to think

0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:57.160
<v Speaker 1>about that is Carl Weinberg, Founder in chief international economist

0:08:57.200 --> 0:09:01.200
<v Speaker 1>at High Frequency Economics. Carl, let's start and fast forward

0:09:01.480 --> 0:09:04.880
<v Speaker 1>making some assumptions that trade wars rage on, the market

0:09:05.120 --> 0:09:09.079
<v Speaker 1>keeps declining, and an economic downturn ensues. What does that

0:09:09.160 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 1>economic downturn look like? Well, good morning, Lisa Um. You know,

0:09:13.760 --> 0:09:17.240
<v Speaker 1>the economic downturn that we're looking at worldwide right now

0:09:17.280 --> 0:09:19.840
<v Speaker 1>is a little bit broader than trade, but than the

0:09:20.000 --> 0:09:22.640
<v Speaker 1>trade wars, but it all has its roots in trade,

0:09:22.640 --> 0:09:25.560
<v Speaker 1>which is now flatter declining depending on the metric you

0:09:25.559 --> 0:09:29.640
<v Speaker 1>look at worldwide, and you know, companies that export are

0:09:29.679 --> 0:09:33.640
<v Speaker 1>the ones that are affected. First. Tariffs affect consumers make

0:09:33.679 --> 0:09:36.120
<v Speaker 1>them a little bit less reluctant to buy stuff because

0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:39.040
<v Speaker 1>they have less disposable income, is they're they're spending power

0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:42.040
<v Speaker 1>goes down. But the first reel hit is probably going

0:09:42.080 --> 0:09:44.000
<v Speaker 1>to be on the side of corporations that are going

0:09:44.040 --> 0:09:46.880
<v Speaker 1>to face supply chain issues. They're going to face cost

0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:51.120
<v Speaker 1>issues and then that will lead to financial market implications. So,

0:09:51.200 --> 0:09:55.679
<v Speaker 1>Dr Winberg, we got some disappointing US manufacturing data out today,

0:09:55.960 --> 0:09:58.080
<v Speaker 1>give us a sense of to the extent that these

0:09:58.120 --> 0:10:02.760
<v Speaker 1>trade skirmishes uncertainties continue, maybe even expand. If you think

0:10:02.800 --> 0:10:05.880
<v Speaker 1>about you know, India as well now being in the crosshairs,

0:10:06.280 --> 0:10:09.320
<v Speaker 1>how do you think the manufacturing community around the world

0:10:09.480 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 1>will respond, Good morning, Paul. Yes, everybody has got to

0:10:13.280 --> 0:10:16.920
<v Speaker 1>be alarmed by this because the expansion of the U. S.

0:10:16.960 --> 0:10:20.800
<v Speaker 1>Administration's tariff i'll call a tariff aggression to borrow language

0:10:20.800 --> 0:10:26.240
<v Speaker 1>from the Chinese UM basically undermines the confidence that companies

0:10:26.280 --> 0:10:29.920
<v Speaker 1>of all kinds all around the world face and making

0:10:29.960 --> 0:10:32.640
<v Speaker 1>business plans and decisions. They don't really know the cost

0:10:32.679 --> 0:10:35.040
<v Speaker 1>structure that they're going to face, they don't really know

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:38.040
<v Speaker 1>the trade and the tariff regime, and as the FedEx

0:10:38.080 --> 0:10:40.600
<v Speaker 1>example indicates, they don't even know if they're going to

0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:45.120
<v Speaker 1>be constrained in their business. Enterprises and companies that resist

0:10:45.800 --> 0:10:49.480
<v Speaker 1>the tariff advances by the United States, the tariff increases.

0:10:49.520 --> 0:10:52.719
<v Speaker 1>So it's a general role of uncertainty, it's a role

0:10:52.760 --> 0:10:56.640
<v Speaker 1>of profit compression, and it's certainly in these uncertain times,

0:10:56.640 --> 0:10:59.240
<v Speaker 1>it's one that causes companies to cut back on investment

0:10:59.440 --> 0:11:01.839
<v Speaker 1>until the all clears, and of course that's always bad

0:11:01.880 --> 0:11:04.640
<v Speaker 1>for the world economy. You were saying earlier that there

0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:08.880
<v Speaker 1>will be financial market implications. Basically, the market's going to

0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:11.120
<v Speaker 1>sell off. Risk assets are going to sell off in

0:11:11.320 --> 0:11:16.319
<v Speaker 1>this scenario. How much is this going to be a crash? Like, yeah, Well,

0:11:16.320 --> 0:11:18.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, I was listening to Bloomberg Radio as I

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:20.640
<v Speaker 1>was driving into the office this morning and heard you

0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:24.080
<v Speaker 1>guys talking about individual companies and the impacts that this

