Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene along
Speaker 2: with Paul Sweeney. Join us each day for insight from
Speaker 2: the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. You
Speaker 2: can also watch the show live on YouTube. Visit the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Podcast channel on YouTube to see the show weekday
Speaker 2: mornings from seven to ten am Eastern from our global
Speaker 2: headquarters in New York City. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 2: or anywhere else you listen, and always I'm Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business App. We have
Speaker 2: the right guy at the right time on a five
Speaker 2: percent nominal GDP ending June thirty. Comedy Stuart Kaiser, I
Speaker 2: got goosebumps right now.
Speaker 3: How you were out two years ago saying it will
Speaker 3: be okay and as I've always said, corporations will adjust
Speaker 3: in your mind.
Speaker 2: Away from Andrew Hollandhorst and Veronica Clark, Victoria Clark, are
Speaker 2: you modeling a slowdown?
Speaker 4: You know, we're we're a little more worried about it
Speaker 4: than we have been probably in the last eighteen months.
Speaker 4: I would say, you know, Veronica and Andrew definitely have
Speaker 4: a recession kind of later this year. We have seen
Speaker 4: some I think shots across the bow and the weak
Speaker 4: data perspective, but as you mentioned, GDP strong this morning
Speaker 4: claims are up to two hundred and thirty eight thousand,
Speaker 4: So like in our view, the macro backdrop is positive
Speaker 4: for equities. You've got solid jobs growth, you've got inflation
Speaker 4: using your blow consensus, you've got a FED that wants
Speaker 4: to cut, So that to us says you want to
Speaker 4: keep running long equity, right.
Speaker 2: Gina Martin Adam's parses down the income statement. She sees solidity.
Speaker 2: She's worried about revenue shortfall. If I have a five
Speaker 2: percent Q two nominal GDP, how do I have a
Speaker 2: revenue shortfall?
Speaker 4: You know? Probably probably unlikely. I think that the biggest
Speaker 4: race in the back half to me would be even
Speaker 4: though five percent high from a nominal perspective, compared to
Speaker 4: what we had a year or two ago, that nominal
Speaker 4: number is lower, And I think the question is in
Speaker 4: a slowly nominal environment, do we see downward pressure on margins?
Speaker 4: But look big picture, I think the earnings outlooks looks
Speaker 4: pretty strong. Twelve month forward EPs is like two hundred
Speaker 4: and sixty bucks, which is a very big number. So look,
Speaker 4: I think the earnings outlook is still pretty solid. The
Speaker 4: challenge is that the expectations around that earnings outlook are
Speaker 4: quite high. And if you look at this quarter to date,
Speaker 4: forty six percent of companies have traded up on earnings.
Speaker 4: Historically that's like fifty two So less than half of
Speaker 4: companies are trading high around the earnings prints, I think,
Speaker 4: which tells you how high the bar is this quarter.
Speaker 5: Tom Stewart's got this great stat here, I'm just looking
Speaker 5: at it. SPX yesterday had its first two percent down
Speaker 5: day in more than in three hundred and sixty five
Speaker 5: trading days. I mean, that goes to the strength and
Speaker 5: consistency of this market here, which I guess is even
Speaker 5: more amazing than the context of the Fed's been raising rates.
Speaker 5: You know, it's just what happens when the Fed starts
Speaker 5: really cutting rates.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a really impress Paul. I think part of
Speaker 4: that is just the fact that you you sort of
Speaker 4: clip the tail off inflation, which helps a lot of
Speaker 4: people are blaming vas selling and sort of all these
Speaker 4: systematic strategies that are that are fundamentally supporting the market,
Speaker 4: and I think that's probably partially the case. There's there's
Speaker 4: a flip side of that coin though, right you know,
Speaker 4: coming out of yesterday, the size move we saw in
Speaker 4: the S and P means like volatility target funds are
Speaker 4: going to sell about seventy five billion dollars of equity
Speaker 4: over the course in the next couple of days. So
Speaker 4: the question is, yes, we've we've had a very low
Speaker 4: volatility rally. Now that we've broken out of that range,
Speaker 4: the test is going to be have we broken out
Speaker 4: of the range and do we end up a little
Speaker 4: bit untethered or do we get a strong GDP number
Speaker 4: and we sort of ourselves.
Speaker 2: How long does it take for these sophisticated institutional strategies
Speaker 2: to activate and then they clear the market and the
Speaker 2: market's left to itself?
Speaker 3: Is it ours?
Speaker 6: Is it?
Speaker 3: Days? Is it? You know when they bring au Twister three?
