Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. Should we start Yes.
Speaker 2: I'm not signed in. Okay, thanks Jeff. I need the
Speaker 2: emotional comfort of being signed into my Bloomberg terminal.
Speaker 1: I did a deadlift one. Okay, uh barges. This isn't
Speaker 1: after school Special, except.
Speaker 2: I've decided I'm going to base my entire personality going
Speaker 2: forward on campaigning for a strategic pork reserve in the US.
Speaker 1: Where's the best in pasta? These are the important question?
Speaker 2: Is it robots taking over the world?
Speaker 1: No, I think that like in a couple of years,
Speaker 1: the AI will do a really good job of making
Speaker 1: the out launch podcast. And people say, I don't really
Speaker 1: need to listen to Joe and Tracy anymore. We do have.
Speaker 2: Your listening to lots More, where we catch up with
Speaker 2: friends about what's going on right now, because.
Speaker 1: Even when the odd lots is over, there's always lots more.
Speaker 2: And we really do have the perfect guest.
Speaker 1: I think it's kind of weird to be worried about
Speaker 1: like some sort of recession or policy error on a
Speaker 1: day when like the market is basically at all time highs.
Speaker 1: Don't you think it's all strange?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Really, I feel like normally we have these conversations about
Speaker 1: like something's going bad and like the market's down like
Speaker 1: fifteen percent.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but market's not that prescient all the time. And
Speaker 2: I mean, as we know discussing on the podcast, a
Speaker 2: lot of that. You look at what's going on in
Speaker 2: the s and P. Five hundred, like a huge portion
Speaker 2: of that is just driven by a handful of companies.
Speaker 1: Well, this is definitely true. The market is definitely not
Speaker 1: prescient all the time. But normally chatter follows the market.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 1: But more and more people are talking about some sort
Speaker 1: of recession or or policy mistake by the Fed where
Speaker 1: they don't cut soon enough.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is definitely true. So we have seen a
Speaker 2: little bit of softening in the labor market, we've seen
Speaker 2: inflation start to come down, and there's a lot of
Speaker 2: discussion about how durable that trend actually is. And yet
Speaker 2: if you look at especially fedspeak, if you look at fedspeak,
Speaker 2: they seem very hawkish.
Speaker 1: I generally would agree. So here's the weird thing. Here's
Speaker 1: the thing that really freaks me out, which is that
Speaker 1: one of our friends of the pod, Neil Duddo, who
Speaker 1: has been like really you know, sunny and is always
Speaker 1: smiling and it's like always slaying the bears. Is a
Speaker 1: little nervous, Neil, Why are you nervous? That freaks me
Speaker 1: out that you're anxious?
Speaker 3: Well, I just think it's important to look at the
Speaker 3: realized data, right, you know, everyone's looking at you know,
Speaker 3: what's the outlook and whatf they cut once? Is that
Speaker 3: going to reignite the entire economy and inflation? I mean,
Speaker 3: let's just look at the realized data, the information as
Speaker 3: it's been coming in. I don't think forecasting is particularly
Speaker 3: useful when all the Fed does all day long is
Speaker 3: talking about how uncertain everything is. To just focus on
Speaker 3: what's actually happened. And what we know about what's actually
Speaker 3: happened is at the unemployment rate has jumped sixty basis
Speaker 3: points from its low point. It's rising at about thirty
Speaker 3: basis points every five months. If you you know, look
Speaker 3: at what's happened so far this year, which puts it
Speaker 3: on track to go up to four point four percent
Speaker 3: by year's end. That's higher than where the FED believes
Speaker 3: it's going to stay. And core inflation after a bumpy
Speaker 3: first quarter that by the way, is still edging lower.
