WEBVTT - Reaction to India and Rate Cuts Hiding in Plain Sight 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:06.760 Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. 0:00:11.960 --> 0:00:15.560 This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene along 0:00:15.600 --> 0:00:18.960 with Paul Sweeney. Join us each day for insight from 0:00:18.960 --> 0:00:23.160 the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. You 0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:26.520 can also watch the show live on YouTube. Visit the 0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:31.280 Bloomberg Podcast channel on YouTube to see the show weekday 0:00:31.280 --> 0:00:34.320 mornings from seven to ten am Eastern from our global 0:00:34.360 --> 0:00:39.000 headquarters in New York City. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, 0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:42.920 or anywhere else you listen, and always I'm Bloomberg Radio, 0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:47.199 the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app quote an 0:00:47.200 --> 0:00:50.440 honorative Michael Spence and the laureate and Richard Porters of 0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:53.800 London Business School talking about John Hicks and long ago 0:00:53.840 --> 0:00:55.840 there was a thing that was invented called the Hicks 0:00:55.880 --> 0:00:59.240 Hansen model, which now we call the ISLM model. And 0:00:59.280 --> 0:01:03.120 the bottom line is the financial media completely focuses on 0:01:03.200 --> 0:01:07.479 financial LM dynamics money this you know, the interest rate? 0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:10.640 What's inflation can do? Oh yeah, there's an is curve 0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:14.040 which has to have the ab the real economy on it. 0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:18.720 Rich Clarita, is this fed completely riveted to inflation? Or 0:01:18.760 --> 0:01:21.759 can they perchance look at the American labor economy. 0:01:22.880 --> 0:01:24.600 If you'd ask me that question, which I think you 0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:27.800 did two years ago, I'd say they're focused on inflation 0:01:27.840 --> 0:01:31.360 because it was too damn they're saying, and I believe 0:01:31.480 --> 0:01:34.000 that desk is two sided. I think if we did 0:01:34.040 --> 0:01:37.360 see a sharp sloane in the labor market, they would respond. 0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:40.040 Because inflation is now close enough to target, they can 0:01:40.120 --> 0:01:43.160 afford to be flexible two years ago when inflation was 0:01:43.200 --> 0:01:44.080 six seven percent. 0:01:44.440 --> 0:01:47.320 No, with the fancy PhDs off of Columbia at the 0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:51.840 Echos building, when you quote unquote focus on labor, by 0:01:51.920 --> 0:01:55.160 definition your ex post, you have to wait for the 0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:58.920 labor economy to break. You can't anticipate it at a 0:01:58.960 --> 0:02:00.160 given central bank. 0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:06.080 That's a very fundamental question because ideally central bankers, and 0:02:06.120 --> 0:02:08.919 based on including on my own research with Gertler and Galley, 0:02:09.000 --> 0:02:11.440 in a perfect world, you would anticipate if you saw 0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.200 the labor market slowing, you try to get ahead. That's 0:02:14.240 --> 0:02:17.840 forward looking monetary policy, as I learned in practice. However, 0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:20.839 the economy is always changing, and what was a good 0:02:20.880 --> 0:02:22.760 model five years ago it may not be a good 0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:25.280 model now. So there's a real element of risk management 0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:27.560 as well. But I will tell you I got a 0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:30.040 good example of that, tom when during my time there, 0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:33.079 the models were saying, you guys got to keep hiking 0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:35.680 rates because the unemployment rates at four point two percent. 