Speaker 3: When is it?
Speaker 4: I think it's I think it's more in the days category.
Speaker 3: Tom.
Speaker 4: You know, like the vall target funds, for instance, do
Speaker 4: it over a kind of a T plus two basis.
Speaker 4: You know, the CTAs are doing it sort of in
Speaker 4: real time, but they're obviously responsive to each day.
Speaker 3: Right, you know, you're down yesterday, you sell. If you're
Speaker 3: up today, you might buy.
Speaker 4: So I would say, you know you're talking days, not
Speaker 4: not necessarily hours, But it would depend on the strategy.
Speaker 4: And you know, it depends how actively managed they are.
Speaker 5: I mean, you think about city, I mean just just
Speaker 5: the most global of off firms in New York, London,
Speaker 5: Hong Kong. Your traders talk to everybody. It's the chatter
Speaker 5: bin over the pass a couple of days. Any panic
Speaker 5: coming back or are they just saying no, it's it's
Speaker 5: pretty orderly trading here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would.
Speaker 4: I would say we haven't seen outright panic necessarily. Yesterday
Speaker 4: we were about thirty three percent better to sell on
Speaker 4: the desk, which is which is a significant amount of
Speaker 4: risk reduction. In tech, you were two and a half
Speaker 4: to one better to sell. So we definitely saw in
Speaker 4: tech yesterday some people taking out risk. That said through
Speaker 4: the pipes, it looked like retail was pretty actively buying
Speaker 4: those tech stocks. So look, you know people that people
Speaker 4: that wanted to be in at Video or SMCI or
Speaker 4: ARM or one of these stocks maybe looking at this
Speaker 4: pullback as you know, them getting a second bite at
Speaker 4: the Apple in terms of getting back engaged. And if
Speaker 4: that's the case, that's positive.
Speaker 2: So within your securities analysis team at City Group, what
Speaker 2: do you do with Google? Do you let the things
Speaker 2: settle down for X number of days and then repurpose Google.
Speaker 2: My head is spinning over, Paul, you understand it. I
Speaker 2: don't gamma trading and all the rest of it for
Speaker 2: conservative normal Hey, I've got to fund my retirement plan investors.
Speaker 3: This is an opportunity, right.
Speaker 4: I think ultimately people will look back at this, at
Speaker 4: these Google learnings and say they were actually quite solid.
Speaker 4: Obviously the YouTube side of it was a little bit weak,
Speaker 4: but the other sides were positive. The read across from
Speaker 4: a Google perspective, I think was on the cap x
Speaker 4: side of things, the AI trade this year there's been
Speaker 4: an ongoing debate of do I own the capex spenders
Speaker 4: or do I own the recipients of that Capex? And
Speaker 4: I think what you saw with you know, Google kind
Speaker 4: of guiding down a little bit on the cap x side,
Speaker 4: it really got people's antennas up. So the issue there
Speaker 4: is not of Google issue only. It is a is
Speaker 4: a feedback loop to the other parts of the ecosystem.
Speaker 2: Apple does a very clear presentation. I sit there at
Speaker 2: four to twelve pm, people go, what do you do
Speaker 2: when you go home? You know, I walk the dogs.
Speaker 2: You know, I take they take the fame for surveillance
Speaker 2: and APP. I got a beverage of my choice in
Speaker 2: my hand, and I'm looking at the Apple numbers and
Speaker 2: I'm seeing this hysteria out there within financial media, and
Speaker 2: I'm looking at the cash flow statement, going what why
Speaker 2: you know? And I don't mean to pick on Apple.
Speaker 2: It could be any of these other stucks like Google
Speaker 2: the other day they had a solid quarter.
Speaker 5: The solid quarter, a solid free cash flow.
Speaker 3: How about that?
Speaker 5: You know, as Tom's talking about some of those big
Speaker 5: names we have, we've seen a real kind of rotation
Speaker 5: the last few weeks into the small cap, you know,
Speaker 5: looking at the Russell app performing the small cap Russell
Speaker 5: two thousand.
Speaker 2: Is that a thing?
Speaker 4: I think it's a It's a thing if you believe
Speaker 4: in the soft landing. So I think what you saw
Speaker 4: late last year, middle of June on the June FMC
Speaker 4: and July eleventh on CPI is when you get soft
Speaker 4: landing data, which is solid jobs and downward surprises on inflation,
Speaker 4: especially if the FED wants to cut in the background.