Speaker 3: It's likely that in May. Over the last year, core
Speaker 3: inflation would have run two and a half percent. So
Speaker 3: when you think about like a rules based framework, you know,
Speaker 3: I think it's important to sort of just acknowledge that
Speaker 3: across a variety of monetary policy rules, it all suggests
Speaker 3: that a less restrictive stance of policies required. And you know,
Speaker 3: I mean obviously back during the post GFC era, right,
Speaker 3: I mean, there was all this talk about, well, we
Speaker 3: don't want to run policy based on like a computer.
Speaker 3: You know, what's the point of having it? Right, Like,
Speaker 3: you know you need to have some judgment. Well, if
Speaker 3: you're always uncertain about everything and you can't actually think,
Speaker 3: and you don't want you don't want to actually apply
Speaker 3: any judgment, maybe you should go to the rules. And
Speaker 3: the rules are basically telling you one thing, which is cut,
Speaker 3: and do it relatively soon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in my mind, it feels like at this point
Speaker 2: you could essentially do like an insurance cut, right, Like
Speaker 2: the momentum is kind of in your favor. And yet
Speaker 2: it seems like FMC officials, at least looking at some
Speaker 2: of the recent FED speak, they're really worried about this
Speaker 2: idea that like there's going to be a long tail
Speaker 2: in inflation, and if they're not really really going up
Speaker 2: against it, it's going to be the nineteen seventies all
Speaker 2: over again.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't I don't really buy it. I mean,
Speaker 3: in the nineteen seven they took real interest rates negative,
Speaker 3: right No one's talking about doing something like that right now.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think what I'm talking about or advocating for,
Speaker 3: is that it's important to start a recalibration of policy.
Speaker 3: If they wait long enough, maybe they will have to
Speaker 3: go more. But the idea is to do a little
Speaker 3: bit now so you don't have to do more later,
Speaker 3: and sort of stabilize economic conditions at the moment. I
Speaker 3: think what's important is that there's really not much of
Speaker 3: a right tail risk to the economy. I mean, I
Speaker 3: would agree with Joe in the sense that I'm not
Speaker 3: going to light my hair on fire over recession risk.
Speaker 3: But it's just important to note the areas of the
Speaker 3: economy that have been kind of responsible for some of
Speaker 3: the slowing that we've seen this year. It's housing and consumption, okay,
Speaker 3: I mean, if you look at nominal retail sales and
Speaker 3: food services spending so far this year, it's actually basically
Speaker 3: where it was in December, so it's been flat for
Speaker 3: five months. And then when you look at new home sales,
Speaker 3: they've generally been slowing. If you look at new homes
Speaker 3: sold that haven't yet been started, it suggests that we're
Speaker 3: going to see continued weakness and residential construction spending over
Speaker 3: the summer. So it's not just about the economy slowing.
Speaker 3: It is, but it's really about the areas from where
Speaker 3: that slowing is coming. And so I think it's important
Speaker 3: to just keep that in the back of your mind.
Speaker 3: And it's just to me, it's balance of risks, like
Speaker 3: what is the risk for the unemployment rate? Tell me
Speaker 3: the downside story for unemployment, Like why does the labor
Speaker 3: market retighten at this point? It's really hard to come
Speaker 3: up with it. And same thing and with respect to inflation,
Speaker 3: like what's the upside scenario for inflation? So I think
Speaker 3: this sort of idea that they're just going to be
Speaker 3: a slave to the high frequency data and oh, just
Speaker 3: another few more months and we'll get there. It's kind
Speaker 3: of ridiculous when you don't have like a fundamental story
Speaker 3: for why that risk is really worth paying attention to.
Speaker 3: I thought it was really revealing. You know, I think
Speaker 3: at the last press conference, Jerome Powell was talking about
Speaker 3: import prices. He's like, well, you know, import prices rose
Speaker 3: and we can't really understand why. And then literally like
Speaker 3: twenty four hours later, the import price number comes out
Speaker 3: and it was a complete dud, Like it fell substantially.