0:02:35.720 --> 0:02:38.520 Our models say inflation's coming. And Jay Palin and I 0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:41.080 the Committee didn't see inflation, so we didn't hike rates 0:02:41.080 --> 0:02:43.079 in twenty nineteen. In fact, we cut a little bit 0:02:43.320 --> 0:02:46.120 so the economy could keep going. So there's risk on 0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:48.760 both sides. And I think good monetary policy needs to 0:02:48.760 --> 0:02:50.200 be nimble and assess that. 0:02:50.480 --> 0:02:53.200 You know, central bank inflation targeting I mean, Richard, I 0:02:53.200 --> 0:02:55.720 mean this is something that you know. I mean, we felt, 0:02:55.800 --> 0:02:58.679 at least in emerging markets that central banks had found religion. 0:02:58.720 --> 0:03:01.000 And here we are, and where's central banks cutting in 0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:03.160 the face of AVT on hold? And my question for 0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:05.160 you is how long can that last? 0:03:06.639 --> 0:03:07.600 This divergence? 0:03:08.320 --> 0:03:10.440 Certainly, I think there was some talk at the beginning 0:03:10.440 --> 0:03:12.520 of the year other countries would not even begin to 0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:13.639 cut until the FED dead. 0:03:13.880 --> 0:03:14.760 I never believe that. 0:03:14.800 --> 0:03:18.160 And I see, we've already seen Sweden, We've seen Switzerlandberg 0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:23.560 almost certainly going to see Madame Leguard and the ECB tomorrow. 0:03:23.639 --> 0:03:25.839 So I think certainly central banks can get those rate 0:03:25.880 --> 0:03:29.480 cuts started, and I think they could proceed much further 0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:33.120 than the FED if their inflation data supports that decision. 0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.960 I think the challenge right now in Europe and the 0:03:36.040 --> 0:03:40.440 UK is the inflation data at best is moving sideways 0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:44.160 and some measures is moving up. So that may limit 0:03:44.480 --> 0:03:46.200 the number of cuts they get in this year, not 0:03:46.240 --> 0:03:48.600 because they're focused on the FED, but because inflation is 0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:49.320 not cooperating. 0:03:49.320 --> 0:03:50.560 I mean, you just hit the nail on the head. 0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:52.880 I mean, look, inflation is not cooperating right now with 0:03:52.920 --> 0:03:55.840 the ECB, and Madam Leguard is this is an interesting experiment, Tom, 0:03:55.880 --> 0:03:58.080 I mean can the ECB, I mean it's twenty five BIPs? 0:03:58.120 --> 0:03:59.240 What are they going to cut? The deeper way to 0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:02.760 four seventy five is really going to juice growth in 0:04:02.800 --> 0:04:04.800 the Eurozone? I mean do you think that's enough? Do 0:04:04.800 --> 0:04:06.440 you think they're going to have to continue to go more? 0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:08.840 Or can they cut pause and wait and see what 0:04:08.840 --> 0:04:09.360 the FED does. 0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:14.440 My guest now is that they will pause in the 0:04:14.480 --> 0:04:16.839 sense I don't see them moving at the meeting after 0:04:16.880 --> 0:04:18.200 the June meeting, based. 0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:19.800 Up on the data now. 0:04:19.800 --> 0:04:22.400 In fact, maybe I just a venture there could be 0:04:22.440 --> 0:04:26.440 a little bit of seller's remorse because they really signals 0:04:26.480 --> 0:04:29.599 this rate cut beginning in March, and I think they're 0:04:29.640 --> 0:04:31.159 going to get it in, and I think it makes 0:04:31.200 --> 0:04:33.760 sense to get it in. But I would not extrapolate 0:04:33.800 --> 0:04:35.720 from this that it's going to be every meeting. 