0:11:24.200 --> 0:11:27.079
<v Speaker 1>is having on their earnings forecasts, on their profit forecast,

0:11:27.400 --> 0:11:30.560
<v Speaker 1>on their general rural view of the world in there,

0:11:30.720 --> 0:11:33.559
<v Speaker 1>and their guidance to markets. So this is really how

0:11:33.640 --> 0:11:36.880
<v Speaker 1>it begins, you know, crashes. You know, I'm not in

0:11:36.920 --> 0:11:39.440
<v Speaker 1>the business of predicting crashes. You know, I don't think

0:11:39.480 --> 0:11:41.839
<v Speaker 1>we have to have a stock market crash. The stock

0:11:41.880 --> 0:11:45.080
<v Speaker 1>market is certainly high enough that some kind of correction

0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:48.840
<v Speaker 1>is probably coming anyway. This just increases the odds of

0:11:48.880 --> 0:11:51.280
<v Speaker 1>that happening. But a crash, you know that that's not

0:11:51.400 --> 0:11:54.000
<v Speaker 1>my domain to predict it. I don't have anything on

0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:57.200
<v Speaker 1>my horizon that will cause a crash. Dr Weinberg, I

0:11:57.200 --> 0:12:01.640
<v Speaker 1>think I have a straightforward question here. Who pays for tariffs? Oh,

0:12:01.720 --> 0:12:04.800
<v Speaker 1>that's a really straightforward question, very refreshing also because the

0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:08.199
<v Speaker 1>Trump administration has it all wrong when they raise tariffs

0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:11.840
<v Speaker 1>on things that come from China. You pay the tariffs, right,

0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:15.000
<v Speaker 1>not the Chinese. Now, the Chinese may lose themselves to

0:12:15.040 --> 0:12:18.400
<v Speaker 1>the United States, but since the exports are growing between

0:12:18.440 --> 0:12:21.080
<v Speaker 1>oh say, five and ten percent per year anyhow, they're

0:12:21.080 --> 0:12:23.120
<v Speaker 1>probably going to sell whatever they don't sell to you

0:12:23.200 --> 0:12:27.480
<v Speaker 1>to somebody else and um. In terms of the counterfeariling tariffs,

0:12:27.720 --> 0:12:30.559
<v Speaker 1>the Chinese have been very careful to tariff things for

0:12:30.640 --> 0:12:33.479
<v Speaker 1>which they consumers at home have a lot of substitutes,

0:12:33.520 --> 0:12:36.600
<v Speaker 1>like soybeans. Think by soybeans from any number of countries

0:12:36.600 --> 0:12:39.160
<v Speaker 1>in the world. They just buy less from the U. S. Farmer,

0:12:39.440 --> 0:12:41.440
<v Speaker 1>and the U. S. Farmer is the one who pays

0:12:41.880 --> 0:12:43.760
<v Speaker 1>the tariff. So at the end of the day, when

0:12:43.760 --> 0:12:46.200
<v Speaker 1>you go out to buy your iPad and you can't

0:12:46.200 --> 0:12:49.079
<v Speaker 1>buy it from any source other than China, you end

0:12:49.120 --> 0:12:51.760
<v Speaker 1>up paying the tariff. Your income to spend on other

0:12:51.800 --> 0:12:54.440
<v Speaker 1>things is reduced, and you're the one who then has

0:12:54.480 --> 0:12:58.120
<v Speaker 1>the vote to determine whether or not this regime is

0:12:58.120 --> 0:13:01.679
<v Speaker 1>going to continue. So one sort of theory, and President

0:13:01.679 --> 0:13:04.800
<v Speaker 1>Trump has put this out, is that eventually companies will

0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:08.480
<v Speaker 1>rejigger their supply chains so they don't rely on countries

0:13:08.720 --> 0:13:11.200
<v Speaker 1>that are the most tariff And this is sort of

0:13:11.200 --> 0:13:14.760
<v Speaker 1>the point of putting on these levies. I guess my

0:13:14.880 --> 0:13:16.880
<v Speaker 1>question is, you know, how do you respond to people

0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:19.040
<v Speaker 1>who say, look, this is temporary in order to get

0:13:19.400 --> 0:13:23.719
<v Speaker 1>the trading situation more fair, and then the US will

0:13:23.760 --> 0:13:26.679
<v Speaker 1>prosper as a result of it. A Lisa, you sound

0:13:26.679 --> 0:13:28.839
<v Speaker 1>like a Wall Street economist. You know, at the end

0:13:28.840 --> 0:13:30.800
<v Speaker 1>of the day, everything's going to be all right. But

0:13:30.920 --> 0:13:33.480
<v Speaker 1>until we get there, all right, we have to survive,

0:13:33.800 --> 0:13:36.640
<v Speaker 1>al right. A company who supply chain is interrupted today

0:13:36.960 --> 0:13:39.679
<v Speaker 1>has to live until tomorrow to be able to take

0:13:39.720 --> 0:13:43.199
<v Speaker 1>advantages of whatever is coming better and tomorrow. We economists

0:13:43.200 --> 0:13:49.240
<v Speaker 1>are always guilty of ignoring transition costs and transition obstacles

0:13:49.600 --> 0:13:52.840
<v Speaker 1>as we talk about one new situation being better than another.