Speaker 3: And why would you worry about import prices if the
Speaker 3: dollar strengthening? I mean, how do you how do import
Speaker 3: prices work? I mean, you know, it's just sometimes it's
Speaker 3: important to kind of stick with first principles, and so
Speaker 3: I don't know, I mean, I just they never really
Speaker 3: had a good explanation for y Q one was so
Speaker 3: firm in the first place, and they're sort of a
Speaker 3: slave to the high frequency data, and you know, I
Speaker 3: just think that you have to have like a fundamental
Speaker 3: framework in place. And the way to sort of frame
Speaker 3: this to the markets is, look, labor markets are an
Speaker 3: important driver of inflation, and the way we think about
Speaker 3: the world and the lay the inflation, our impulse from
Speaker 3: the labor market is basically zero. We've we've trimmed excess
Speaker 3: labor demand, as is evidenced by job openings, which is
Speaker 3: a series that they've been paying so much attention to
Speaker 3: and if you look at at labor costs over the
Speaker 3: last year, they're running under one percent. So where is
Speaker 3: the inflation going to come from? That supports a recalibration
Speaker 3: of monetary policy? Hice, And we can take by meaning
Speaker 3: my approach if that's what I would say. But you know, Joe,
Speaker 3: as you know, I don't have a PhD. I'm not
Speaker 3: at the FED, so you know.
Speaker 1: I don't have a PhD. Tracy, do you have a PhD?
Speaker 2: No, of course not. I have a postgraduate diploma.
Speaker 1: I like the way you pose this question, which is
Speaker 1: that it's understandable in the abstract, to say you know,
Speaker 1: it's understandable in the abstract, to say, of you know
Speaker 1: their risk to both sides. But the owners does seem
Speaker 1: to be on the sort of hawks to say, okay, like,
Speaker 1: if we're going to get a re emergence of inflation,
Speaker 1: where's it coming from? Because the story about labor markets
Speaker 1: and so forth was kind of a compelling story for years,
Speaker 1: except now we do have this pretty clear labor market
Speaker 1: slowing really across a range of a range of indicators.
Speaker 1: Here's my question though, like, all right, so they want
Speaker 1: to see a little more data they want to see
Speaker 1: a little more disinflation. How much risk is there if like, Okay,
Speaker 1: they don't do July, they probably won't like September, maybe November,
Speaker 1: Like does it really matter, like if you know whether
Speaker 1: it's September or.
Speaker 2: Noting November might matter.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But like like when we think there, does it
Speaker 1: really get away from them if they like put it
Speaker 1: off a few couple more meetings.
Speaker 3: I mean, the risks certainly build, you know, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean you know, I'm not going to say that
Speaker 3: the difference between July and September means the economy rolls
Speaker 3: over hard or not. But I definitely think the risks
Speaker 3: certainly build. The more they see, the more evidence they
Speaker 3: see inflation is slowing, and the more in transitence they
Speaker 3: sow in responding to it, the more the risk built
Speaker 3: for the economy. Because remember, I mean today's inflation data
Speaker 3: represents yesterday's monetary policy. So what do we know about inflation.
Speaker 3: We know that inflation's already been slowing, and we know
Speaker 3: that monetary policy hasn't been changing, so a good first
Speaker 3: past estimation that inflation will continue to slow. So in
Speaker 3: that respect, they're going to be passively tightening policy by
Speaker 3: doing nothing. So in that, in my mind, that means
Speaker 3: that the risks continue to build. So you're talking about
Speaker 3: an economy that's only growing. You know, it's growing at
Speaker 3: about two percent. Okay, fine, but the pressure will continue
Speaker 3: to build. And you look at the labor market. I mean,
Speaker 3: this is something a point that you brought up before.
Speaker 3: The only reason the labor markets look as good as
Speaker 3: they do is because the layoff rate is really really low.