Speaker 4: People gravitate towards these soft landing trades, and the target
Speaker 4: for those trades is small cap, it's regional banks, it's
Speaker 4: things of that nature. So I think what you've seen
Speaker 4: is is the market sort of going through a soft
Speaker 4: landing trade for the moment. We think it's more tactical.
Speaker 4: I don't necessarily think that's sustainable over a medium term
Speaker 4: period because Andrew Holmenhorsten team do have a deceleration and growth.
Speaker 4: A lot of people said, oh, small caps in election trade.
Speaker 4: I think that's reverse engineering a narrative. I think this
Speaker 4: is very much a macroeconomic data trade.
Speaker 2: Keep talking that. Marcus just swin Green was Stuaris.
Speaker 3: Where we at the end of the year.
Speaker 2: I understand that's deep and long term for you, but
Speaker 2: where we at the.
Speaker 3: End of the year.
Speaker 4: Our research sides got Kroner the third fifty six hundred
Speaker 4: end of year. You know, I think we're higher than
Speaker 4: we are today at the end of the year. Personally, obviously,
Speaker 4: if we get a recession, that's not going to be
Speaker 4: the case. But our view is, as I mentioned, you
Speaker 4: run long equity risk unless and until that US job
Speaker 4: market cracks if the job marker hade strong, you remain
Speaker 4: long equities and I think we're hiring to year end
Speaker 4: in that case.
Speaker 3: Hugely valuable.
Speaker 2: Can't say enough about Stewart Keiser was City Group head
Speaker 2: of US equity Trading. What we're going to do is
Speaker 2: stop on a July morning, with our heads spinning over
Speaker 2: the American history lessons of the last ten days. We
Speaker 2: have a guest esteemed in Washington, Libby Cantrell's with Pimco,
Speaker 2: out of Brown, out of Harvard, with some serious effort
Speaker 2: at Morgan Stanley to understand inside the Beltway, and I
Speaker 2: just want to stop, and I want to talk about
Speaker 2: two senators and how they were different, How was the
Speaker 2: and I had the honor of speaking with Senator Obama
Speaker 2: by the bruin Zamboni when he was a senator, nobody
Speaker 2: knew who he was. How is Senator Obama different from
Speaker 2: Senator Harris in Libby Cantrill's world or were they the same?
Speaker 2: Just two young junior senators.
Speaker 1: Well so, Senator Obama actually had fewer years of service
Speaker 1: than Senator Harris did. Remember he was only in the
Speaker 1: Senate for two years. Two cups, Yeah, right, exactly.
Speaker 7: And she was there for four years.
Speaker 1: I do think that maybe a similarity though, is that
Speaker 1: they both knew that they were going to be pursuing
Speaker 1: national office when they started their jobs in the Senate,
Speaker 1: so that they knew that the Senate was not sort
Speaker 1: of their landing place that they had. And I think
Speaker 1: that if you look at both of their records, that's
Speaker 1: sort of emblematic some of the things that they voted on.
Speaker 1: We're probably trying to tee them up for a national
Speaker 1: race versus just against stay in the Senate.
Speaker 2: I'm a prosecutor at Attorney General in California. I'm parachuting
Speaker 2: into the Senate, which is all collegialities. Smiley teams, put
Speaker 2: your napkin in your lap in the Senate lunch room.
Speaker 2: The rap on her is she said, troubled building a team?
Speaker 3: Discuss that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean she's had I think management staff issues
Speaker 1: really since she was a DA in San Francisco. So
Speaker 1: this is something that it will be a liability. Obviously,
Speaker 1: building a national campaign in a very short period of time,
Speaker 1: basically building a plane while you're flying, it is challenging
Speaker 1: to begin with.
Speaker 3: But you have lived this. Do they change? Can she improve? Well? Look,
Speaker 3: she has a building.
Speaker 1: I mean there is a lot, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of tailwinds to continue that the airplane metaphor she has,
Speaker 1: I mean, she has the entire kind of Democratic Party apparatus.
Speaker 1: She has lots of national figures who are endorsing her
Speaker 1: and supporting her, so people are incredibly incentivized to see
Speaker 1: her succeed. In some ways, she might actually benefit from
Speaker 1: a shorter campaign because you don't have the time to
Speaker 1: sort of pick her apart, pick the campaign apart that
Speaker 1: you would and deserve a general general election cycle. So
Speaker 1: this is so extraordinary.
Speaker 7: I'm much.
Speaker 1: I don't think those are going to be the things
Speaker 1: that are really going to weigh on voters. But I
Speaker 1: think her liability, though, is that platform that she ran
Speaker 1: on in twenty twenty. And of course for the Democrats
Speaker 1: they may not be an issue, but to get those
Speaker 1: swing vote in those six states that she needs to
Speaker 1: in order to.
