Speaker 1: Brought you by Bank of America, Mary Lynch. Investing in
Speaker 1: local communities, economies and a sustainable future. That's the power
Speaker 1: of global connections, Mary Lynch, Pierce Fenner, and Smith Incorporated
Speaker 1: member s I p C. Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Tom Keene with David Gura. Daily we bring you
Speaker 1: insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on iTunes, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com, and
Speaker 1: of course on the Bloomberg This is arguably the most
Speaker 1: interesting economic interview in the history of Bloomberg Surveillance, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: on the economy, including the work that we've done with
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News over the years. These two have battled with
Speaker 1: many battles over the years, and today they said collegially
Speaker 1: looking forward to American economics from Harvard University and from
Speaker 1: Colombia University. Joseph Stiglet's it is a change world from
Speaker 1: when you two went at it decades ago. Let me
Speaker 1: first go to you, Professor Rogolf. What do you need
Speaker 1: to observe from the Trump cabinet and those within this
Speaker 1: new administration to soften the rhetoric of our new president.
Speaker 1: I don't even know how to say that. I mean,
Speaker 1: we haven't want to say that he listens to them.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think he has appointed some adults, you know,
Speaker 1: in the cabinet, the Secretary of State, at the Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense. But you know, is he someone who's going
Speaker 1: to listen to them? This his behavior going to be erratic,
Speaker 1: not so much looking at the policies as the whole temperament.
Speaker 1: Do they look like, you know, they're going to be
Speaker 1: a rational administration? You have been a harsh critic of
Speaker 1: conservative economics and of the politics and the rhetoric of
Speaker 1: the president, like not what you want to see from
Speaker 1: the administration. How should Democrats progresses in a liberal world
Speaker 1: respond to the Trump presidency. I think they have to
Speaker 1: stand together and say, this is not normal. Uh, it
Speaker 1: is not normal Uh in the United States, where we've
Speaker 1: been combating racism, bigotry, uh, uh, misogyny for decades, to
Speaker 1: have a president who so openly expresses those kinds of views. Uh.
Speaker 1: And in many ways, that's the number one issue. UH
Speaker 1: strongly agree with that. Uh. It's also a very big
Speaker 1: issue to me is the rule of law, including the
Speaker 1: international rule of law. Uh, if you want, Uh, there
Speaker 1: are more companies to invest in the United States. Uh.
Speaker 1: You change the tax law, you change the regulatory system.
Speaker 1: I might disagree about how you do that, but you
Speaker 1: don't go after individual company companies. That's smacks of authoritarianism fascism.
Speaker 1: But Professor sig, this is not normal. But he was
Speaker 1: elected on a democratic platform, and he was elected. What
Speaker 1: he had a minority, he does not have a legitimacy
Speaker 1: of and there was interference from Russia, but he wasn't elected.
Speaker 1: What will the world look like in four years? Uh,
Speaker 1: looks be clear. We don't know because there is a
Speaker 1: very you know, we know what he said. I think
Speaker 1: we have to take treats seriously what he said as
Speaker 1: if and if he does anything like what he has
Speaker 1: said and anything like some of his economic advisors who
Speaker 1: are very strong protectionists. Uh, we will see a very
Speaker 1: different world. I know what you're gonna say, and you
Speaker 1: say the dreaded F word, fascism. We're Bill Gross a
Speaker 1: week ago or so talk about the Mussolini industrial policy
Speaker 1: of Italy? Can rogoff? Are there tilts towards that? Is
Speaker 1: there a zero sum attitude here? That signals have changed
Speaker 1: America where there has to be a global response to
Speaker 1: Trump economics. Is this fascism light? Well, I think it's
Speaker 1: President Obama said we need to give him a chance.
Speaker 1: We want him to do well. The whole world wants
Speaker 1: him to do well. So I don't think we have
Speaker 1: want to have a reaction, you know, before he's actually
Speaker 1: at a policy. But if we're talking about the threats
Speaker 1: to institutions, I'd start with the fat um. Okay, simply,
Speaker 1: there are a couple of vacancies. They're probably a couple
Speaker 1: other governors who might step down, and then certainly Fisher
Speaker 1: and Yelling are probably likely to leave. He's gonna get
Speaker 1: to point the fet but more importantly, will he respect
Speaker 1: their independence. There are lots of ways Congress can bring
Speaker 1: pressure to bear. The president can look at what Nixon did,
Speaker 1: Arthur Burns, that's why we had the great inflation of
Speaker 1: the seven Is I see the Trump presidency is actually
Speaker 1: having strong growth the first couple of years partly inertia,
Speaker 1: partly deregulation, partly stimulus, but after that it could be
Speaker 1: high inflation, a classics mass. Right. If if so, let's
Speaker 1: spend one minute on defend Does Donald Trump really want
Speaker 1: higher rates, which is what he's been asking for, and
Speaker 1: tweets if you're in charge, how can you want higher
Speaker 1: me in no ways in the construction industry. I know
Speaker 1: this is a good example of the mystery of Trump
Speaker 1: because he said something during the election that, as King said,
Speaker 1: is totally the opposite of what anybody in the construction
Speaker 1: industry normally believes. And he wants a boost to the
Speaker 1: economy and high interest rates will be even worse for
Speaker 1: the dollar in terms of a high exchange rate that
Speaker 1: he's worried. In the time that we have left with you,
Speaker 1: with this historic moment, with the two of you together,
Speaker 1: let me start with you, Professor stig Lets. We need
Speaker 1: an inter national advocacy. Now. Can the i m F
Speaker 1: be that institution with Madame Legarde after Madame Legarde, someone
Speaker 1: like Robert rog And running the new I m of
Speaker 1: Who knows, But what would you like to see out
Speaker 1: of our international institutions, particularly the i m F. Well,
Speaker 1: I hope and I assume that they will be a
Speaker 1: very strong advocate of the international rule of law, that
Speaker 1: there are certain rules that we have agreed upon and
Speaker 1: the way the international system works. Uh. The w t
Speaker 1: O is particularly important because the area where he has
Speaker 1: been most explicit in threatening the international rule of law
Speaker 1: is a unilateral kind of protectionism. Uh. And so we
Speaker 1: need a voice to say this is not the direction
Speaker 1: to go, and then there will be cases brought if
Speaker 1: he actually goes and does those things. Uh. And we
Speaker 1: are there, we ought to be support for for what
Speaker 1: they adjudicate. I guess the problem is at all of
Speaker 1: these organizations, Professor Rogoff, are considered elitist or they're they're
Speaker 1: considered to go to the ones that have enjoyed all
Speaker 1: the benefits of globalization. Is it not the markets that
Speaker 1: at the end of the day will really be the
Speaker 1: president's checks and balance. Well, of course, but I just
Speaker 1: speaking of the I m F. I mean, I do
Speaker 1: think Christine Leguard has been very sensitive to inequality in
Speaker 1: these issues which are really not so obviously within the
Speaker 1: IMPS permit. But at the end of the day, this
Speaker 1: is a political issue. It's a technocratic institution. Professor rogo
Speaker 1: If you're a great phrase which I stole for the
Speaker 1: for my book title years ago, flying on one engine
Speaker 1: were now flow without question. Flying on one engine now,
Speaker 1: at least within our political economics, How do these international
Speaker 1: organizations assist a new world order. Given the turmoil within America, well,
Speaker 1: I think they could be challenged very quickly with problems
Speaker 1: and emerging markets. If US interest rates rise. We live
Speaker 1: in a world where by many measures, the dollar are
Speaker 1: it's more influential than ever help me capital out close.