0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:36.599 I really do think. 0:04:36.640 --> 0:04:39.680 And I saw a wonderful speech that Madame Leguard gave 0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:43.479 at the ECB Washers where I also spoke in March. 0:04:43.560 --> 0:04:45.679 It was one of her best speeches, and the message 0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:48.560 I got from that is she is very data dependent, 0:04:48.600 --> 0:04:51.120 and if the data doesn't cooperate, I think that's going 0:04:51.160 --> 0:04:51.800 to be a factor. 0:04:51.880 --> 0:04:55.880 Inter jackson whole speech, which recovered, was the same ideas, Okay, 0:04:55.880 --> 0:05:00.640 we're data dependent, but let's have a longer vision. Is well, Clarita, 0:05:01.480 --> 0:05:03.320 I have to have a nerd book of the summer. 0:05:03.440 --> 0:05:06.080 And it's Adam Posen's fault. We'll blame him out of 0:05:06.080 --> 0:05:10.480 Peterson Institute, Nori Sobsfeld and Douger when talking about trade, 0:05:10.680 --> 0:05:14.120 talking about what's out there and all of this, and 0:05:14.120 --> 0:05:16.200 we're going to get Brad Setzer in here, but Brad 0:05:16.279 --> 0:05:20.159 idea deglobalization. The Fed's got to worry about the rest 0:05:20.160 --> 0:05:21.679 of the world as well. 0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:24.719 Do they work within regional trading. 0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:27.440 Blocks now or do we still have a vibrant trade 0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:29.480 economy that can be part. 0:05:29.240 --> 0:05:29.960 Of our growth. 0:05:31.279 --> 0:05:34.880 Well, obviously, globalization, I think it's clear has peaked, and 0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:37.159 so the real question for the next five, ten, fifteen, 0:05:37.240 --> 0:05:41.480 twenty years is what does on sharing, friends, sharing, supply 0:05:41.640 --> 0:05:44.480 chain rethink. How does that translate? But I will say 0:05:44.520 --> 0:05:47.719 it's very relevant tom to monetary policy because in the 0:05:47.760 --> 0:05:52.599 thirty years before the pandemic, globalization made the FED job 0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:55.680 easier because it put dowur rice pressure on goods and 0:05:55.720 --> 0:05:58.280 in labor markets. And if it reverses, that means that 0:05:58.400 --> 0:05:59.960 the margin that does jobs harder. 0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:02.200 Right now, and this goes to the meeting next week, 0:06:02.600 --> 0:06:05.520 you've got a partition of domestic final sales, which are 0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:06.520 actually pretty good. 0:06:07.120 --> 0:06:08.560 But I'm sorry you bolt on a. 0:06:08.480 --> 0:06:11.839 Few other statistics, including trade, and it's a sub two 0:06:11.880 --> 0:06:13.680 percent economy. 0:06:13.240 --> 0:06:14.120 Yeah, which is it? 0:06:16.160 --> 0:06:18.560 My own sense is that we're heading down to around 0:06:18.560 --> 0:06:21.039 a two percent economy, with a risk that we could 0:06:21.200 --> 0:06:24.680 overshoot in the other direction. I think it's too soon 0:06:24.720 --> 0:06:27.239 to towel. But some of the data, including the Bloomberg surprise, 0:06:27.320 --> 0:06:31.560 ind it has moved into negative territory. We saw Atlanta 0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:33.760 FED marked down from four to one to eight in 0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:37.640 the last couple of weeks, so Bear's watching rich. 0:06:37.720 --> 0:06:39.600 We talk about data dependence here in the US, and 0:06:39.600 --> 0:06:41.279 we have two big data points coming out. We have 0:06:41.320 --> 0:06:44.080 the ISM services coming up tomorrow and then followed by payrolls. 0:06:44.080 --> 0:06:46.240 But I think it's those sub components. So I'm asking you, 0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:48.560 what are you really looking at? Within the data? You're 0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:50.920 looking at prices, paid, new orders. In the ISM data 0:06:51.000 --> 0:06:55.359 you looking at you know, liborforce size, average hourly earnings. 