Speaker 3: It's not like the rate of hiring has perked up
Speaker 3: or anything. The rate of hiring remains low. So if
Speaker 3: companies are getting now to a point where they're feeling
Speaker 3: a little bit more cautious on the outlook, a very
Speaker 3: modest increase in the layoff rate will generate much weaker
Speaker 3: growth in employment. And to me, the fact that the
Speaker 3: Fed has been leaning in hard to this sort of
Speaker 3: positive supply story, that just adds to it, right because
Speaker 3: at that point, you know, any any weakness and employment
Speaker 3: growth will imply that much weaker demand.
Speaker 2: Neil, you mentioned the idea of companies getting a little
Speaker 2: bit more cautious just then. I was overjoyed to see
Speaker 2: in one of your most recent notes, not just a
Speaker 2: mention but an entire rendering of the beverage curve, which
Speaker 2: is something that has been kind of like a hot
Speaker 2: topic in recent years. It's basically the relationship between job
Speaker 2: openings and unemployment. And for a while, lots of people
Speaker 2: were looking at the beverage curve as sort of like
Speaker 2: the key to whether or not we would have a
Speaker 2: soft landing. But it was really interesting you were arguing
Speaker 2: that looking at the beverage curve, it seems like you
Speaker 2: could have an even larger increase in unemployment if things
Speaker 2: start to turn for the worst. Can you talk to
Speaker 2: us about that?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Sure, So, as you mentioned, the beverage curve basically
Speaker 3: relates changes in the job vacancy rate to unemployment. And
Speaker 3: you know, for the better part of the last last year,
Speaker 3: we've been, you know, sort of the labor markets have
Speaker 3: been operating on sort of the vertical part of the
Speaker 3: of the beverage curve, right, So you can trim job
Speaker 3: openings or labor demand, I mean, job openings are a
Speaker 3: proxy for excess labor demand. You can trim excess labor
Speaker 3: demand without seeing much of an increase in the unemployment rate.
Speaker 3: And that's more or less what we've seen for the
Speaker 3: better part of the last year. But if you look
Speaker 3: at where the latest points are kind of lining up,
Speaker 3: it looks like they've you know, we're basically we've normalized.
Speaker 3: So in other words, any further deterioration in labor demand
Speaker 3: from this point will imply, you know, higher unemployment. We're
Speaker 3: no longer on that vertical part of the curve. And
Speaker 3: so that's what I'm concerned about. And I think the
Speaker 3: risk is, you know, unemployment never just goes up a
Speaker 3: little bit, right, I mean, it's it's either up, you know,
Speaker 3: a lot, or not at all. So we've kind of
Speaker 3: been what we've seen in the last year has been
Speaker 3: somewhat a history oracle in the sense that we've seen
Speaker 3: a you know, a fairly you know, notable increase in
Speaker 3: the unemployment rate and we haven't seen recession. But I mean,
Speaker 3: how far do you really want to push that experiment,
Speaker 3: particularly when broader measures of labor utilization suggest that, if anything,
Speaker 3: the U three unemployment rate at the margin is probably
Speaker 3: overstating the degree of health in the labor market. I mean,
Speaker 3: if you look at things like the quits rate, they're
Speaker 3: actually lower today than they were right before the pandemic.
Speaker 3: That's of course true for the hire's rate as well.
Speaker 3: You know, as I mentioned, I talked about unit labor costs.
Speaker 3: But the fact that labor turnover is so low and
Speaker 3: the quits rate's been coming down, that would suggest that
Speaker 3: there's not really much wage pressure out there. I mean,
Speaker 3: if anything, it's more likely at this point that firms
Speaker 3: are holding their workers flat relative to last year, more
Speaker 3: so than than changing their pay you know, for moving
Speaker 3: their payoff rather and so you know that that again,
Speaker 3: I mean, so where where's the inflation coming from? If
Speaker 3: the labor markets are not consistent with an inflation or impulse,
Speaker 3: and FED believes that they're running a very very hawkish policy,
Speaker 3: they should be much more concerned about potential downside risk
Speaker 3: to growth than upside risk to inflation. And what do
Speaker 3: we know about growth? We know that growth is slowing
Speaker 3: relative to where it was last year in two important sectors,
Speaker 3: housing and consumption.