Speaker 1: We could see problems even in the context of a
Speaker 1: growing UUs and Europe. But Professor Siglitz, is this about inequality.
Speaker 1: I had a pretty spirited session with the Madonna le Guard,
Speaker 1: Very Dad and Larry Summers and a lot of people
Speaker 1: on the panel. We're saying that actually, this is not
Speaker 1: populism isn't fed from inequality. It's fed from people feeling
Speaker 1: left out that they're not being taken care of. And
Speaker 1: this goes back to taking control back, which could be immigration. Actually,
Speaker 1: I think, uh, at the bottom a lot of this
Speaker 1: is the fact that you say, in the United States,
Speaker 1: the bottom of hex stagnant incomes for a quarter century.
Speaker 1: If their incomes have been growing, they would be more
Speaker 1: accepting of immigration, They would be you know, their attitudes
Speaker 1: towards these changes would be totally different. So the fact is, yes,
Speaker 1: things are out of their control, but not only are
Speaker 1: they out of the control. They've been going in the
Speaker 1: wrong direct distinctive different of your two economics, I would
Speaker 1: respectfully suggest, as Joe, you're taking a more broader view,
Speaker 1: and I would say, can you have more of a
Speaker 1: rigor within your analysis? Coalesce those two views right now?
Speaker 1: The economic advice this president is going to get, what
Speaker 1: flavor of advice does it need need to be? Does
Speaker 1: it need to be broader? Stiglets? Let me just say
Speaker 1: we're both so much closer to reality that he might
Speaker 1: get it wouldn't matter. What matter? When would you accept
Speaker 1: the job as governor of the FED? Professor Stiglets, Uh,
Speaker 1: I think of the answer is yes. I think it's
Speaker 1: very important for anybody who is willing to, you know,
Speaker 1: say I'm not going to be you know, the FED
Speaker 1: has a kind of independence. Uh. If I got appointed,
Speaker 1: I would exercise that. And if he tries to fire me,
Speaker 1: that's that's life. Yeah, very it's unfair because you have
Speaker 1: very little time. But how do you redefine globalization to
Speaker 1: include good question? Well, you know, what we have to
Speaker 1: understand is that globalization has represented a fundamental change of
Speaker 1: many the rules of the game in ways that have
Speaker 1: disadvantaged large groups of our population think about that way.
Speaker 1: So what we have to do is rewrite those rules
Speaker 1: in ways that undo some of that. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: one example is UH workers in the United States are
Speaker 1: threatened by their bargaining power is weaker. What we've done
Speaker 1: simultaneously is weakened unions and weaken their bargaining power in
Speaker 1: the workplace. If we, instead of weakening it further said,
Speaker 1: let's try to help them unionize. You know, it won't
Speaker 1: fully undo the force of globalization, but at least that
Speaker 1: gives them a little bit more sense of control. Professor
Speaker 1: let me just point to the work of another in
Speaker 1: outbol Price Winner other than Sticklets, who's here at the forum,
Speaker 1: Anga Steten, who has read and that you know, you
Speaker 1: have to be careful when you're talking about inequality because
Speaker 1: if you think of the whole world, this has arguably
Speaker 1: been the best thirty years in history. This is a
Speaker 1: question of you know, how do you treat people within
Speaker 1: borders versus across borders. And I will say the tax
Speaker 1: cut is really hard for me to understand if we're
Speaker 1: trying to address inequality, Professor Rogo, Professor sticks, this has
Speaker 1: been wonderful for us in the decades we've been here
Speaker 1: a great, great moment as well, Neil Robinias where this
Speaker 1: New York University. I was talking to our executive producer
Speaker 1: Rachel Worsban about a conversation with Roubini in two thousand
Speaker 1: five or two thousand six, if they claimed Belvedere Hotel here,
Speaker 1: Professor Rubini and I laid out the financial crisis of
Speaker 1: the next thirty six months. It wasn't that easy back
Speaker 1: in neurial. But what we got wrong, and what you've
Speaker 1: mentioned in your book and throughout this crisis, we get
Speaker 1: the amplitude wrong. We get the scope the size of
Speaker 1: these moves all of us. What are we getting wrong
Speaker 1: right now about the amplitudes we will see under President
Speaker 1: Trudge Trump. Well, the markets are happy sincetell action because
Speaker 1: of course it's gonna be physical. Steamer is going to
Speaker 1: increase growth in the short run. Is cutting taxes mostly
Speaker 1: for the rich, capital gains, income taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes,
Speaker 1: gonna slash all sorts of regulation. I think the resk
Speaker 1: that are enterprised by the market is that the fiscal
Speaker 1: steamulus has already led the signal of it to a
Speaker 1: rising long rates doubling of the year and a sharp
Speaker 1: price of the US dollar. Donald Trump says, yes, said
Speaker 1: one thousand jobs in Indiana carrier, but the appreciation of
Speaker 1: the dollar based on the FED model is going to
Speaker 1: read that but next year and have two four hundred
Speaker 1: thousand jobs lost in manufacturing. And if the dollar is
Speaker 1: going to strength that further and longer, it's going higher
Speaker 1: because the fiscal steamless is excessive in an economy that
Speaker 1: is close to full employment, forcing the FED to tighten
Speaker 1: faster and sooner. Stronger dollar hiring interested in a crowd out.
Speaker 1: The recovery gonna damage economic growth. So paradoxically, supply side
Speaker 1: trickle downe instead of helping the white working class that voted,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's going to force them to become very
Speaker 1: protectionist and even more so against trade, globalization, and migration.