0:06:55.400 --> 0:06:56.800 I mean, what are you most focused on over the 0:06:56.839 --> 0:06:57.479 next couple of years? 0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:00.440 At some level, the flip answer would be all all 0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:01.000 the above. 0:07:01.120 --> 0:07:02.880 You know, certainly when. 0:07:02.760 --> 0:07:04.960 You're at the FED, you are looking at everything. But 0:07:05.720 --> 0:07:09.000 I would say that, if I had to prioritize, I'm 0:07:09.040 --> 0:07:12.800 focused more on the cost side of the economy right now, 0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:17.680 in the sense that everyone agrees that the labor market 0:07:17.880 --> 0:07:20.680 needs to adjust to be consistent with the inflation mandate, 0:07:20.720 --> 0:07:23.880 and I would say that the numbers there are are encouraging. 0:07:23.920 --> 0:07:27.240 We've seen a big deceleration and wage inflation that may 0:07:27.280 --> 0:07:30.560 create some political problems for the incumbent, But from the 0:07:30.560 --> 0:07:33.480 Fed's point of view, it's moving wage inflation in the 0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:37.400 direction of consistent with price to ability, unlike, for example, 0:07:37.440 --> 0:07:39.239 what we're seeing in the year zone in the UK. 0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:41.680 So I think labor market and the cost side of 0:07:41.720 --> 0:07:44.560 the economy is what I be focused on. I think 0:07:44.600 --> 0:07:46.840 the demand side will take care of itself. 0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:49.800 I'm out of time. Can you come back, of course 0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:51.800 if we can get you in for. 0:07:53.920 --> 0:07:56.080 Thank you so much, the former Vice chairman of the FED, 0:07:56.160 --> 0:08:08.720 I can't say in a just heard Tom Porcelli of 0:08:08.840 --> 0:08:15.080 PGM mention the QCEW chew on that it's some obscure 0:08:15.280 --> 0:08:20.280 labor report that only Ana Wong would study, and single 0:08:20.320 --> 0:08:25.640 handedly doctor Wang of Bloomberg Economics has changed the zeitgeist, 0:08:25.680 --> 0:08:28.360 turned it as on its head. In the last twenty 0:08:28.360 --> 0:08:32.720 four hours re report with Anawong on a one million 0:08:33.000 --> 0:08:36.760 overshoot on the job economy, the numbers are going to 0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:41.959 be much lower, much more tepid, Anawog, congratulations on forming 0:08:42.040 --> 0:08:45.720 the zeitgeist globally in the last seventy two hours. Is 0:08:45.800 --> 0:08:50.000 your report and the revisions to come of less job 0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:54.239 creation enough to change the FED now or September? 0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:59.400 Well, you know, Tom, it really depends on when that 0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:06.840 the true numbers as released, and the first hint that 0:09:06.640 --> 0:09:11.400 the FED will have of the entire revisions covering April 0:09:11.440 --> 0:09:15.120 twenty twenty three to March of twenty twenty four would 0:09:15.120 --> 0:09:20.960 be just two days before Powell's August Jacksonvile speech. And 0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:26.920 in that report are we expect about a million downward revisions. 0:09:26.960 --> 0:09:30.280 And I think that that would be enough to question 0:09:30.480 --> 0:09:34.200 and challenge their beliefs so far that that in fact 0:09:34.920 --> 0:09:38.040 the labor market's tight and they have time to win 0:09:39.440 --> 0:09:42.120 until things actually weeken. In fact, things have been weakening, 0:09:42.920 --> 0:09:45.440 So I think it's a perfect catalyst for September rate 0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:46.280 cut around. 0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.480 This is a birthstaff model. I'm going to suggest, doctor wrong, 0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:54.400 You're not the only fancy smart person who's figured this out. 0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:58.120 Would you suggest the staff at the Echos building is 0:09:58.160 --> 0:10:01.800 figured out much the same as you've written about for 0:10:01.800 --> 0:10:03.679 Bloomberg in the last twenty four hours. 