Speaker 7: Win the presidency.
Speaker 1: The fact that she has advocated for medicare for all,
Speaker 1: the fact that she basically is you know, talked about
Speaker 1: open borders or what have you, or fewer you know,
Speaker 1: repercussions for folks coming over the border. I mean, all
Speaker 1: of those things will plague her. So, Tom to your question, well,
Speaker 1: her management style, maybe that will plague her. Maybe, But
Speaker 1: is that going to be the big headwind going into November.
Speaker 7: Probably not. It's going to be more of trying to
Speaker 7: defend that record.
Speaker 5: It seems like the Democrats have some renewed momentum here.
Speaker 5: What are you telling the fund managers of pimpco about
Speaker 5: what's happened over the last you know, seventy two hours
Speaker 5: and what the next several months might entail with olipms.
Speaker 1: Yeah, of course, while the horse race may or may
Speaker 1: not be interesting, that there are traders really care about
Speaker 1: is like what does this mean for the economy?
Speaker 7: What does this mean for markets? And I think that
Speaker 7: in many ways this is just reset the race, right.
Speaker 1: And so if you were if you're putting odds on
Speaker 1: a Biden presidency and a A and sort of the
Speaker 1: composition of Congress, you would have said, wow, you know,
Speaker 1: the chips are really stacked in favor of Republicans.
Speaker 7: Last week, that has changed.
Speaker 1: And I think that is not only the top of
Speaker 1: the ballot, but really the down ballot. I mean, the
Speaker 1: composition of Congress really matters for the things that actually
Speaker 1: investors care about, For fiscal policy, for tax and for spending,
Speaker 1: and a Republicans sweep looked like it was much more
Speaker 1: likely as of last week than it does today. So
Speaker 1: of course it's still early days and how Harris will
Speaker 1: will do versus Trump, but there is so much more
Speaker 1: renewed enthusiasm. And I think the big challenge for Democrats
Speaker 1: going into the general if Biden were on the top
Speaker 1: of the ticket was lack of enthusiasm, and that has changed, right.
Speaker 5: I mean, what do you make of, you know, the fundraising.
Speaker 5: We had a story yesterday on the Bloomberg about how
Speaker 5: some of the big Wall Street folks are lining up
Speaker 5: behind Harris. But I guess what got me was the
Speaker 5: reporting that one hundred million dollars was raised by the
Speaker 5: Harris campaign in the twenty four hours after Biden announced
Speaker 5: you stepping down, and sixty two percent of those were
Speaker 5: new donors.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and there were relatively small donors. I think that
Speaker 7: was the thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is so this is I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: these big donors are kind of coming back home, if
Speaker 1: you will. They were sort of sitting on the sidelines
Speaker 1: when Biden was the top of the ticket. But really
Speaker 1: the fact that there's so much more renewed energy, the
Speaker 1: fact that she is appealing to to some of the
Speaker 1: constituencies that did the Democrats need in order to win,
Speaker 1: like young people and like African Americans. And I think
Speaker 1: the grassroots fundraising service reflection.
Speaker 3: Of that and the craziness that we're living. Folks. I
Speaker 3: actually work. I do work more than three hours ago.
Speaker 3: It's hard to.
Speaker 2: Believe that don't work a day like Cantrell, but you know,
Speaker 2: it's fine, or Lisa Matteo.
Speaker 3: But you know, LIBBYA.
Speaker 2: I was reading the Pew Research Topology report where they
Speaker 2: divide Americans into nine groups and there's three or four
Speaker 2: shades of Democratic Party. She's going to be painted as
Speaker 2: a Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren progressive?
Speaker 3: Is she is?
Speaker 2: She?
Speaker 1: Is she that?
Speaker 7: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think that's another issue, is that voters don't really
Speaker 1: know what she stands for. I mean, obviously, when she
Speaker 1: was the DA, when she was the Attorney general in California,
Speaker 1: you know, she could have been characterized as center left,
Speaker 1: almost even centrist in terms of some of her approach
Speaker 1: to to to sort.
Speaker 7: Of law enforcement, what have you.
Speaker 1: But when she got to the Senate, and this is
Speaker 1: your previous question, Tom when she got to the Senate,
Speaker 1: she knew she was going to be running for a
Speaker 1: national office, and she did pivot pretty far left again
Speaker 1: on some of those things like Medicare for all, like
Speaker 1: defunding the police, like stopping fracking, and these issues will
Speaker 1: matter to swing voter. So I think this will be
Speaker 1: her challenge is almost reintroducing herself to voters in a
Speaker 1: way that maybe is more reflective of where she really stands.