0:13:53.120 --> 0:13:55.280
<v Speaker 1>You know, maybe we will or maybe we won't be

0:13:55.280 --> 0:13:57.840
<v Speaker 1>better off tomorrow. We can debate that forever. But for

0:13:57.880 --> 0:14:00.120
<v Speaker 1>a car company that has to source parts from a

0:14:00.160 --> 0:14:02.520
<v Speaker 1>country that can no longer trade with or at a

0:14:02.559 --> 0:14:06.480
<v Speaker 1>twenty higher costs. That's a problem for survival today. That's

0:14:06.520 --> 0:14:09.800
<v Speaker 1>a problem for pricing today, for profits today, for making

0:14:09.840 --> 0:14:13.000
<v Speaker 1>payroll today, for hiring and firing workers today. And that's

0:14:13.040 --> 0:14:15.880
<v Speaker 1>really what we're talking about in the financial markets, isn't it.

0:14:15.880 --> 0:14:20.520
<v Speaker 1>It's today? So Dr Weinberg, are the particular industries that

0:14:20.560 --> 0:14:22.800
<v Speaker 1>you think are most at risk here? In? It's just

0:14:22.880 --> 0:14:27.080
<v Speaker 1>a rising and trade tension environment. Um is there anything

0:14:27.080 --> 0:14:29.840
<v Speaker 1>particularly that I think investor should be looking out for. Well,

0:14:29.840 --> 0:14:31.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, I can hide behind my role as a

0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:34.600
<v Speaker 1>macro economist and say that I don't look at industries,

0:14:34.880 --> 0:14:37.280
<v Speaker 1>but as a macro economist, what I can say is

0:14:37.320 --> 0:14:42.000
<v Speaker 1>that pretty much every industry, whether it's manufacturing or services,

0:14:42.240 --> 0:14:45.840
<v Speaker 1>today has gone global. Pretty much all industries, pretty much

0:14:45.880 --> 0:14:48.440
<v Speaker 1>all companies have some kind of linkage to the rest

0:14:48.440 --> 0:14:51.840
<v Speaker 1>of the world, and therefore every company is vulnerable to

0:14:52.320 --> 0:14:57.480
<v Speaker 1>um uh these uh this tariff regime and um I

0:14:57.520 --> 0:15:00.720
<v Speaker 1>can't even think of any exceptions of a pure domestic

0:15:01.400 --> 0:15:04.960
<v Speaker 1>company that purely sources things domestically. I mean, even if

0:15:04.960 --> 0:15:07.320
<v Speaker 1>you just use a laptop computer to do your books.

0:15:07.360 --> 0:15:10.440
<v Speaker 1>You know, Joe the plumber is vulnerable to higher tariffs

0:15:10.480 --> 0:15:13.200
<v Speaker 1>on that computer that he does his books on because

0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:17.080
<v Speaker 1>of the tariff things. So we're all subject to this

0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:20.320
<v Speaker 1>in one way or another, all industries, al sectors, all people,

0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:23.040
<v Speaker 1>no place to hide. One thing that I find interesting

0:15:23.320 --> 0:15:25.720
<v Speaker 1>is the question of who's going to suffer more, the

0:15:25.840 --> 0:15:29.960
<v Speaker 1>US or emerging markets, including China. We have PIMCO coming

0:15:29.960 --> 0:15:32.680
<v Speaker 1>out and saying investors are underestimating the value in emerging

0:15:32.680 --> 0:15:36.000
<v Speaker 1>market stocks. Do you think that right now developing markets

0:15:36.000 --> 0:15:40.280
<v Speaker 1>are going to be less hard hit than the United States? Well,

0:15:40.280 --> 0:15:43.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, the developing markets. I mean, let's look at China. Alright.

0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:46.360
<v Speaker 1>China makes a wide variety of stuff, and the United

0:15:46.360 --> 0:15:50.000
<v Speaker 1>States is only about fift of its export market, and

0:15:50.080 --> 0:15:51.880
<v Speaker 1>it's not going to lose all its exports of the

0:15:51.920 --> 0:15:54.800
<v Speaker 1>United States. For sure, Americans will pay more for the

0:15:54.840 --> 0:15:58.560
<v Speaker 1>stuff that they can't get from somewhere else. However, all right,

0:15:59.080 --> 0:16:01.080
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the stuff that they won't sell here

0:16:01.080 --> 0:16:03.640
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. They've got eight five percent of

0:16:03.640 --> 0:16:06.240
<v Speaker 1>the world to sell their stuff too. Now, China is

0:16:06.400 --> 0:16:09.760
<v Speaker 1>an extraordinary case because of the diversity of its products.