0:10:05.280 --> 0:10:08.880 Well, you know, in the FOBC minutes for the last meeting, 0:10:08.960 --> 0:10:13.679 we saw the feedstaff is currently forecasting unemployment rate to 0:10:14.240 --> 0:10:17.480 fall this year. And the kind of models that can 0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:21.920 generate a prediction of unemployment rate falling this year rather 0:10:22.200 --> 0:10:26.040 as opposed to rising is a top down model using 0:10:26.480 --> 0:10:30.720 VR traditional forecast, which is far far away from the 0:10:30.760 --> 0:10:34.640 approach that would show a one million overstatement of non 0:10:34.640 --> 0:10:37.920 farm payrolls. So it seems to me that the direction 0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:40.600 that the feed staff is focusing putting a lot more 0:10:40.640 --> 0:10:44.120 weight on is taking data at face value and plugging 0:10:44.160 --> 0:10:46.880 it into a top down model as opposed to really 0:10:46.960 --> 0:10:51.679 questioning the measurement issues that's plaguing. See see she took. 0:10:51.920 --> 0:10:55.760 She's a Steve Levitt of freakonomics at Chicago and doctor 0:10:55.840 --> 0:10:59.440 Wong took manners one oh one in economics. She's not 0:10:59.520 --> 0:11:02.160 going to throw the FED under the bus, but she's saying, 0:11:02.240 --> 0:11:03.520 do some bottom up work. 0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:05.000 All the time for our audience. We have to define 0:11:05.040 --> 0:11:08.000 what the QCW is. It's the quarterly Census of Employment 0:11:08.080 --> 0:11:11.200 and Wages. It really does kind of crystallize the difference 0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:13.839 between the establishment and the household surveys. Obviously, non farm 0:11:13.920 --> 0:11:17.280 payrolls Friday Sprints is based on the establishment survey and 0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.000 a million jobs. Are you telling me that the establishment 0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:23.120 survey has been overstating the. 0:11:23.280 --> 0:11:24.440 It's eighty thousand more? 0:11:24.520 --> 0:11:26.439 I mean that is nuts, right. Talk to us a 0:11:26.440 --> 0:11:28.520 little bit about what that means and certainly what that 0:11:28.559 --> 0:11:29.679 means for the FED calculus. 0:11:31.360 --> 0:11:34.800 Yeah, you know, you know, Tom, especially you you are 0:11:34.880 --> 0:11:39.440 very close to economic history, and in economic history there's 0:11:39.520 --> 0:11:46.359 this concept of creative destruction, and you know during cyclical downturns, 0:11:46.640 --> 0:11:48.920 and that's what we are seeing last year is that 0:11:48.920 --> 0:11:56.640 the jobs closures has searched significantly, and also new business 0:11:56.640 --> 0:12:01.160 formation has slowed also. So however, Bill is still using 0:12:01.520 --> 0:12:08.280 these lagging predictions of firm closure and opening because typically, 0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:13.160 in normal times, little firms opening and closing generate a 0:12:13.240 --> 0:12:16.320 lot of churn in the labor market and accounts for 0:12:16.600 --> 0:12:20.280 as much, as you know, forty percent of the total 0:12:20.360 --> 0:12:24.839 monthly employment. But in a situation, this cyclical turning point 0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:28.079 like last year, what we're seeing now in the data, 0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:30.880 in the QCW data is that, in fact, now we 0:12:31.040 --> 0:12:33.920 know that firms are closing and as a as a result, 0:12:33.960 --> 0:12:38.199 that's produced this huge overstatement in a farm pay. As 0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:38.719 long as they. 0:12:40.160 --> 0:12:41.000 Damien jump in here. 0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:44.440 I can't state enough the importance of doctor Wong's work 0:12:44.840 --> 0:12:46.080 in the last forty eight hours. 