Speaker 1: Because that the liberal, the progressive liberal that we saw
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty running for the primary against Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: That will she will not be able to win the
Speaker 1: presidency if that is her platform.
Speaker 5: Who's debating who going forward? I mean debate Trump advance
Speaker 5: and does that work? And who decides how that plays out? Yeah,
Speaker 5: because I'm looking forward to that. I'm looking forward to.
Speaker 1: And I do think and I you know again, I
Speaker 1: think one of the reasons why there's so much renewed
Speaker 1: optimism is because Harris like her or not like her.
Speaker 1: I mean, we'll be able to litigate the case against
Speaker 1: Trunk better than certainly than Biden was able to write
Speaker 1: in terms of the June twenty seventh debate. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: the running mate her re selection of the running mate.
Speaker 1: I do think will be important just in terms of
Speaker 1: reflective of her judgment, and obviously who she picks her
Speaker 1: running mate will then debate JD vance TBD on the dates.
Speaker 1: There were some dates thrown out when she was the
Speaker 1: vice president and now when she was the running mate,
Speaker 1: and now that's changed. September tenth is still potentially the
Speaker 1: date where there might be a Trump versus Harris debate,
Speaker 1: And of course, just in terms of history, that is
Speaker 1: much more typical. Usually we see the debates after the conventions.
Speaker 1: The fact that we saw this debate in June was
Speaker 1: of course what the Biden world wanted, pretty pretty impressent.
Speaker 3: Ten seconds, who's your VP pick? Who's the common sense
Speaker 3: pick for her?
Speaker 1: You know, you know, you know, I think Mark Kelly,
Speaker 1: I think Roy Cooper, I think Jos Shapiro. You know,
Speaker 1: William mcgraven was was rumored for for a very hot second.
Speaker 1: He's a general who obviously killed some of them. Laden
Speaker 1: he would have that would have really shored up the ticket.
Speaker 1: But I think one of those gentlemen would do a
Speaker 1: nice job of bouncing.
Speaker 6: Julie Pimcoff, You're on the list, Levy Ketchel, thank you
Speaker 6: so much, Pacific Investment Management Company and of course her
Speaker 6: really expertise on the Halls of Congress and the policy
Speaker 6: of America.
Speaker 3: This is a joy. This is someone Postsuen, you know,
Speaker 3: some Duke.
Speaker 2: There are young Turks in academics and in this case
Speaker 2: coming out of Stanford who just start writing his book.
Speaker 2: Goldilock's globalism has created a stir and Paul it centers
Speaker 2: around like in twenty sixteen, both candidates walked away from TPP,
Speaker 2: they walked away from the Pacific and the only tool
Speaker 2: you have is a blunt instrument of terrorists of tarffs.
Speaker 5: And we've seen that from both the Trump administration, but
Speaker 5: staying with the By administration as well. We're seeing more
Speaker 5: and more talk, more and more tariffs, I guess in
Speaker 5: you know, really saying it's part of economic security, and
Speaker 5: that's something new. Tim Meyer Joints is Associate Professor of
Speaker 5: Duke Law. Tim, can you put into context why we're
Speaker 5: seeing more I guess economic policy being invested in the
Speaker 5: presidency as opposed to Congress.
Speaker 8: Sure, so, you know, I think presidents have long used
Speaker 8: foreign policy as a vehicle to get around gridlock and Congress.
Speaker 8: The president has long been thought to have a pretty
Speaker 8: wide degree of latitude in making foreign policy. It's very
Speaker 8: common to talk about presidents, especially in their second term,
Speaker 8: you know, turning pivoting to foreign policy. And one of
Speaker 8: the things that we've observed since President Trump first took
Speaker 8: office in twenty seventeen is that foreign commerce, commercial policy
Speaker 8: has kind of gotten wrapped up in that in that bubble,
Speaker 8: Congress has granted the president a pretty broad, odd degree
Speaker 8: of discretion in setting trade restrictions, in particular in negotiating
Speaker 8: new trade agreements. The president, multiple presidents have kind of
Speaker 8: treated it as their prerogative to go out and negotiate
Speaker 8: new trade agreements. President Trump obviously treated it as his
Speaker 8: prerogative to impose a wide degree of tariffs on steel
Speaker 8: aluminum imports from China. Obviously he tried to regulate foreign
Speaker 8: investment in businesses like TikTok, and you know, there's some
Speaker 8: question about the legality of those actions, whether or not
Speaker 8: that goes too far in terms of cutting Congress out
Speaker 8: of the out of the policy making framework. But economic
Speaker 8: security has been what the trumpet Biden administrations have really
Speaker 8: leaned on to say, look, this is a security issue,
Speaker 8: This is for the president.