0:16:09.800 --> 0:16:13.040
<v Speaker 1>But whether you're selling you know, broad based commodities or

0:16:13.240 --> 0:16:16.640
<v Speaker 1>high end manufactured goods. If you're any country in the world,

0:16:17.040 --> 0:16:20.360
<v Speaker 1>you can sell it probably to somebody else if you

0:16:20.400 --> 0:16:22.720
<v Speaker 1>can't sell it in the United States. And that's really

0:16:22.720 --> 0:16:26.280
<v Speaker 1>one of the flaws in the strategy. Unilateral attacks on

0:16:26.400 --> 0:16:29.720
<v Speaker 1>countries like this when you're not the biggest dominant player

0:16:29.760 --> 0:16:32.480
<v Speaker 1>in the world anymore, that is a strategic error in

0:16:32.480 --> 0:16:35.760
<v Speaker 1>my opinion, Dr Carl Weinberg, thank you so much. Dr

0:16:35.840 --> 0:16:38.640
<v Speaker 1>Weinberger's that found their in chief international economists at High

0:16:38.640 --> 0:16:42.480
<v Speaker 1>Frequency Economics. I think a couple of takeaways there are.

0:16:42.640 --> 0:16:46.440
<v Speaker 1>Number one, trade wars are bad um and number two,

0:16:46.880 --> 0:16:51.320
<v Speaker 1>tariffs ultimately are paid by the consumer, neither of which

0:16:51.400 --> 0:17:10.280
<v Speaker 1>is good for a global economic growth. Let's talk clean

0:17:10.440 --> 0:17:13.320
<v Speaker 1>energy for the home. In the US, buildings account for

0:17:13.320 --> 0:17:17.280
<v Speaker 1>nearly of all carbon emissions, and one company has a

0:17:17.280 --> 0:17:20.159
<v Speaker 1>plan to curb those emissions. Kathy Hannon is the CEO

0:17:20.280 --> 0:17:23.320
<v Speaker 1>and co founder of Dandelion Energy. Dandelion Energy is a

0:17:23.359 --> 0:17:26.199
<v Speaker 1>spin out company of Google x and as the nation's

0:17:26.280 --> 0:17:30.399
<v Speaker 1>leading home geothermal company. Kathy, thanks so much for joining us.

0:17:30.400 --> 0:17:33.280
<v Speaker 1>So just tell us a little bit about dandelions technology

0:17:33.359 --> 0:17:36.320
<v Speaker 1>and how it kind of works. I'd be happy to so.

0:17:36.560 --> 0:17:41.960
<v Speaker 1>Dandelion installs residential geothermal systems. These are systems heating and

0:17:41.960 --> 0:17:44.960
<v Speaker 1>cooling systems that get placed in the home, usually where

0:17:45.000 --> 0:17:48.159
<v Speaker 1>the furnace used to be, and they have what are

0:17:48.200 --> 0:17:50.840
<v Speaker 1>called ground loops. So these are pipes that we install

0:17:50.920 --> 0:17:53.959
<v Speaker 1>in the ground and they let that heat pump gather

0:17:54.080 --> 0:17:56.040
<v Speaker 1>heat from the ground to heat the home in the

0:17:56.080 --> 0:17:58.840
<v Speaker 1>winter and then push heat into the ground to cool

0:17:58.880 --> 0:18:02.040
<v Speaker 1>the home in the summer. So they're very inexpensive to operate,

0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:06.240
<v Speaker 1>very quiet, and a lot of homeowners have started switching

0:18:06.359 --> 0:18:09.280
<v Speaker 1>from there from their furnaces. Can you give us a

0:18:09.320 --> 0:18:14.360
<v Speaker 1>sense of just how big adoption has been so far? Absolutely? So.