Speaker 1: Tracy, can I say something that bothers me a little bit?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: Sure, you know now I'm nervous.
Speaker 1: No, No, it's not that bad. But so listening to
Speaker 1: like the FED officials, I'm trying to think, I don't
Speaker 1: want to express an opinion here because I don't do that,
Speaker 1: but can I just say people, So there seems to
Speaker 1: be a Neil described the date of the labor market
Speaker 1: as the hiring rate is down. So if you're looking
Speaker 1: for a job, your odds of getting a job have declined, right,
Speaker 1: But we haven't really had a layoff cycle, and so
Speaker 1: there seems to be like some comfort with this dynamic
Speaker 1: that it's like, okay, like this is softening, but like
Speaker 1: people who don't have a job in looking for a
Speaker 1: job just because they're not recent layoffs, like they count too. No,
Speaker 1: for real, you know, it to be like this view
Speaker 1: was like, oh, well, it's okay because it's just that
Speaker 1: the hiring rate is down, but at least we aren't
Speaker 1: seeing like layoffs. It's like, yeah, I'm glad we're not
Speaker 1: seeing me as layoffs. But also the people who are
Speaker 1: looking for a job are finding it harder and harder.
Speaker 1: That's not good either, No, of course not.
Speaker 3: I mean as an inventory thing works, right, guys, I
Speaker 3: mean you don't have right, I mean it's just basically
Speaker 3: it's taking longer for the excess housing and then the
Speaker 3: process that's driving up inventory. It's the same thing with unemployment, right,
Speaker 3: Like if you lose your job. At any given month,
Speaker 3: people are losing the job. It's taking those people longer
Speaker 3: amounts of time to find a job. Right, so over
Speaker 3: time you continue to like, right, it's like a bathtub
Speaker 3: model of unemployment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I get how the I get how it works.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like, they count too.
Speaker 2: You should make a T shirt Joe that says they
Speaker 2: count to.
Speaker 1: They count too.
Speaker 2: Actually, this reminds me so. One thing I was thinking
Speaker 2: about is like, so much of the labor market titaness
Speaker 2: was driven by the services sector in recent years, and
Speaker 2: you know, we saw the displacement of workers there and
Speaker 2: then it took a while to get people back, and
Speaker 2: and there was a ton of pent up demand and
Speaker 2: everyone wanted to go out to restaurants again or go
Speaker 2: on vacations or whatever. I do feel like potentially the
Speaker 2: peak of that is over, which kind of begs the
Speaker 2: question of, well, if you're not going to get additional
Speaker 2: tightness in the services market, then where does it come from.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's going to come from like AI
Speaker 2: investment and everyone suddenly becomes a chat GPT prompter or
Speaker 2: something like that.
Speaker 3: To that point, if you look at average hourly earnings
Speaker 3: in retail trade and leisure in hospitality, they've slowed precipitously
Speaker 3: over the last year. I mean, those are the two industries,
Speaker 3: those two sort of service industries that gottled so much
Speaker 3: attention during the COVID pandemic because you know, sort of
Speaker 3: a proxy for kind of low end service work. You know,
Speaker 3: these are the people with hyperpensity to suspend. But their
Speaker 3: wage growth has been slowing over the last year. So again,
Speaker 3: I mean, where's the inflation coming from? I just keep
Speaker 3: coming back to this point, like, where is the inflation
Speaker 3: coming from? You know, people, you know, you can point
Speaker 3: to oil or something. I mean, I just don't really,
Speaker 3: that's not really a broad increase in prices. Ultimately, the
Speaker 3: labor markets are an important driver for how the FED
Speaker 3: thinks about inflation, rightly or wrongly. But right now, unit
Speaker 3: labor costs are basically zero, So you know, I think
Speaker 3: that there's room for prices to keep coming down.