Speaker 1: So if inconsistency between trickle down on one side and
Speaker 1: protection is on the other side, this is basically a
Speaker 1: working assumption of what we've seen in policies. How did
Speaker 1: we miss this? We were in there, you know, I've
Speaker 1: been here seventy two hours and all I keep I'm
Speaker 1: thinking is are we missing something? Because twelve months ago
Speaker 1: we completely missed Brexit. We completely missed Donald Trump. Are
Speaker 1: we looking at things wrong? Well? Often what said the
Speaker 1: commercial wisdom in Davos is a contrarian dicator. In two
Speaker 1: thousand and six and seven was predicting a roup of
Speaker 1: financial crisis. People were thinking it was a lunatic lassary.
Speaker 1: By the way, it was the panic about China generally,
Speaker 1: February asking me back to thousand and eight. I said, no,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna be back to thousand and eight. Is
Speaker 1: gonna be temporary phenomenon. But at that time, nobody predicted Brexit,
Speaker 1: nobody predicted Trump, nobody predicted that rent is losing Italy.
Speaker 1: And there's this massive backlash populist against globalization because here
Speaker 1: we have, of course the top one percent elites who
Speaker 1: are not in touch with what's going on in the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. So how big do you think
Speaker 1: the wave of populism will be? How will it reach France?
Speaker 1: Will it even reach if not, it is Netherlands and
Speaker 1: possibly touched Germany. I think it's going to increase throughout
Speaker 1: the world. The first of all in Europe. There is
Speaker 1: a meaningful chance that lepan might win in France. I
Speaker 1: think the Poles are wrong. There's a stigma to say
Speaker 1: that you're voting for Lepan because her father is a
Speaker 1: neo Nazi. She was a neo fascist herself, so the
Speaker 1: same way which a stigma to say are voting for Brexit,
Speaker 1: for Trump or against Rentzy. I think the Poles in
Speaker 1: France around. Secondly, Philon is a toucher right near liberalists
Speaker 1: in a country where essentially the Colombic policies are all populished,
Speaker 1: and even lepan is having a an agenda is actually
Speaker 1: appealing to the left, to socialist and comedy. So in
Speaker 1: a second round where there is Philon against Lepan, many
Speaker 1: on the left might decide to vote for Lepan. And
Speaker 1: if she's elected at the end of Europe and the
Speaker 1: Eurozone is a risk initially when there will be election,
Speaker 1: Chinquest is committed to come to power and never a
Speaker 1: friend of on the euro Those are important risks. You
Speaker 1: mentioned neo fascism with miss Lepan. Yeah, does Mr Trump
Speaker 1: have elements of neo fascism to his discourse while living
Speaker 1: aside you know is bashing the press and also the thing.
Speaker 1: Net Felts was Professor Economics, Columbia, Nobel Prize winner, free
Speaker 1: market supporter, He said that he is bashing of businesses
Speaker 1: in stelling businesses where they should be producing, located so on,
Speaker 1: reminds him of the corporate is that was in Nazi
Speaker 1: Germany and in fascist Italy. We are not yet there,
Speaker 1: but this is trying to micromanage economic activity. Going against
Speaker 1: market is a paradox. Yesterday, President Jimpin, who is nominally
Speaker 1: they either of a communist country, has said, I mean
Speaker 1: in favor of free trade and globalization. What the leader
Speaker 1: of the biggest catalist country in the world, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: is saying things that against capitalism. That's a part of
Speaker 1: the mail. Each front rate economist has a different style
Speaker 1: of different cases. You have been one of our great
Speaker 1: hinging old world analysis with the New World of America.
Speaker 1: But after what you've seen in the last twelve months,
Speaker 1: is America becoming part of an old world mentality? Well,
Speaker 1: it's becoming in the sense that unfortunately globalization as winners
Speaker 1: and losers, and we've forgotten that the losers are many,
Speaker 1: not just the white blue colors, but also increasingly white
Speaker 1: color workers are displaced by trade, migration and globalization and
Speaker 1: the policies of the last time twenty years. I have
Speaker 1: not dealt with those who are losing from globalization, and Trump,
Speaker 1: even if it's a silver spoon born billionaire, has come
Speaker 1: to rally for these people. Even if it's economic policies
Speaker 1: frankly on taxation and regulation on labor are not gonna
Speaker 1: help a white working class that voted for him. Therefore,
Speaker 1: is gonna have to give them some red meat. What's
Speaker 1: gonna be red meat? Bashing migration, building a wall, and
Speaker 1: becoming very protectionist. But that's not going to help the
Speaker 1: working class, right, But on the paradox, right, so that
Speaker 1: you know, bashing and building walls and the US becoming
Speaker 1: more inward looking walls, China trying to save globalization in
Speaker 1: intern aspects to sit automatically paradox lead to conflicts between
Speaker 1: the two nations. Well, it certainly can lead to trade
Speaker 1: tensions and currency wars. Well, you know, eventually tensions can
Speaker 1: lead also towards China could be accused of being a
Speaker 1: currency manipulator. You might try to slap pariffs against China,
Speaker 1: and that eventually could lead to retaliation in many in
Speaker 1: different ways. And then there's the political dimension states that
Speaker 1: have been done by Trump and his surrogates about Taiwan,
Speaker 1: about the side China see about Korea may lead actually
Speaker 1: to build up of military tensions as well. Mr Trump's
Speaker 1: lead advisor on a sperient bar of Uk Irvine, has
Speaker 1: a tone about China which is about them. It was
Speaker 1: reverential here yesterday for presidency as well. What tone would
Speaker 1: you advise for the Trump administration given Trump's domestic politics,
Speaker 1: and yet they have to project to China. How should
Speaker 1: they project? Well, whatever it is, an outside there is
Speaker 1: running for the presidency, whether it was RNA, Reagan or
Speaker 1: Big Clinton or Bush. Before the election, the Bush China
Speaker 1: say no democracy, no human rights, and fair trade, dumping
Speaker 1: your name, the currency manipulation. Once they come to power,
Speaker 1: they realize you cannot bully China is the second largest
Speaker 1: economy in the world soon enough the first largest, is
Speaker 1: a major political and geopolitical power, and you have to
Speaker 1: engage China. The idea you're gonna bully China, I don't
Speaker 1: think it's consistent. So either they understand that and they
Speaker 1: start to have a constructive dialogue with China. But a
Speaker 1: plenty of things you can sell about China to opening
Speaker 1: up to trade, to foreign entirety investment, fair trade, you
Speaker 1: name it, or if you're gonna challenge China on the
Speaker 1: economic or trading or sides in aggressive way, then there's
Speaker 1: going to be conflict. All right, But so we've we've
Speaker 1: been what ten minutes talking about risk and possible conflicts.