0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:19.359
<v Speaker 1>The company actually started selling our product UM a little

0:18:19.359 --> 0:18:21.879
<v Speaker 1>bit less than a year ago, and we already have

0:18:22.040 --> 0:18:24.960
<v Speaker 1>hundreds of customers in New York, which is the market

0:18:25.000 --> 0:18:27.679
<v Speaker 1>we serve today. So if I were to do this

0:18:27.720 --> 0:18:30.240
<v Speaker 1>to my home, what's my out of pocket costs and

0:18:30.280 --> 0:18:34.320
<v Speaker 1>what are my hopeful savings? Absolutely well, UM out of

0:18:34.320 --> 0:18:39.720
<v Speaker 1>pocket costs tend to be around eighteen to twenty thousand dollars,

0:18:40.080 --> 0:18:43.120
<v Speaker 1>which sounds like a lot, but when you consider that

0:18:44.080 --> 0:18:48.720
<v Speaker 1>UM many homeowners are spending three thousand, four thousand dollars

0:18:48.760 --> 0:18:52.560
<v Speaker 1>a year on fuel, oil or propane um. That payback

0:18:52.600 --> 0:18:56.240
<v Speaker 1>period tends to be very very fast, and we offer financing,

0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:59.080
<v Speaker 1>so actually most of our homeowners choose to pay nothing

0:18:59.160 --> 0:19:03.640
<v Speaker 1>up front, so zero cost, and then UM they pay

0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:07.200
<v Speaker 1>off the system over time and the repayment amount each

0:19:07.240 --> 0:19:09.640
<v Speaker 1>month is less than what they would have been spending

0:19:09.680 --> 0:19:12.360
<v Speaker 1>to eat their home otherwise, so they're actually coming out

0:19:12.400 --> 0:19:15.720
<v Speaker 1>ahead every single month that they have the system. One

0:19:15.720 --> 0:19:18.679
<v Speaker 1>thing that I find really interesting about this company is

0:19:18.680 --> 0:19:20.960
<v Speaker 1>that it's to spin out from Google X, which is

0:19:20.960 --> 0:19:25.119
<v Speaker 1>where all moonshot ideas are born at Google and you

0:19:25.200 --> 0:19:28.280
<v Speaker 1>worked there before becoming the CEO and co founder of

0:19:28.320 --> 0:19:31.440
<v Speaker 1>Dandeline Energy. Why did you decide to spin it out?

0:19:32.480 --> 0:19:34.800
<v Speaker 1>So we made the decision with Google X to spin

0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:39.359
<v Speaker 1>it out because this company really UM was ready. It

0:19:39.480 --> 0:19:43.919
<v Speaker 1>was ready to start selling products to homeowners. And what

0:19:44.040 --> 0:19:48.359
<v Speaker 1>Google X specializes in as research and development UM moonshot

0:19:48.400 --> 0:19:51.320
<v Speaker 1>projects that can take a decade to come to fruition,

0:19:51.359 --> 0:19:53.840
<v Speaker 1>but then when they do, they change the world. And

0:19:53.960 --> 0:19:57.000
<v Speaker 1>for this project, we didn't need that decade. We UM

0:19:57.040 --> 0:19:59.280
<v Speaker 1>we were ready to start selling the product, so we

0:19:59.359 --> 0:20:03.040
<v Speaker 1>decided to been it out and started to sell. So

0:20:03.200 --> 0:20:07.480
<v Speaker 1>talking about this, the German Geothermal market is it? I mean,

0:20:07.480 --> 0:20:10.000
<v Speaker 1>how big is it? How fast is it growing? Um,

0:20:10.119 --> 0:20:13.200
<v Speaker 1>just give us a sense of what the market looks like. Well, today,

0:20:13.480 --> 0:20:16.560
<v Speaker 1>it is actually quite a small market in the sense

0:20:16.600 --> 0:20:21.440
<v Speaker 1>that very few homeowners get to enjoy geothermal heating and cooling.

0:20:21.960 --> 0:20:25.160
<v Speaker 1>And I would say many homeowners haven't really heard about

0:20:25.160 --> 0:20:29.680
<v Speaker 1>it even, which is a shame because there's just so

0:20:29.760 --> 0:20:32.439
<v Speaker 1>much money that homeowners could save if they were to

0:20:32.480 --> 0:20:35.320
<v Speaker 1>adopt the technology. What's been preventing it from being larger

0:20:35.320 --> 0:20:37.639
<v Speaker 1>in the past has been it's been too expensive. So

0:20:37.680 --> 0:20:41.840
<v Speaker 1>a typical system in the past has cost fifty or more,

0:20:42.280 --> 0:20:45.880
<v Speaker 1>which is just out of range for almost everyone. Um.