Speaker 5: So I guess where is Congress on this. I mean again,
Speaker 5: if I would were in Congress, I would think I
Speaker 5: think the Framers wanted Congress to have some of these powers.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so if you read the Constitution, that is what
Speaker 8: it says. So the Constitution makes pretty clear that Congress
Speaker 8: has authority, exclusive authority to regulate foreign commerce. Congress also,
Speaker 8: you know, when we talk about tariffs, tariffs are just taxes, right,
Speaker 8: They're just taxes on imports, and so the power to
Speaker 8: set taxes is also for Congress in the Constitution. And
Speaker 8: you know, really for most of the first one hundred
Speaker 8: and fifty years, Congress did set tariffs. And it was
Speaker 8: really in the nineteen thirties that as part of kind
Speaker 8: of building out of the Great Depression and negotiating what
Speaker 8: ultimately became the World Trade Organization in the nineteen nineties
Speaker 8: that that authority over tariffs really started to get delegated
Speaker 8: to the to the president.
Speaker 3: Yeah, go ahead, Oh we note a smooth hauling.
Speaker 2: You got a guy from Utah, guy from Oregon. They
Speaker 2: blow up the world in nineteen twenty nine. We all
Speaker 2: know what happened after that. Do you look at Trump,
Speaker 2: Harris and there's no difference, and we're going to get them.
Speaker 2: We're going to get China and Trump and Harris whoever
Speaker 2: is going to be on the edge of a new
Speaker 2: smoot Holly.
Speaker 8: You know, so President Trump is clearly talking about ideas
Speaker 8: that are in that ballpark. He's talking about and across
Speaker 8: the board ten percent tariff, he's talking about sixty percent
Speaker 8: tariffs on Chinese imports. You know that that's that's clearly
Speaker 8: in the smooth Holly range. And there have been estimates
Speaker 8: that say, look, that amounts to, you know, roughly a
Speaker 8: seventeen hundred dollars per year per household tax increase effectively
Speaker 8: that President Trump is proposing. You know, I don't think
Speaker 8: Vice President Harris is talking about anything in that range.
Speaker 8: You know, as you all mentioned, the Biden administration has
Speaker 8: by and large continued some of the tariffs that President
Speaker 8: Trump imposed when he was first in office. They tried
Speaker 8: to be a little bit more targeted I think in
Speaker 8: some of what they've done, particularly in kind of trying
Speaker 8: to calibrate some of the tariffs on China. But I
Speaker 8: don't think from Vice President Harris you're likely to see
Speaker 8: anything like the sort of ten percent across the board
Speaker 8: Terrifike that the former president is proposing.
Speaker 5: Is there a sense that Congress is going to fight
Speaker 5: to get some of this power back?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think there's there are folks in Congress that
Speaker 8: are that are interested in doing that. And you know,
Speaker 8: when when President Trump, when he was first sort of
Speaker 8: rolling out these tariffs in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen,
Speaker 8: you saw some bills actually introduced, mostly by Republicans in Congress,
Speaker 8: that would try to claw back some of the president's
Speaker 8: authority to just set tariffs without you know, so much
Speaker 8: as a buy or leave.
Speaker 3: And you know, one of the interesting things about this.
Speaker 8: Year, the kind of end of the twenty four years,
Speaker 8: is that with President Biden stepping down, with former President
Speaker 8: Trump running for office again, making this you know, similar
Speaker 8: kinds of ratcheting up proposals, you know, there might be
Speaker 8: a window in which we could see Congress try to
Speaker 8: take some action to claw back some of this authority
Speaker 8: that it's given the president.
Speaker 2: Just one more question, if we could, what is your
Speaker 2: best outcome to either keelback tariffs or restructure tariffs, say
Speaker 2: in February or March of next year.
Speaker 8: So you know, I think that what would ideally happen
Speaker 8: here is that Congress would pass a statute that would
Speaker 8: amend a whole bunch of existing authorities that the president
Speaker 8: has and say, look, the president has authority to impose
Speaker 8: new tariffs for a certain period of time, say ninety days,
Speaker 8: one hundred and eighty days, in case there's some sort
Speaker 8: of emergency, and then those tariffs automatically sunset unless Congress
Speaker 8: enacts them by law. And that gives the president the
Speaker 8: flexibility to deal with actual emergencies without creating the kind
Speaker 8: of situation we live in today in which the president
Speaker 8: is basically using tariffs to set what amounts to sort
Speaker 8: of domestic tax policy. And that would really restore Congress's
Speaker 8: role in setting what is effectively tax fancy.