Speaker 1: Why are the markets up or they do a big
Speaker 1: correction because they're in Lolaland Well, the markets went up
Speaker 1: after the election because one, you have a phisical team's
Speaker 1: gonna boost growth in the short run. Secondly, the tax
Speaker 1: cats are all going to go to the corporate and
Speaker 1: the relative that is income taxes, corporate taxes, state taxes,
Speaker 1: coublic things taxes, and there's doing a slash regulation on environment,
Speaker 1: on trade, on financial sector, on pharma, on your name it,
Speaker 1: on labor. And therefore the markets going up. I think
Speaker 1: the markets are underprising that the fiscal steam was accessive.
Speaker 1: It's gonna lead to a tight in the financial condition.
Speaker 1: Longer returned dollars going to lead them to trade wards
Speaker 1: and profection is gonna damage growth and economy and their
Speaker 1: food market down the line. So a huge correction you're expecting.
Speaker 1: I expected over time there will be a huge correction, Yes,
Speaker 1: over time, alright, new or rebellion on particularly good form
Speaker 1: I think brought you by Bank of America, Mary Lynch,
Speaker 1: dedicated to bringing our clients insights and solutions to meet
Speaker 1: the challenges of a transforming world. That's the power of
Speaker 1: global connections, Mary Lynch, Pierce fennerin Smith Incorporated, Member s
Speaker 1: I p C. Before we bringing Robert Shiller. Tom, let
Speaker 1: me see one of your favorite words and ask you
Speaker 1: about the zeitgeist in Davos. So what are you feeling
Speaker 1: today on the second day of your world that cond
Speaker 1: informs any meaning very different than the first day. It
Speaker 1: is always true that this these meetings shift and I
Speaker 1: would shift from the certitude of everyone speaking of populism
Speaker 1: to the reality David Gura of uncertainty and something I've
Speaker 1: never thought of before, folks, and that is the uncertainty
Speaker 1: of the uncertainty. I'm not quite sure mathematically what that means,
Speaker 1: but that is the feeling up here, conversation to converse station.
Speaker 1: The other thing on a real basis, David is yesterday
Speaker 1: was completely dwarfed by the speech by the President of
Speaker 1: China in London, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
Speaker 1: and today is a much more normal day of sharp discourse.
Speaker 1: Francine Laquise panel early this morning, David Girl was on
Speaker 1: fire and animated Larry Summers. Yeah, Larry Summers was fired up.
Speaker 1: Before you bring our next guest, let me read a
Speaker 1: tweet from him, Robert Schiller tweeting this morning most interesting
Speaker 1: things so far at Davos, Patrick Brown, I believe a
Speaker 1: Stanford biochemist speaks on coming veggie synthetic meat. Will all
Speaker 1: be vegetarians because it's cheaper. There's there's a lot on
Speaker 1: the menu as it were there in Davos. Well, there
Speaker 1: are two or three different Davos. But David, I would
Speaker 1: suggest the panel I looked at was Living to one hundred,
Speaker 1: which was a panel they had. I'm not sure I
Speaker 1: want to car there was a battle of getting out there.
Speaker 1: He has not one hundred, but he has aged in
Speaker 1: the world of seen all in economics laureate from Yale University. Uh,
Speaker 1: Robert Schiller, It's wonderful to have you. I know, David
Speaker 1: Girls got a bunch of questions for you as well.
Speaker 1: Describe uncertainty for our audience worldwide. Everybody learns it an
Speaker 1: econ one one. Carl Case at Wellesley taught it for
Speaker 1: years of late Carl Case, what is uncertainty. Well, the
Speaker 1: traditional definition was given by Frank Knight at University of
Speaker 1: Chicago professor in a book called Risk and Uncertainty. I
Speaker 1: think risk, he said, is measurable probabilities, where you know,
Speaker 1: flipping a clients fifty fifty chance, you know it's uncertainty
Speaker 1: is in you don't even know what's being tossed. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I couldn't possibly come up with a probability number. But
Speaker 1: I think uncertainty maybe has slightly different meaning now than
Speaker 1: Frank Knights. I think maybe it's, uh, it's the pervasiveness
Speaker 1: of the UH, the new Trump administration and the Brexit
Speaker 1: action UH bringing up it's sort of nighty and uncertainty.
Speaker 1: But it's also just a sense that the whole world
Speaker 1: is changing. Even up the valley. We have a jargon
Speaker 1: alert Robert Schiller, folks talking about Frank Knight in the
Speaker 1: classic paper David Gura of nine and when you hear Green,
Speaker 1: Spann or Schuller speak of nighty and k and I
Speaker 1: g H nighty and uncertainty, there's a certain character and
Speaker 1: heritage to that from another time and place. David Robert
Speaker 1: Shiller give us a sense here of how much of
Speaker 1: the focus at Davis, how much of the focus at
Speaker 1: the annual meeting is on Trump pomics, on defining what
Speaker 1: it is, on on getting a sense of what it's
Speaker 1: going to consist of once he's inaugurated on Friday. Well,
Speaker 1: it's always amazed me how much attention Donald Trump gets. Uh.
Speaker 1: It shows to me the power of narratives, the power
Speaker 1: of showmanship. He honed this on his TV show The Apprentice,
Speaker 1: and he's gotten expert at it. He's he's a master storyteller,
Speaker 1: and he's gotten the whole world looking at it. We
Speaker 1: were talking about uncertainty a moment ago Nightie and uncertainty.
Speaker 1: How much of it is there? And what are you
Speaker 1: looking for when you when you're looking for clarity, when
Speaker 1: you looking for a better sense of what Trump and
Speaker 1: omics is and what it's going to mean. What's going
Speaker 1: to provide those answers to you? See? An example of
Speaker 1: real ninety and uncertainty is the uncertainty generated by Trump's
Speaker 1: tweets about nuclear power, nuclear weapons. Uh. And he has
Speaker 1: suggested that we are now entering a new nuclear arms
Speaker 1: race with other countries that because he wants to talk
Speaker 1: tough about our nuclear arsenal, other countries are going to
Speaker 1: be deciding that they have to build them too. That
Speaker 1: is real uncertainty. Where where does that bring us? Now?
Speaker 1: It may be that he's wise and those that it's
Speaker 1: just cheap talk, nothing will happen from saying these things,
Speaker 1: but I you know, I think we're many of us
Speaker 1: worried that it isn't cheap talk and it has brings
Speaker 1: real and fundamental uncertainty to our lives. Is there an
Speaker 1: upside of potential upsite to all this talk, whether cheaper
Speaker 1: or otherwise. Is it good that we're having more communication
Speaker 1: about policy issues that less is is uncertain because more
Speaker 1: is poken of. Well, I think it's refreshing at times
Speaker 1: to hear Donald Trump questioned some of our basic assumptions. Well,
Speaker 1: for example, should we demonize Russia? I'm thinking that maybe
Speaker 1: we should be wary of the current regime in Russia,
Speaker 1: And he's right, let's not demonize the country or the people.