0:20:45.920 --> 0:20:49.200
<v Speaker 1>But the heating and cooling market couldn't be bigger. So

0:20:49.359 --> 0:20:52.800
<v Speaker 1>all of us spend so much money, especially in climates

0:20:52.800 --> 0:20:56.360
<v Speaker 1>that get cold in the winter, on heating, and that

0:20:56.400 --> 0:20:59.359
<v Speaker 1>market is hundreds of billions of dollars. What was it

0:20:59.400 --> 0:21:03.320
<v Speaker 1>like working at Google x Oh it was fantastic. So

0:21:03.480 --> 0:21:06.199
<v Speaker 1>my job, which I was so lucky to have, I

0:21:06.280 --> 0:21:09.280
<v Speaker 1>was a rapid evaluator is what we called it. So

0:21:09.320 --> 0:21:13.720
<v Speaker 1>what that meant is I got to explore new opportunities

0:21:13.760 --> 0:21:16.240
<v Speaker 1>for Google to invest in technologies that could have a

0:21:16.320 --> 0:21:20.359
<v Speaker 1>huge impact and become huge businesses someday. And I think

0:21:20.400 --> 0:21:23.359
<v Speaker 1>one of the great things about X is just the

0:21:23.440 --> 0:21:26.720
<v Speaker 1>intellectual freedom that we were given to do that sort

0:21:26.760 --> 0:21:29.399
<v Speaker 1>of thing, and then also, of course the quality of

0:21:29.440 --> 0:21:32.239
<v Speaker 1>the people that we got to work with. Who So

0:21:32.359 --> 0:21:34.359
<v Speaker 1>when you think about the Google lex is you know,

0:21:34.640 --> 0:21:36.439
<v Speaker 1>I guess investors, when I think about Google X, it

0:21:36.520 --> 0:21:39.280
<v Speaker 1>really is these moon shots. How many projects are roughly

0:21:39.440 --> 0:21:42.040
<v Speaker 1>being worked on, I guess, or how many you know

0:21:42.080 --> 0:21:44.240
<v Speaker 1>at any given time, and then I guess you just

0:21:44.280 --> 0:21:46.880
<v Speaker 1>decide when it's time to spin out, right, Yeah, So

0:21:47.119 --> 0:21:49.720
<v Speaker 1>the way it works is at the very early stages,

0:21:49.920 --> 0:21:53.080
<v Speaker 1>things are just an idea. So it's really you know,

0:21:53.160 --> 0:21:56.320
<v Speaker 1>there are there are hundreds of ideas getting batted around

0:21:56.800 --> 0:21:59.240
<v Speaker 1>at any given time, but most of them, as you

0:21:59.240 --> 0:22:03.400
<v Speaker 1>can imagine, make it very far because part of the

0:22:03.440 --> 0:22:07.160
<v Speaker 1>process it access to identify as quickly as possible. Why

0:22:07.200 --> 0:22:10.080
<v Speaker 1>I give an idea is doomed not to work. So

0:22:10.119 --> 0:22:14.439
<v Speaker 1>we're trained to be optimists, but optimists who are always

0:22:14.480 --> 0:22:17.440
<v Speaker 1>looking for the fatal flaw. Because opportunity costs is such

0:22:17.480 --> 0:22:20.200
<v Speaker 1>a real thing, especially at a place like Google with

0:22:20.320 --> 0:22:23.360
<v Speaker 1>so many resources, So the areas that are most ripe

0:22:23.359 --> 0:22:27.000
<v Speaker 1>for disruption energy. You pinpointed, is are there any others

0:22:27.000 --> 0:22:30.520
<v Speaker 1>that are sort of high areas of interest? Well, I

0:22:30.520 --> 0:22:33.600
<v Speaker 1>haven't been there for two years, so I can't speak

0:22:34.240 --> 0:22:37.720
<v Speaker 1>about the areas of interest there today, but I know

0:22:37.840 --> 0:22:42.159
<v Speaker 1>that UM we were always very attentive to trends and technology,

0:22:42.240 --> 0:22:49.840
<v Speaker 1>so you can imagine that UM areas like artificial intelligence, robotics, UM,

0:22:49.920 --> 0:22:55.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, maybe maybe agriculture, maybe bio. I think all

0:22:55.200 --> 0:22:58.600
<v Speaker 1>of those areas we're just seeing such rapid development that

0:22:58.760 --> 0:23:01.320
<v Speaker 1>I wouldn't be surprised if they were fertile ones for acts.

0:23:01.840 --> 0:23:04.040
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Hannon, thank you so much for being with us.

0:23:04.640 --> 0:23:08.280
<v Speaker 1>Kathy Hannon, chief executive officer and co founder of Dandelion Energy,

0:23:08.760 --> 0:23:12.919
<v Speaker 1>looking at the trapped heat in the ground as a

0:23:13.000 --> 0:23:16.240
<v Speaker 1>potential source of energy and depositor of energy in the

0:23:16.240 --> 0:23:20.520
<v Speaker 1>summertime as a way to have a more green way

0:23:20.760 --> 0:23:39.879
<v Speaker 1>of heating your home. Alphabet shares falling today at nearly

0:23:40.080 --> 0:23:44.400
<v Speaker 1>six percent, currently down five point one percent, five point

0:23:44.440 --> 0:23:47.879
<v Speaker 1>seven percent. Excuse me. This comes as the Department of

0:23:47.920 --> 0:23:51.480
<v Speaker 1>Justice in the United States is considering an antitrust probe

0:23:51.600 --> 0:23:55.680
<v Speaker 1>into the company. Very interesting development. Sharre OVERDA Bloomberg Opinion

0:23:55.720 --> 0:23:58.399
<v Speaker 1>columnist joining us here, What do you make of this?