Speaker 3: This has been wonderful, Thank you so much. Tim Meyer
Speaker 3: out on YouTube.
Speaker 2: The most important project of the day, the Lisa Matteo
Speaker 2: Hour the front pages. My agent just called it Lisa
Speaker 2: and said, I have to sit up straight. So I'm
Speaker 2: sitting up straight for the Lisa Matteo Hour.
Speaker 7: What do you got to thank you?
Speaker 9: Oh and by the way, a quick shout out I
Speaker 9: forgot to mention yesterday in the live chat. I think
Speaker 9: it was Tom or tim Uh said the newspapers segment
Speaker 9: needs to go an hour.
Speaker 3: I'm with him.
Speaker 5: Get that sponsored.
Speaker 7: Oh I missed, Yeah.
Speaker 9: Skimmed over that one. We're starting with the Paris Olympics.
Speaker 9: All right, it's barely begun. Yes, soccer games started. Okay,
Speaker 9: but there's already a cheating scandal that started with the Olympics. Okay,
Speaker 9: this is for women soccer. This is from the Washington Post.
Speaker 9: They say that Bev Priestman she will not coach Canada
Speaker 9: and its Olympic women's soccer game against New Zealand today.
Speaker 9: The reason why is because members of her staff they
Speaker 9: drew They flew drones over New Zealand's practices on Friday
Speaker 9: and Monday. I guess they were trying to get a
Speaker 9: little inside peak as to what they were doing. But
Speaker 9: she put out a statement. The coach said that she
Speaker 9: is responsible for the conduct. She said she decided to
Speaker 9: voluntarily withdraw from coaching. She apologized to the players of
Speaker 9: New Zealand and team Canada, but she said she didn't
Speaker 9: know that the recordings were being taken.
Speaker 2: I'm like, it's not into this as anybody can be.
Speaker 2: And I'm fascinated to see the opening ceremonies because they're
Speaker 2: going down.
Speaker 3: The river, I know, or up the river, which but yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Can't imagine, you know, by the pone nuth and you know,
Speaker 2: the rebuilding of Notre Dame to see however they're going
Speaker 2: to do.
Speaker 3: What are they going to be in the party boats? Sweeny?
Speaker 3: When Sweeney goes over, he's on the dinner boat. You know,
Speaker 3: he gets tickets. I can't get tickets in Paris.
Speaker 5: But that'll be interesting, it'll be fine, it'll be it's
Speaker 5: spectacular TV.
Speaker 3: I think tomorrow we get there at least. So what's next?
Speaker 9: Okay, Oh this is big now. Its real life succession
Speaker 9: playing out for the Murdoch family. Okay, So the New
Speaker 9: York Times they got their hands on a court document.
Speaker 9: It showed that Rupert Murdoch in this legal battle with
Speaker 9: his three children, he's looking to change the family's trust
Speaker 9: to hand control of the media empire only to his
Speaker 9: oldest son Lachlan instead of all four kids. So the
Speaker 9: Times are saying it caught his kids, James Elizabeth Bruden's
Speaker 9: by surprise. Now they want to challenge the action. This
Speaker 9: is succession, I mean, it's playing out in real Well, can.
Speaker 2: You run an enterprise like that by committee?
Speaker 5: No, but that's certainly what he What Rupert did at
Speaker 5: the beginning was is I'm going to set up they're
Speaker 5: all equal. After I die, they figure it out. But
Speaker 5: now what he's saying is, oh, my three of my
Speaker 5: offspring they don't necessarily share the editorial view that I
Speaker 5: and my son Lachlan share for Fox in particular way,
Speaker 5: and so we need to get ahead of that before anything.
Speaker 3: He's not taken equity from him. It's just who's gonna run?
Speaker 5: Who's gonna run exactly? Okay, Yeah, and that it's gonna be.
Speaker 5: I mean, you have ano series about this, maybe call it,
Speaker 5: I don't know, succession.
Speaker 3: That would be.
Speaker 7: That would be a good story.
Speaker 3: You could do that.
Speaker 2: The idea generation off the Sweeney disk is extraordinary.