Speaker 1: They're nice people. I can tell you have that many
Speaker 1: nice Russians. But uh so he turns the talk around
Speaker 1: in ways that we're kind of unacceptable, and sometimes it's
Speaker 1: a good thing. I think. Is it a guilded age?
Speaker 1: Professor Schiller, we had I was shocked this morning in
Speaker 1: our early hours of Bloomberg surveillance, how many times people
Speaker 1: spoke of a neo fascism in the industrial policy of
Speaker 1: Mussolini in the n twenties. That's an emotion from another
Speaker 1: time and place. Can we drag forward that this is
Speaker 1: just simply a plutocracy and a time of a guilded age. Well,
Speaker 1: Mussolini was he rich? I don't think so. I don't
Speaker 1: believe he was so. It it's uh, it's an unusual trunk, isn't.
Speaker 1: Trump is an unusual combination of a gifted rebel rouser
Speaker 1: and a billionaire. So I wouldn't call it a plutocracy,
Speaker 1: although that that's an element of it. It's it's his.
Speaker 1: You know, some people discover their theirselves in front of
Speaker 1: an audience. You know, you start, you start observing, and
Speaker 1: you're observing the audience and noting what works, and it
Speaker 1: becomes a passion doing that. That's why Trump isn't hasn't
Speaker 1: been interested in getting briefings. It's not what he does, right,
Speaker 1: He's he's a speaker, an action figure. We've been talking
Speaker 1: about history here a little bit, looking back to the
Speaker 1: nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties. What's what's useful to you
Speaker 1: when you're looking at history now? What are you reading?
Speaker 1: What are you looking at or are there analogs here
Speaker 1: in American history for what we're seeing today? Absolutely. I
Speaker 1: I just gave my American Economic Association presidential address called
Speaker 1: narrative Economics. And I've been back in the twenties and
Speaker 1: thirties trying to un to stand the narratives of that day.
Speaker 1: And people forget what was on people's minds then. For so,
Speaker 1: for example, this UH is a factor about uncertainty. Back
Speaker 1: in the nineteen thirties Mexico, the Mexican government nationalized the
Speaker 1: oil fields UH and the hacienda's UH. It was a
Speaker 1: major step. And at the same time there were people
Speaker 1: talking about that in the US and and Franklin Delano
Speaker 1: Rose about seemed to be our president seemed to be
Speaker 1: drifting more to the left over the years of his administration,
Speaker 1: and we came into appear where many business people said
Speaker 1: in the nineteen thirties, we're not expanding because of uncertainty.
Speaker 1: And I think we have this now right now. Trump
Speaker 1: offers inspiration and uncertainty at the same time. Is you
Speaker 1: gave a speech to the American Economic Association. It harkens
Speaker 1: back to Joseph Schopeger's a claim speech of another time
Speaker 1: and place, Uh, the nineteen forties. Is it is cham
Speaker 1: Paider faced in his speech a zero sum society? Forget
Speaker 1: about the politics and the emotion of neo fascism? Is
Speaker 1: it neo mercantilism that we fall back to, like what
Speaker 1: we saw in the thirties? Right? Well, so that the thirties,
Speaker 1: that's another source of the Great Depression. It was it
Speaker 1: was trade wars. Uh. And so people try to solve
Speaker 1: their depression problem the same way Trump is proposing solving it.
Speaker 1: It's not it's not an inspirational story. So ultimately it's
Speaker 1: been goes back to Adam Smith. Our prosperity is generated
Speaker 1: by trade, by people doing what they do best, and uh,
Speaker 1: market forces determining who is doing the best. Uh. Now
Speaker 1: Trump wants to interfere with market forces. Now he may
Speaker 1: have a legitimate argument for doing that because some people
Speaker 1: weren't insured against risks to their careers, and now they
Speaker 1: they kind of thought they had a right to something
Speaker 1: action from the government. So maybe they are owed that.
Speaker 1: But it does come at across of Economic Efficiency. Bob Sheler,
Speaker 1: let me ask you. You You just finished your tenure as
Speaker 1: the head of the American Economic Association. You mentioned the
Speaker 1: speech that you delivered at the meeting in Chicago narrative economics.
Speaker 1: I put that out on Twitter. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you about inclusivity in economics. Imagine that's something that you've
Speaker 1: had to wrestle with here over the last couple of years.
Speaker 1: It seems like something that's talked about more and more
Speaker 1: at confidences like the one you're attending now in Davos.
Speaker 1: What progress have we made on making economics more inclusive?
Speaker 1: Are you referring to women in economics? Women in economics, yes, exactly.
Speaker 1: Minority is expanding the field. Well, there has been progress, uh,
Speaker 1: but it is still a ways to go. Uh. I
Speaker 1: don't know what to say that economics has been traditionally
Speaker 1: a male field. I don't know why. Claudia Golden, who
Speaker 1: was a professor of economics at Harvard, did a study
Speaker 1: of women's reaction to economics and concluded that women uh
Speaker 1: react more strongly to the poor grade they get in
Speaker 1: their into our econ course and uh their perfectionists, whereas
Speaker 1: man they don't care. Uh. So women have to understand
Speaker 1: or I shouldn't put it like that, but uh, I
Speaker 1: think they are increasingly accepting the importance of the field. Uh.
Speaker 1: It's it's actually a very good field to go into,
Speaker 1: I think, for even if you don't become an economist,
Speaker 1: you know it's interesting. David, I'm so glad you brought
Speaker 1: this up. I've never seen Bob Schuller squirm so so
Speaker 1: my life trying to get h oddus. I look at
Speaker 1: Amanda Kowalski or Naomi Lamora at Yale University economics, and
Speaker 1: I love your idea that women get more upset at
Speaker 1: that econ one on one exam, which full disclosure, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm really against the way, freshman your economics is taught
Speaker 1: in America. I think it's a tosserved was to any
Speaker 1: and all involved in particularly teachers, frankly, but within this
Speaker 1: is the idea, even if we're not math centric, even
Speaker 1: if we're not Michael Woodward, you gotta know some math
Speaker 1: to do economics and to understand the dynamics. To our listeners,
Speaker 1: Professor Schiller struggling with mathematics at home for younger children,
Speaker 1: what's the formula? How do you get kids engaged to
Speaker 1: get to the dynamics of Euclidean geometry, the dynamics of algebra,
Speaker 1: let alone get on maybe to a possible understanding of
Speaker 1: differential equations. How do you put that love in kids? Well,
Speaker 1: I guess I succeeded. My kids liked man. My son
Speaker 1: was a math major in college. What did I do?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think it has a certain lower
Speaker 1: to it, a certain narrative. When I was a kid,
Speaker 1: I read Mathematics and the Imagination. Yes, that's the same
Speaker 1: book that Google founders must have read, because they took
Speaker 1: the word Google from that book as a very big number.