0:23:58.560 --> 0:24:01.880
<v Speaker 1>Why now? I think that's a very good question, and

0:24:01.920 --> 0:24:04.720
<v Speaker 1>it remains to be seen. Look, there's obviously a different

0:24:04.760 --> 0:24:10.200
<v Speaker 1>administration in Washington, and the tech companies, including Google, are

0:24:10.280 --> 0:24:15.160
<v Speaker 1>also getting big, bigger every day, and more powerful every day,

0:24:15.240 --> 0:24:21.280
<v Speaker 1>and officials in government, including the head of the Department

0:24:21.280 --> 0:24:25.240
<v Speaker 1>of Justice, have signaled an interest in the size and

0:24:25.320 --> 0:24:28.159
<v Speaker 1>power of big tech companies, although I think people like

0:24:28.200 --> 0:24:30.879
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General Bill Barr have been quick to note that

0:24:30.880 --> 0:24:34.720
<v Speaker 1>looks size itself is not an antitrust violation, but how

0:24:34.800 --> 0:24:37.960
<v Speaker 1>you use your power can be. That's interesting because I

0:24:37.960 --> 0:24:40.080
<v Speaker 1>think it's obviously a big issue for Google today. But

0:24:40.119 --> 0:24:43.240
<v Speaker 1>as you suggest this, I think investors probably are also

0:24:43.280 --> 0:24:46.000
<v Speaker 1>concerned that they're just looking at tech more broadly, given

0:24:46.000 --> 0:24:48.400
<v Speaker 1>how some mean, is that really a risk out there?

0:24:48.880 --> 0:24:50.800
<v Speaker 1>From what you know? I mean to me, Look, this

0:24:50.880 --> 0:24:53.280
<v Speaker 1>is one of the biggest risks of any of these

0:24:53.359 --> 0:24:57.880
<v Speaker 1>large US tech companies, is the possibility of continued, persistent,

0:24:58.160 --> 0:25:01.760
<v Speaker 1>permanent political and rap aleatory pressure. You were seeing today

0:25:01.840 --> 0:25:04.439
<v Speaker 1>right that both Amazon and Facebook have a little bit

0:25:04.480 --> 0:25:07.480
<v Speaker 1>of a stock declined today. There was news out of

0:25:07.480 --> 0:25:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Washington over the weekend that you know, the Department of

0:25:10.600 --> 0:25:12.880
<v Speaker 1>Justice in the FCC have sort of d vied up

0:25:12.960 --> 0:25:16.280
<v Speaker 1>responsibility or the d o J is sort of taking

0:25:16.320 --> 0:25:20.440
<v Speaker 1>responsibility for Google and the Federal Trade Commission, Sorr said, FCC,

0:25:20.600 --> 0:25:24.159
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Trade Commission has taken responsibility of Amazon. So

0:25:24.200 --> 0:25:27.000
<v Speaker 1>that suggests that there may also be kind of regulatory

0:25:27.040 --> 0:25:30.720
<v Speaker 1>interest looking at Amazon. And I think that the share

0:25:30.760 --> 0:25:34.800
<v Speaker 1>price of Amazon today reflects that possibility. Which segments of

0:25:34.840 --> 0:25:39.040
<v Speaker 1>Alphabet's business are most likely to come under particular scrutiny.

0:25:39.080 --> 0:25:43.440
<v Speaker 1>You are shaking your head. It could be anything, right, Look,

0:25:43.760 --> 0:25:46.919
<v Speaker 1>so there is some precedent here, right, The Google or

0:25:47.359 --> 0:25:50.760
<v Speaker 1>Google's parent company, Alphabet has been fined multiple times by

0:25:50.800 --> 0:25:53.960
<v Speaker 1>European anti trust regulators, and that was over a number

0:25:54.000 --> 0:25:57.480
<v Speaker 1>of issues, including UM the way that Google sort of

0:25:57.880 --> 0:26:02.520
<v Speaker 1>tied its Android smart phone operating system to other aspects

0:26:02.520 --> 0:26:07.280
<v Speaker 1>of its business, including UM, it's it's apps, and it's

0:26:07.480 --> 0:26:11.479
<v Speaker 1>Chrome browser for smartphones. There was a fine related to

0:26:11.520 --> 0:26:18.119
<v Speaker 1>how Google UM handles Internet shopping and other kind of