Speaker 1: Obviously in private and in public and in every statement
Speaker 1: that any member of the FED has ever said, with
Speaker 1: kind of one exception, but I'm not going to say.
Speaker 2: With this Wait, okay, I'll ask you afterwards.
Speaker 1: They'll they'll say, politics just does completely not matter, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not our jobs, like time things around the election. Nonetheless, Neil,
Speaker 1: do you think the reality of the calendar right now?
Speaker 1: We have there's a July meeting, there's a September meeting,
Speaker 1: and then there's a meeting that's literally two days after
Speaker 1: the election or something like that. Does the timing of
Speaker 1: the calendar Do you think it's affecting how the FED
Speaker 1: is thinking about the timing?
Speaker 3: No, okay, because I think that it's sort of your
Speaker 3: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Right, let's
Speaker 3: say that they they don't want to respond to the calendar, right, Like,
Speaker 3: let's say that they want to hold off on cutting
Speaker 3: because they're worried about doing something that looks political ahead
Speaker 3: of the election. Okay, that in and of itself is political, Yeah, okay, right,
Speaker 3: because what are the chances that, Okay, we should I
Speaker 3: mean this inflation data are slow and we should probably
Speaker 3: get on with it, but we're not going to. In
Speaker 3: the process, the economy is weakening as a result of that.
Speaker 3: Then you have a new president that just gets that
Speaker 3: comes into office or just wins the election, and then
Speaker 3: boom you start the easing cycle with a fifty bases
Speaker 3: point move right, Like, how does that look? Yeah, so
Speaker 3: it's sort of I just think that you just focus
Speaker 3: on the data, do what you think is right. I
Speaker 3: do think that there's precedent for the FED moving in
Speaker 3: events of an election. I mean there's this nonsensical talking
Speaker 3: point around Wall Street about how, you know, never has
Speaker 3: the FED cut interest rates in a September meeting before
Speaker 3: an election? Well, okay, BERNANKI launched open end at QWI
Speaker 3: in September of twenty twelve. I mean like it's like
Speaker 3: one of these things where it's like, yes, I guess
Speaker 3: that's technically true, but also irrelevant because we were never
Speaker 3: taking rates negative. So instead they launched an open ended
Speaker 3: asset purchase program. I mean, is that enough? So? I
Speaker 3: think the FED has shown that it's willing to do
Speaker 3: things at politically sensitive moments, you know. I mean many
Speaker 3: of the people that are talking about how the Fed's
Speaker 3: political have also been the ones talking about long and
Speaker 3: variable legs right for the better part of the last
Speaker 3: you know, eighteen months, And if the FED does something
Speaker 3: in September, like, how does that help bide in any
Speaker 3: meaningful way? In November?
Speaker 2: Neil I'm going to ask you to do our job
Speaker 2: for us. But Joe and I are supposed to go
Speaker 2: to Jackson Hole in August. On the off chance that
Speaker 2: we run into Jerome Pal hiking through the woods or
Speaker 2: something like that. What should we ask him?
Speaker 3: Tell him that he should be cutting through the world,
Speaker 3: Just tell him to cut. I would ask him, if
Speaker 3: the unemployment rate rose two tenths of one percent in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty three, with the real economy growing three percent,
Speaker 3: why would it stay flat for the next two quarters
Speaker 3: with the economy slowing?
Speaker 2: Oh, this is the set right the dots?
Speaker 3: Yeah, how does that work? Explain it to me? Oh?
Speaker 3: Man like that would be one question I would ask him.
Speaker 2: I think Pal is going to be running away from
Speaker 2: us in the woods.
Speaker 3: And I would also ask him, does he think that
Speaker 3: inflation is a lagging indicator? Like Ben bernanke yes.