Speaker 1: So I don't know. I think that there's a Yeah,
Speaker 1: not everyone is going to be interested in math. But right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna editorialize here, David Girl, I want you to
Speaker 1: jump in with a professor. But to me, the basic
Speaker 1: idea is you've got to have permission to let your
Speaker 1: kids be nerds. And there's a whole societal construct in
Speaker 1: America it says you have to be nerd free. There's
Speaker 1: a photograph of young Schiller, newly minuted out of school,
Speaker 1: surrounded by Migdigliani and a whole bunch of other guys,
Speaker 1: and he is the nerd in the room. Trust me, nobody.
Speaker 1: They show up at the summer conference and everybody says
Speaker 1: CASHUS hipsters can be in the sixties and their Schiller
Speaker 1: sitting bowled upright with a tie, David fob Shiller. Let
Speaker 1: me bring it back to Davos in the limited time
Speaker 1: that that we have left that we mentioned the speech
Speaker 1: by the Chinese president yesterday. Vice President Biden speaking in
Speaker 1: Davos this morning delivering a really impassioned speech about the
Speaker 1: trans Atlantic relationship in the future of Europe. On ye
Speaker 1: his words, it's imperative that we act or to lead
Speaker 1: to defend the liberal international order. Who's going to take
Speaker 1: up that mantle here in the new term? Are we
Speaker 1: gonna see who's gonna be fighting for that, the liberal
Speaker 1: international order? And how difficult is that fight going to be? Evaluay?
Speaker 1: I saw a Biden's speech and I liked it. Um.
Speaker 1: I didn't find much to disagree with. Uh. We could
Speaker 1: have had a President Biden that was once talked about,
Speaker 1: but I guess he won't be the person. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people in America, though, are realizing the
Speaker 1: importance of civil society. UH, and that we have to
Speaker 1: help reaffirm American civil society, which means that we don't
Speaker 1: rely on the president to form our view. We have
Speaker 1: our own We have our own society, and the President
Speaker 1: is our servant in this civil society. Bob Shiller, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us Today has been fantastic.
Speaker 1: I have no idea where America and our good society
Speaker 1: is in six months. The uncertainty here is palpable, but
Speaker 1: your voice all the criticism we get when you're on
Speaker 1: the right the left, they go back and forth on Schiller,
Speaker 1: thank you for your exuberance here at our meetings. Robert
Speaker 1: Schiller of Yale uh University, David Gray and New York
Speaker 1: Tom Keene in Davos, Switzerland, there for the World Economic
Speaker 1: Forum's annual meeting. In Tom, I know you're there with
Speaker 1: a special guest. I'll let you bring him in. Very
Speaker 1: special guest. David Lipton had large shoes to fill. Some
Speaker 1: would say it was John Lipsky, and of course his
Speaker 1: tenure UH and leadership at the International Monetary Fund. Dr
Speaker 1: Lipton is the first Deputy Managing Director of the i
Speaker 1: m F. People say, well, what is that? And it's
Speaker 1: a most interesting and important job. Is the I m
Speaker 1: f tries to adapt and adjust to the international economic system.
Speaker 1: Dr Lipton is out of Wesleyan and Harvard and most
Speaker 1: importantly in Germaine. To the moment, was part of one
Speaker 1: of the most important moments in economics I've ever seen,
Speaker 1: and that was jeff Sex getting off the plane from
Speaker 1: Russia a million years ago as Russia was thrown into turmoil.
Speaker 1: You served and worked with Jeffrey Sax and Russia a long,
Speaker 1: long time ago. Within your new assessment, how is Russian
Speaker 1: economic growth and when we see Mr Putin and the
Speaker 1: back and forth with Mr Trump framed for us the
Speaker 1: Russian economy that the I m f C s. Sure. First,
Speaker 1: it's a pleasure to be with you. Um. I was
Speaker 1: just in Moscow last week at the guide our forum
Speaker 1: UH named after the reformer who we were working with
Speaker 1: this time. Russia has had a terribly tough decade with
Speaker 1: the global financial crisis, then the oil price decline and
Speaker 1: the sanctions. And during that period where the country might
Speaker 1: have fallen into chaos again much as it had experienced
Speaker 1: at the breakup of the Soviet Union, they actually managed
Speaker 1: policy extremely well. The central Bank kept inflation under control,
Speaker 1: the Finance ministry kept the budget from exploding despite the
Speaker 1: incredible loss of revenue, So they get a lot of
Speaker 1: credit for avoiding instability that would have turned a tough
Speaker 1: decade into a real debacle. But their problem is that
Speaker 1: now with the recession ending, Uh, they're headed for growth,
Speaker 1: but it's really slow growth. It's you know, gonna be
Speaker 1: just a little bit this year and we think, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe one and a half percent over the medium term.
Speaker 1: That's just not enough. Yeah, Saxon Lipton observed historic change
Speaker 1: in Russia. What will be the new Russia with Mr? Putin?
Speaker 1: And I know you can't speak on American policy, but
Speaker 1: as a representative of the I m F, what does
Speaker 1: the new oil at all lower price Russia look like?
Speaker 1: Oil is no longer a big enough deal in Russia
Speaker 1: to drive the economy to higher living standards. Total oil
Speaker 1: production in Russia before the price decline with two thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a person, you know, they can't have living standards
Speaker 1: with that. So they have if they if they have
Speaker 1: a future, it's going to be to build a private economy, uh,
Speaker 1: that can take advantage of all of the new technologies,
Speaker 1: can be modern, can be diversified, they're working on it right,
Speaker 1: but they have a long wait. And I want to
Speaker 1: famous folks, is Dr Lipton is one of our great
Speaker 1: experts on Russia. David Gura, he had a bigger entourage
Speaker 1: than Laguard and his entourage. They're all shaking their heads, going, wait,
Speaker 1: this isn't an interview on Russia. We're doing behind a
Speaker 1: So David saved me from my Russia fixation. I know
Speaker 1: we're gonna come back here with David Lipton. I certainly
Speaker 1: want to ask about the future of multi ladder institutions
Speaker 1: like the like the International Monetary fone, given what we've
Speaker 1: seen here in the US and around the world. We'll
Speaker 1: get to that. David Lipton with us. He's the first
Speaker 1: manage director of the International Monetary Fund. I want my
Speaker 1: colleague David got to jump in here. But I believe
Speaker 1: I saw a lift of Maurice sobs Fell's latest adjustments
Speaker 1: to the i m F view. Is it a global
Speaker 1: lift to the economic system. Now, what we've said for
Speaker 1: the global economy is that, for the first time in
Speaker 1: quite a few years, were not revising down our forecast.