0:26:18.160 --> 0:26:24.159
<v Speaker 1>comparison internet shopping engines. The Federal Trade Commission investigated Google

0:26:24.200 --> 0:26:28.440
<v Speaker 1>for possible antitrust investigation violations more than six years ago,

0:26:28.640 --> 0:26:31.760
<v Speaker 1>and it looked at a number of issues, including Google

0:26:31.840 --> 0:26:37.520
<v Speaker 1>kind of scraping information without permission from other Internet providers

0:26:37.560 --> 0:26:41.240
<v Speaker 1>including Yelp and trip Advisor to sort of improve Google

0:26:41.440 --> 0:26:44.680
<v Speaker 1>search results. So look, the d o J could look

0:26:44.720 --> 0:26:47.879
<v Speaker 1>at any of those things, or really anything, I guess,

0:26:48.240 --> 0:26:51.120
<v Speaker 1>you know, taking a look at it from Google's perspective,

0:26:51.119 --> 0:26:53.200
<v Speaker 1>they can probably just come back to regulators around the

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:55.440
<v Speaker 1>world and say, hey, we built the best mouse trap

0:26:55.560 --> 0:26:58.440
<v Speaker 1>out there. That's why we have seven year per share

0:26:58.440 --> 0:27:01.440
<v Speaker 1>of church queries. But that doesn't seem to be winning

0:27:01.480 --> 0:27:03.280
<v Speaker 1>the day here. I think that is there a sense

0:27:03.320 --> 0:27:06.680
<v Speaker 1>that maybe that argument has to change that yet it's

0:27:06.680 --> 0:27:09.639
<v Speaker 1>not just that their substitutes, but you guys maybe just

0:27:10.440 --> 0:27:15.280
<v Speaker 1>mishandle your market dominance. So I think that's a great question.

0:27:15.280 --> 0:27:18.160
<v Speaker 1>And look at the Google is very practiced now at

0:27:18.200 --> 0:27:22.560
<v Speaker 1>dealing with these kind of anti monopoly concerns and regulations.

0:27:22.800 --> 0:27:25.800
<v Speaker 1>And Google's line has always been, as you said, we

0:27:25.920 --> 0:27:29.320
<v Speaker 1>built a better mouse trap. Competition is just one click away,

0:27:29.400 --> 0:27:32.480
<v Speaker 1>as their kind of favorite phrase. And it is hard,

0:27:32.600 --> 0:27:37.240
<v Speaker 1>right because you can't necessarily point to direct consumer harm

0:27:37.320 --> 0:27:41.000
<v Speaker 1>because Google provides Internet services that are free and a

0:27:41.040 --> 0:27:43.440
<v Speaker 1>lot of billions of people use them around the world,

0:27:43.520 --> 0:27:46.560
<v Speaker 1>and they're valuable, But what regulators look at as well,

0:27:46.680 --> 0:27:48.920
<v Speaker 1>or what they might look at as well is Okay,

0:27:49.000 --> 0:27:52.040
<v Speaker 1>let's play the long game here. If Google manages to

0:27:52.119 --> 0:27:55.399
<v Speaker 1>kind of put out of business or guest stranglehold on

0:27:55.640 --> 0:27:59.240
<v Speaker 1>lots of aspects of internet advertising or lots of of

0:27:59.320 --> 0:28:04.320
<v Speaker 1>aspects of information online, does that harm consumers? Or is

0:28:04.359 --> 0:28:09.199
<v Speaker 1>Google doing things um that basically abuse its power in

0:28:09.280 --> 0:28:12.959
<v Speaker 1>such a way that it crushes competitors. And the problem

0:28:12.960 --> 0:28:15.199
<v Speaker 1>with anti trust and investigations is that they're broad and

0:28:15.280 --> 0:28:18.920
<v Speaker 1>you just don't know what the investigators will find interesting.

0:28:19.000 --> 0:28:21.680
<v Speaker 1>Sure of a day Bloomberg Opinion colums covering all things

0:28:21.760 --> 0:28:23.480
<v Speaker 1>tech for us coming in at the last minute to

0:28:23.520 --> 0:28:25.840
<v Speaker 1>give us some color on Google. Thanks for listening to

0:28:25.840 --> 0:28:28.200
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can subscribe and

0:28:28.280 --> 0:28:31.440
<v Speaker 1>listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts or whatever podcast platform

0:28:31.480 --> 0:28:34.560
<v Speaker 1>you prefer. Paul Sweeney, I'm on Twitter at pt Sweeney.

0:28:34.600 --> 0:28:37.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm Lisa abram Woyds. I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramoyit's

0:28:37.560 --> 0:28:40.400
<v Speaker 1>one before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.

0:28:40.400 --> 0:28:41.400
<v Speaker 1>I'm Bloomberg Radio