0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:49.720 It's turn the industry, Tom, I mean, can you imagine 0:12:49.760 --> 0:12:53.120 the FOMC making decisions with the FED funds rate based 0:12:53.160 --> 0:12:56.680 on data that is basically they're disregarding that's wrong, that 0:12:56.679 --> 0:12:58.960 they basically need to revise based on revisions. I mean, 0:12:58.960 --> 0:13:01.280 that's what we're talking about. You're an a I'm looking 0:13:01.320 --> 0:13:03.640 at you are a FED policy rate forecast going out 0:13:03.679 --> 0:13:06.640 to the third quarter of twenty twenty six. You're looking 0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:09.600 for a three percent FED funds rate. I mean, forget 0:13:09.600 --> 0:13:12.240 about how we get there. But at three percent FED 0:13:12.280 --> 0:13:13.959 funds rate, I mean, does something have to break in 0:13:14.040 --> 0:13:14.680 order to get there. 0:13:17.360 --> 0:13:21.440 I'm assuming you're looking to twenty twenty five, So for 0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:24.720 this year, we're still expecting to the basis went cut 0:13:24.760 --> 0:13:28.199 because I think it takes a long It takes a 0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:30.440 long time for the FED to realize and take on 0:13:30.559 --> 0:13:34.280 board the data because the FED said they're data dependent, 0:13:34.600 --> 0:13:37.120 and the danger of this data dependency is you have 0:13:37.200 --> 0:13:40.079 to wait for the revisions and it wouldn't be until 0:13:40.440 --> 0:13:44.040 early twenty twenty five where they would get the real 0:13:44.200 --> 0:13:48.880 data based on QCW benchmark for twenty twenty three and 0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:51.920 early twenty twenty four, And wouldn't it wouldn't it will 0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:54.520 be until early twenty twenty six, or they get the 0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:57.600 full year of twenty twenty four revisions. So it could 0:13:57.600 --> 0:14:00.920 be that they are you know, the sharp much will 0:14:00.960 --> 0:14:05.000 happen only in twenty twenty five, uh. 0:14:04.920 --> 0:14:06.400 Anamon, thank you so much. 0:14:10.480 --> 0:14:13.040 Joining us now not wearing Dior in London is Leslie 0:14:13.080 --> 0:14:15.640 vin Ja Murray. I'm dying to talk to her to 0:14:15.720 --> 0:14:19.720 bring over we just saw in India over to Biden 0:14:19.920 --> 0:14:25.040 Trump November of this year. Leslie, I am sobered over 0:14:25.120 --> 0:14:27.920 and I understand is a cast system in America in 0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:30.600 India and there isn't a cast system in America, but 0:14:30.640 --> 0:14:34.120 there really is. But the poor of India. Boy did 0:14:34.160 --> 0:14:35.880 they speak in this election. 0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:39.640 It's a very surprising result. 0:14:39.800 --> 0:14:44.160 We still have Modi, you know, bound to run the 0:14:44.200 --> 0:14:47.560 country for a third term, which is a very significant result. 0:14:47.600 --> 0:14:50.600 But yes, not what people expected and you know, by 0:14:50.600 --> 0:14:53.520 all counts, it's really what we see in the US. 0:14:53.600 --> 0:14:56.040 Two people voting on the basis. 0:14:55.600 --> 0:14:59.720 Of how they comly life economics, prices of food, job 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:03.880 op ortunities. India has a very large youth population, high 0:15:03.960 --> 0:15:07.480 levels of unemployment amongst young people, and problems when it 0:15:07.560 --> 0:15:10.600 comes to you know those level of jobs, education and 0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:13.360 health and so that is a signal and we will 0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:16.680 see in India in which Moody has to govern slightly 0:15:16.720 --> 0:15:18.920 differently than last several years. 