Speaker 1: Our forecast says that growth in the global economy is
Speaker 1: going to be picking up. It was three point one
Speaker 1: last year. We're looking at three point four this year,
Speaker 1: three point six next year. What has changed is that
Speaker 1: we're seeing somewhat more rapid growth in the United States.
Speaker 1: And that's partly because the United States has been strengthening,
Speaker 1: but also because we're presuming that the budgetary policies of
Speaker 1: the incoming Trump administration will be supportive of the economy,
Speaker 1: with some tax cuts, some spending increases, and some efforts
Speaker 1: to boost infrastructure. David Litton, given what we've seen here
Speaker 1: over the last eighteen months, say, does the IMF have
Speaker 1: to change the way it makes the case for multilateralism?
Speaker 1: Does the IMF and concert with other multi lateral institutions
Speaker 1: have to change the way it's making that case. I
Speaker 1: think that's pretty important, you know. I think we've been
Speaker 1: on this, uh, this on this case for a year
Speaker 1: a year and a half. It's clear that there's rising
Speaker 1: discontent with the globalization of trade and with migration. UH.
Speaker 1: Some of it comes from the fact that there are
Speaker 1: winners and losers in trade UH and with migration. Some
Speaker 1: of it comes, I think from the difficulty people have
Speaker 1: of they know that something's hurting them, but it's very
Speaker 1: hard to sort out whether it's the aftermath of the
Speaker 1: global financial crisis and the sluggishness in the economy that resulted,
Speaker 1: whether it's technological change that replacing people with machinery, or
Speaker 1: whether it's globalization. I think we need to do two things.
Speaker 1: We need to try to help diagnose what's really going on.
Speaker 1: It's important, for example, if if really most of the
Speaker 1: problem comes from technological change, interfering with the globalization of
Speaker 1: trade is clearly not an answer how much of that. Secondly,
Speaker 1: the other point that I wanted to make is that
Speaker 1: we need to help countries find ways to deal with
Speaker 1: those who are adversely affected. We need to stress both
Speaker 1: uh global growth and dealing with the negative side effects
Speaker 1: of interconnectedness and efforts to blust growth. How much of
Speaker 1: the problem here is definitional. A few weeks ago we
Speaker 1: had that your colleague Christine Legard at Bloomberg, and she
Speaker 1: spoke about the threat of deglobalization. We hear a lot
Speaker 1: about the prospects for deglobalization post globalization. The people not
Speaker 1: understand have trouble understanding what globalization is, and could institutions
Speaker 1: like yours do a better job of explaining that. I
Speaker 1: think that's a fair point. Um. Globalization is changing. Uh
Speaker 1: you know, we've we've seen a huge rise in what
Speaker 1: fraction of a country's output is dedicated to trade. It's
Speaker 1: that's doubled in the course of my professional lifetime. But
Speaker 1: interconnectedness has really changed because of the creation of global
Speaker 1: supply chains where uh you know, uh, some part may
Speaker 1: be made in Mexico, come back to the United States,
Speaker 1: get improved, get shipped back to Mexico. It can go
Speaker 1: back and forth several times, where much of what's produced
Speaker 1: by Germany may have started emanated in a supply chain
Speaker 1: in Poland or elsewhere in Central Europe. I think the
Speaker 1: interconnectedness that we see now is so deep it's unlikely
Speaker 1: really to be unwound. The question is whether people whether
Speaker 1: we can find ways to take care of people who
Speaker 1: are hurt when economic change is disruptive and try to
Speaker 1: protect the beneficial parts of globalization. This interconnectedness has really
Speaker 1: helped a lot of people achieve higher living standards. The
Speaker 1: great fortune of speaking with that Jack lou the outgoing
Speaker 1: Treachery Secretary a couple of times now, and he always
Speaker 1: talked about a three prown approach about fiscal policy, monetary policy,
Speaker 1: and structural reforms. Which of those is is the hardest cell?
Speaker 1: Is its structural reforms? And how do you how do
Speaker 1: you make that case? Uh, two countries? How do you
Speaker 1: make that case to people that it is important? You know,
Speaker 1: I'll give you a funny answer, which is that ideologically
Speaker 1: it's hardest to get people to agree to some sort
Speaker 1: of budget stimulus because there's a lot of ideological objection
Speaker 1: to that. Everyone agrees structural reform is good, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't happen, not because they're ideological objections, but because it's
Speaker 1: politically so complex. You know. We feel that with growth
Speaker 1: still sluggish after so many years after the global financial crisis,
Speaker 1: you just don't have the luxury of picking and choosing people.
Speaker 1: Countries should be trying to find each and every lever
Speaker 1: that can be used to be supportive. UH. Demand support
Speaker 1: may help short run, UH, infrastructure will help medium and
Speaker 1: long run. Structural change will help over over the longer run.
Speaker 1: I mean, we just don't have the luxury of choosing.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get you in trouble. And they
Speaker 1: claimed leguard time out chair, but I'm gonna ask anyways.
Speaker 1: The other day, Mr Trump talked about we need a
Speaker 1: week dollar, and everybody in the racket killed over because
Speaker 1: what you're supposed to say is we want a strong
Speaker 1: dollar and a strong dollar policy. I know we're not
Speaker 1: near a Plaza Cord dynamic or a Reuben dollar of
Speaker 1: the late nineties into two thousand two. But where are
Speaker 1: we with the US dollar is did you start to
Speaker 1: stayings exorbitant privilege? Where where are we within the dollar
Speaker 1: is the dominant feature of how we measure all. Our
Speaker 1: view at the I m F has been that the
Speaker 1: world works best when exchange rates are determined by market
Speaker 1: forces and stay in line with fundamentals. And you know,
Speaker 1: we've seen some increase in the value of the dollar
Speaker 1: to the extent that that is validated by policies that
Speaker 1: strengthened Erica's fundamentals. It's not a problem for America, it's
Speaker 1: not a problem for the world. If the US is UH,
Speaker 1: you know, demanding more UH, it makes sense that the
Speaker 1: dollar is UH is somewhat somewhat stronger. But I think
Speaker 1: it is important that countries around the world maintain exchange
Speaker 1: rate flexibility. You'll not recall the problem that arose in
Speaker 1: the Asian financial crisis setting where countries were pegged to
Speaker 1: the dollar, and while a dollar a strong dollar was
Speaker 1: good for America, if I'm good for Thailand. Should point
Speaker 1: out you're on the watch there in Washington at the time.