Speaker 9: Next, Okay, you know how parents go back and forth
Speaker 9: with their kids about the screen time? Right, Well, this
Speaker 9: is becoming I know you're gonna work with this. It's
Speaker 9: becoming a thing in zoos with zoo keepers and gorillas. Okay,
Speaker 9: the gorillas are getting too much screen time.
Speaker 5: Who gives them a screen time?
Speaker 7: And what screens do they do? It's the thing okay.
Speaker 9: So sometimes as zoo keepers do it, you know, they
Speaker 9: show them their phone and they're amazed because the gorillas
Speaker 9: actually go on and their cognizance that they like to
Speaker 9: watch the videos of themselves and other gorillas, and and
Speaker 9: they go like this.
Speaker 7: To the screen.
Speaker 9: If you are on YouTube, you're watching me, swipe on
Speaker 9: the screen. They liked us, wipe and say, okay, next video.
Speaker 9: You know, so they're getting attached to it. But the
Speaker 9: visitors to the zoo are also holding up their phones
Speaker 9: to attract the gorillas because the gorillas.
Speaker 7: Like the videos.
Speaker 9: So the zoos are going back and forth about this.
Speaker 9: It's it's big battle whether they should allow, whether they
Speaker 9: should not, how much screen time they should have, how
Speaker 9: much screen time they should not have. I never thought
Speaker 9: I would be talking about that.
Speaker 7: It's becoming a thing.
Speaker 9: This was in the Wall Street Journal. Yeah, so it's
Speaker 9: becoming a problem in the zoos.
Speaker 5: I think it got to limit the screen time for
Speaker 5: the gorillas, no question.
Speaker 2: The late Julian robertson Oka and his wife, they ponied
Speaker 2: up millions so we could do tigers at the Bronx
Speaker 2: Zoo like nothing.
Speaker 3: And you go up there, it's immaculate, and I guess
Speaker 3: it looks a little bit like Africa. I don't know,
Speaker 3: but the.
Speaker 2: Robertson's really really donated an immense amount to trying to
Speaker 2: make a zoo better than a piece of concrete.
Speaker 3: Yeah, theyob as it has.
Speaker 9: Okay, Tom, I know you're a big fan of your chair,
Speaker 9: Like the office chair has to be like set and
Speaker 9: perfect and great. Couch demand chair, office chairs. They're on
Speaker 9: the rebound. Now you have furniture maker Miller Nole. They're
Speaker 9: saying they were in this two year rut, but now
Speaker 9: they're seeing corporate clients, global retail orders starting to grow.
Speaker 9: People are coming back to the office, that's what they're saying,
Speaker 9: So now they need the more office chairs. But it's
Speaker 9: beyond this. They're also saying for healthcare facilities, lobby in room,
Speaker 9: patience seating, they need more chairs and more people coming
Speaker 9: into the doctor's office. They're also rethinking instead of like
Speaker 9: you know, regular tables and chairs, sofas, coffee tables, office furniture.
Speaker 5: Credit Swiss had the conference table. Then my kids came
Speaker 5: to mind. My oldest kids came to my Bloomberg desk
Speaker 5: and say, Dad, what happened? So they do a little
Speaker 5: bit differently here at Bloomberg.
Speaker 9: So that's kind of the Swiss that they're making people.
Speaker 9: You know, they want people to feel better when they
Speaker 9: come back to the office, so they're doing lounge areas
Speaker 9: within the office.
Speaker 2: It's a huge deal because frankly, most of that stuff,
Speaker 2: particularly the European stuff, doesn't fit me.
Speaker 3: I was in Davos. They put me in a.
Speaker 2: Lovely, lovely, fancy condo way above my pay grade, and
Speaker 2: I sat down on.
Speaker 3: A chair and broke it. No, I just you know
Speaker 3: what else can I say?
Speaker 7: Kidding?
Speaker 3: And I wish they designed things for American size. There's
Speaker 3: there's a very few.
Speaker 2: There's there's one in the recording industry that everybody's the
Speaker 2: standard chair.
Speaker 9: Well you're a bit taller than Americans.
Speaker 3: Vice that we got it one more.
Speaker 8: No, we're good, We're good.
Speaker 3: That's it. Lisa Matteo. The newspapers thank you as well.
Speaker 2: This is a Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best
Speaker 2: in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. You can also
Speaker 2: watch the show live on YouTube. Visit the Bloomberg Podcast
Speaker 2: channel on YouTube to see the show weekday mornings from
Speaker 2: seven to ten am Eastern from our global headquarters in
Speaker 2: New York City. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 2: or anywhere else you listen, and always on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business app.