0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:22.640 Leslie, you staggered through Wesleyan before you did LSC, and 0:15:22.680 --> 0:15:26.640 you learned humility about polling. Does Leslie Vnja Murray trust 0:15:26.720 --> 0:15:29.840 the polling in America? You know? 0:15:29.880 --> 0:15:32.160 The polling is fine for what it is, but don't 0:15:33.360 --> 0:15:37.080 draw a direct line from polling to whether you or 0:15:37.160 --> 0:15:40.600 I or our children or our neighbors or friends get 0:15:40.680 --> 0:15:43.440 up and vote. And we all know that this, more 0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:45.840 than anything else, is an election that is about do 0:15:46.040 --> 0:15:49.840 voters are the enthusiastic? Are they passionate enough to either 0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:52.920 vote for or an effect vote against Biden and Trump? 0:15:52.960 --> 0:15:54.560 Will they get out of bed? Will they vote? 0:15:54.760 --> 0:15:58.320 And especially those voters that matter in those states that 0:15:58.400 --> 0:16:01.359 matter vote? So sure, the poll you know, it's interesting, 0:16:01.920 --> 0:16:03.800 not a lot more than that at this stage, this 0:16:03.920 --> 0:16:06.040 many months out, And it doesn't tell us what we 0:16:06.120 --> 0:16:09.840 need to know, which is how inspired, how passionate are people? 0:16:09.920 --> 0:16:11.480 You know, so the things I would look at as 0:16:11.640 --> 0:16:15.200 young voters and swing states. Are they going to be 0:16:15.360 --> 0:16:19.800 mobilized to an effect vote against Biden because of the 0:16:19.840 --> 0:16:23.800 war in Gaza? Do they care about climate change therefore 0:16:23.840 --> 0:16:27.240 they'll turn up for President Biden? How much are voters 0:16:27.360 --> 0:16:31.520 in the manufacturing sector still feeling the pressure on a 0:16:31.600 --> 0:16:34.680 daily basis of inflation that would drive them to, you know, 0:16:34.760 --> 0:16:37.640 be enthusiastic to vote for Donald Trump, not for any 0:16:37.720 --> 0:16:40.840 rational reason, but as a vote against Biden. So there's 0:16:40.920 --> 0:16:43.120 lots of uncertain here. We kind of know what matters, 0:16:43.160 --> 0:16:45.920 but know the polling doesn't you know, it gives us 0:16:45.920 --> 0:16:49.360 something to talk about, for it never for many many months. 0:16:49.400 --> 0:16:50.280 We have a long way to go. 0:16:50.640 --> 0:16:52.200 Well, yeah, Leslie, I mean I'd love to ask you 0:16:52.200 --> 0:16:54.560 about these elections in India, South Africa and Mexico. But 0:16:54.640 --> 0:16:56.520 I mean you went to the guy. You went to Israel, 0:16:56.560 --> 0:16:59.320 So let's just go there. Israel hesbiler rhetoric is heating 0:16:59.400 --> 0:17:01.760 up any gam and saying Israel return residents to the 0:17:01.760 --> 0:17:04.960 North by step one, either through a deal or escalation. 0:17:05.040 --> 0:17:07.360 I mean, we've got wildfires in the north to to Hasbala, 0:17:07.400 --> 0:17:10.680 drone and rocket attacks. More than sixty thousand Israelis remain displaced. 0:17:11.240 --> 0:17:13.760 Talk to us about what comes next in Israel. 0:17:15.359 --> 0:17:20.720 Yeah, there is not a clear path forward in this war. 0:17:20.800 --> 0:17:26.600 We're seeing Netsan Yahu doubling down on the war effort 0:17:26.760 --> 0:17:30.359 in Rafa to the great backlash from much of the 0:17:30.440 --> 0:17:33.640 rest of the world. We're seeing more pressure on President 0:17:33.720 --> 0:17:37.240 Biden and others to really try and get Israel to 0:17:37.280 --> 0:17:41.000 exercise restraint, but not a lot of that happening right now. 0:17:41.000 --> 0:17:44.920 We have this wild card of the International Criminal Court 0:17:45.240 --> 0:17:49.080 that's likely to confirm and arrest warrant on the Israeli 0:17:49.160 --> 0:17:53.240 pro minister, which again from all counts, is actually leading 0:17:53.320 --> 0:17:58.600 many Israelis to gather around their prime Minister has not 0:17:58.920 --> 0:18:01.960 been very popular, but this isn't This is actually working 0:18:02.000 --> 0:18:02.639 against that. 0:18:03.400 --> 0:18:07.000 So all sorts of wildcards, but it's at the moment 0:18:07.080 --> 0:18:11.000 there is no clear sense that a deal is going 0:18:11.080 --> 0:18:15.159 to be delivered, that the war is going to result 0:18:15.160 --> 0:18:17.800 in what everybody thinks needs to happen, which is a 0:18:17.800 --> 0:18:20.120 two state solution, and there is that concern about what's 0:18:20.160 --> 0:18:23.879 going to happen between Israel and the law. 0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:26.240 And loving on Leslie. I mean, I may not think 0:18:26.280 --> 0:18:28.320 this way, You may not think this way, but from 0:18:28.680 --> 0:18:31.600 where I sit, most of America feels that a vote 0:18:31.800 --> 0:18:33.760 for the Republican Party for Donald Trump is a vote 0:18:33.800 --> 0:18:36.679 for Israel, and vice versa. A vote you know, for 0:18:36.720 --> 0:18:39.240 the Democratic Party is a vote against Israel. I mean, 0:18:39.800 --> 0:18:42.439 is that something is that real? Do you believe that? 0:18:42.600 --> 0:18:45.240 I mean, is that the way the US election is 0:18:45.240 --> 0:18:45.920 headed right now? 0:18:46.720 --> 0:18:48.560 I mean, I don't think that young voters see that. 0:18:48.600 --> 0:18:52.320 They see a president in President Biden who's been very 0:18:52.359 --> 0:18:55.720 pro Israel, and a party that's very divided, certainly has 0:18:55.720 --> 0:18:57.960 a progressive wing that wants to move in a different 0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:00.320 direction when it comes to America's support of this, but 0:19:00.359 --> 0:19:02.639 that has not been you know, just in terms of 0:19:02.920 --> 0:19:07.800 America's military support of Israel. That's that's not at all 0:19:07.920 --> 0:19:10.000 been the case. So I think that the story is 0:19:10.080 --> 0:19:13.760 much more complicated in terms of whether the Democratic Party, 0:19:13.880 --> 0:19:17.360 if you know, President Biden were re elected, will pull. 0:19:17.200 --> 0:19:21.440 Back some of that support. Very hard to say. 0:19:21.480 --> 0:19:24.720 I think in the medium term and a longer lifespan, 0:19:24.800 --> 0:19:28.080 America's support of Israel is likely to diminish, but not 0:19:28.119 --> 0:19:29.480 in the not in the New York term, not. 0:19:29.440 --> 0:19:30.200 In the Dutch. 0:19:30.359 --> 0:19:33.280 Na Murray, thank you so much, Leslie Vnerbury with us 0:19:34.080 --> 0:19:35.800 this one. I greatly appreciate it. 0:19:46.240 --> 0:19:48.479 Lisa Mateo, what do you all right? 0:19:48.480 --> 0:19:49.640 We're starting with the New York Times. 0:19:49.640 --> 0:19:52.240 I really need John Tucker for this one, Sources saying 0:19:52.320 --> 0:19:57.920 Governor Kathy Hulkal pushing to delay congestion pricing. Now it started, 0:19:58.040 --> 0:20:01.280 it's lated to star June thirtieth. Although things that congestion 0:20:01.320 --> 0:20:04.480 pricing is good for the environment environment. Here's her concern 0:20:04.600 --> 0:20:06.640 is that the timing was less than ideal because it's 0:20:06.640 --> 0:20:09.080 going to hurt the city's economy, which is still recovering 0:20:09.119 --> 0:20:12.040 from the pandemic. She wants to replace it with another 0:20:12.119 --> 0:20:15.160 revenue stream. She's considering proposing this tax on New York 0:20:15.160 --> 0:20:18.040 City businesses that would need approval. 0:20:17.720 --> 0:20:19.560 Though from the New York State legislature. 0:20:19.640 --> 0:20:22.919 I was thunderstruck today. Drive it in the Bentley's in 0:20:22.960 --> 0:20:25.840 the grudge. So I had out, I'm going down lest 0:20:25.960 --> 0:20:26.960 By Avenue, which. 0:20:26.800 --> 0:20:27.560 I never go down. 0:20:28.040 --> 0:20:31.120 The number of stores, businesses, whatever you want to call 0:20:31.200 --> 0:20:32.560 it boarded up. 0:20:33.600 --> 0:20:34.439 That's nuts. 0:20:34.520 --> 0:20:37.040 Still well, I mean, I have a short ball of 0:20:37.400 --> 0:20:39.080 the city is a shortfall of one billion dollars a 0:20:39.119 --> 0:20:40.639 year time. So it's got to come from somewhere. If 0:20:40.640 --> 0:20:42.119 it's not going to come from drivers, it's got to 0:20:42.119 --> 0:20:45.240 come from businesses, I guess. But I mean, look, selfishly speaking, 0:20:45.320 --> 0:20:47.640 I am not a fan of this congestion tax at all. 0:20:47.760 --> 0:20:49.240 So what do you think? I mean? 0:20:49.280 --> 0:20:51.840 My answer, my answer is just loaded up on the 0:20:51.960 --> 0:20:53.479 FDR and the West Side Highway. 0:20:53.840 --> 0:20:54.280 I don't know. 0:20:54.520 --> 0:20:57.080 Yeah, I'm not a fan of the congestion. I mean, granted, 0:20:57.119 --> 0:20:59.639 I'm coming from Jersey, so I'm one of those. You know, 0:20:59.640 --> 0:21:02.040 there's a lot of lawsuits and everything's still going that 0:21:02.080 --> 0:21:04.880