Speaker 1: Ran, that seems like one source of firmness. And our
Speaker 1: friend Connor has been pointing out. Connorson has been pointing
Speaker 1: out that if you look at some of the apartment reads,
Speaker 1: those are actually doing pretty well, and there are signs
Speaker 1: affirming there was a story in the journal. I think
Speaker 1: last night or this morning, we're recording this on the
Speaker 1: twenty sixth, talk about how investors are sort of bullish
Speaker 1: because this supply constraining effect of the rate hikes. There's
Speaker 1: going to be sort of minimal new supply coming online,
Speaker 1: and so that creates upward pressure on rent in the
Speaker 1: long term. That is one area that people we have
Speaker 1: not seen the slowing that people would like. If you're
Speaker 1: asking the question where does the inflation come from? Could
Speaker 1: it come from shelter in some measure or another?
Speaker 3: I think it ultimately boils down to the labor market, Joe,
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't like to get I mean I think, frankly,
Speaker 3: the reads story is essentially like an interest rate play.
Speaker 3: I'd be perfectly honest with you, okay, right, I mean
Speaker 3: reads are rallying, whire eats rally and reads a rallying
Speaker 3: because interest rates have come down, and that's like reats
Speaker 3: are thought of, like, you know, like an income substitute. Right,
Speaker 3: So it's I think that's that's largely what's going on.
Speaker 3: It's just it's a derivative of lower interest rates and
Speaker 3: the FED expectations. But I ultimately think what drives rents
Speaker 3: is how people pay for those rents, which is wages
Speaker 3: and salaries, So you have to tell me why wage
Speaker 3: and salary income accelerates. I mean, like, if you get
Speaker 3: into a situation where you know shelter costers are quite sticky,
Speaker 3: but people are seeing their income slow down, that just
Speaker 3: means they're going to have to cut back in other areas,
Speaker 3: which will then drive the prices for those things down.
Speaker 3: So I just I think that's part of the issue
Speaker 3: with this kind of bottoms up approach. I kind of
Speaker 3: like to look at it sort of more of a
Speaker 3: top down perspective.
Speaker 1: Tracy, have you gotten the five dollars McDonald's meal yet?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 2: I haven't.
Speaker 1: Are you going to?
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess, Wait, what's in it?
Speaker 1: Have you not seen it?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I haven't legit. You can get a small fries, a
Speaker 1: coke or a drink, and like a chicken sandwich for
Speaker 1: five bucks.
Speaker 2: I don't like the chicken sandwich, or.
Speaker 1: There's something else. I think there's two options. I think
Speaker 1: it might only be chicken.
Speaker 2: I only see what the McDonald's app chooses to show
Speaker 2: me nowadays, and it hasn't shown me the cheaper meal unfortunately, Neil.
Speaker 1: Will you try it? Do you?
Speaker 3: In my diet? You know? Okay, just make a sure
Speaker 3: but if if Subway brings back their five dollars foot longs,
Speaker 3: I might go for it all right.
Speaker 2: I like the idea that the Fed needs to cut
Speaker 2: when Suboy brings back its five dollar foot.
Speaker 3: Longs, that that General Mills story today will be interesting.
Speaker 3: I mean, if focusing on trying to boost volumes, like,
Speaker 3: there's only one way that can happen, right, volume.
Speaker 2: It's a volume over price.
Speaker 1: Now, yeah's got to cut Lots More is produced by
Speaker 1: Carmen Rodriguez and dash Ol Bennett, with help from Moses
Speaker 1: on Them and Kill Brooks.
Speaker 2: Our sound engineer is Blake Maples. Sage Bauman is the
Speaker 2: head of Bloomberg Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Please rate, review, and subscribe to Odd, Lots and Lots
Speaker 1: More on your favorite podcast platforms.
Speaker 2: And remember that Bloomberg subscribers can listen to all our
Speaker 2: podcasts at free by connecting through Apple Podcasts. Thanks for listening.