Speaker 1: Are we near a mercantile is um? When we hear
Speaker 1: all the rhetoric can heat? Is it a zero sum America?
Speaker 1: And are you gonna have a you know, when you're
Speaker 1: blue book in April? Are you gonna have a little
Speaker 1: box down there on neo mercantilism? Is that what the
Speaker 1: PhD is at the I m for thinking about right now.
Speaker 1: I do think we need to separate two subjects, and
Speaker 1: I hope these can be separated. Uh as the administration begins,
Speaker 1: uh the United you know, hearing here at Davos, some
Speaker 1: of the businessmen who are close to the incoming administration
Speaker 1: and who in some measures say they speak for it.
Speaker 1: They say that America set up the rules of the game.
Speaker 1: Played by the rules, other countries took advantage. The playing
Speaker 1: field has not been level it needs to be leveled again.
Speaker 1: And that that's that's one aspect well and clearly one
Speaker 1: aspect of what the incoming administration aims to address. That
Speaker 1: is a very different subject from the question of whether
Speaker 1: there should be continued close UH trade ties, whether the
Speaker 1: interconnectedness UH should continue. Surely when half of the world
Speaker 1: is emerging market and developing countries, and those countries are
Speaker 1: providing of the growth in the global economy, those are
Speaker 1: America's ex work markets, and when they're large, when if
Speaker 1: they get larger, they are larger export markets. And if
Speaker 1: they don't grow as much, they're not so good. So
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that the administration can distinguish as it develops
Speaker 1: its policy between an effort to try to deal with
Speaker 1: what they view as undesirable or abusive policies and separate
Speaker 1: that from the question of interconnectedness and globalization. David Lipton,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Look forward to seeing it with
Speaker 1: the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund. Mr Lipton
Speaker 1: is the first Deputy Managing Director f the i m F.
Speaker 1: David grein New York on time Keenan Davos and now
Speaker 1: a moment with John Stezinski of Morgan Stanley hs B,
Speaker 1: seeing of course his work with Blackstone, but far more
Speaker 1: than his perspective in migrating often between New York and
Speaker 1: London and across Europe's service in philanthropy has been noted
Speaker 1: uh by those in America, by the Queen in England,
Speaker 1: and of course his service to his Catholic church as
Speaker 1: well with the Pope in Rome. John, you are the
Speaker 1: most qualified person to speak on the scope and scale
Speaker 1: of what we are hearing too often in the recent
Speaker 1: weeks was as not direct affronts, but an allusion to
Speaker 1: a nineteen twenties industrial policy of Italy, and even a
Speaker 1: selected group of our interviewees speaking of a fascism light
Speaker 1: a neo fascism framed for us, this polarized moment that
Speaker 1: we're in around those fiery words of another time and place. Well,
Speaker 1: I think you're making a very important um reference to history, um.
Speaker 1: And and clearly in the context of the world order today,
Speaker 1: or perhaps the world disorder today, as some people might
Speaker 1: like to say, we have the a new set of
Speaker 1: powerful personalities who have really evolved quite formidably in the
Speaker 1: last fifteen months. Um. You've got Abbe Si and Mody
Speaker 1: and do Terte in Asia. You've got generally see and
Speaker 1: Urdwan and Putin in Russia and the Mid East, and
Speaker 1: you now have Donald Trump, all of whom are very
Speaker 1: much strong personalities, strong leaders responding to domestic UH, populist
Speaker 1: um sentiment, nationalism, similar to what you reference with UM
Speaker 1: these other characters in the twenties and thirties in Europe.
Speaker 1: But I think it's also important to say there's a
Speaker 1: new geopolitical order, what I call power, a more powerful
Speaker 1: set of players that have evolved or will evolve following
Speaker 1: the inauguration of President Trump in the world stage over
Speaker 1: the next um, the next couple of years. And you've
Speaker 1: seen the beginning Benis of that with obviously the theater
Speaker 1: UH and the statement of President she here at Davos
Speaker 1: opening the forum and giving what I thought was a
Speaker 1: very thorough speech sixty minutes speech on globalization that candidly
Speaker 1: could have been given by President Obama. Speaking of theater,
Speaker 1: are you worried that there isn't enough room on that
Speaker 1: world stage for so many powerful personalities? As you say,
Speaker 1: I think if we had all the personalities that I've
Speaker 1: cited on the stage at once, UM, we would probably
Speaker 1: have to go to Yankee Stadium or something. UM. I think,
Speaker 1: what's the most important thing? Can we have a guy
Speaker 1: from Bowden talk about yank Stadium? They would all go
Speaker 1: to Fenway. I love Fenway Park and Boston Red Sox
Speaker 1: are still alive and well, so we continue to support them.
Speaker 1: But remember we have the New England Patriots and they're
Speaker 1: doing extremely well. Less forget UM, but I think one
Speaker 1: of the things we noticed here in Davos, and it
Speaker 1: says I was just just came out of a meeting
Speaker 1: with Ursula van Dervey and who's the defense minister in Germany,
Speaker 1: and I had lunch listening to Queen Ranya talking about
Speaker 1: the refugees from Syria in Jordan's. Davos gives you the
Speaker 1: chance to meet people one on one. It gets to
Speaker 1: deal with the human dynamic. And I think as long
Speaker 1: as this group of very powerful personalities takes the time
Speaker 1: to meet one on one and understands each other and listens,
Speaker 1: you know, Klaus Schwab is telling us about responsible and
Speaker 1: responsive leadership. I think a good part of leadership today
Speaker 1: is not just being on broadcast UM, but actually being
Speaker 1: on listening mode and good leaders uh. I learned early
Speaker 1: on in my career Morgan Stanley, of what you need
Speaker 1: to know to be a good leader and a good advisor,
Speaker 1: you'll figure out by keeping your mouth shut and listening. Tom,
Speaker 1: and I think We're in a mode now where leadership
Speaker 1: is going to require a lot of listeners. So you
Speaker 1: always said that, David, he said time shut up Davids,
Speaker 1: the next question, please, I didn't say times, so, but
Speaker 1: because I think there's some projection here jumping chat. I
Speaker 1: don't want to make you the spokesperson for Fort Klashwab,
Speaker 1: but I am curious here there There has been so
Speaker 1: much criticism of Davas this year, in particular this gathering
Speaker 1: that some have said is out of touch with the
Speaker 1: feeling in the world, the populist sentiment that we're seeing
Speaker 1: around the world. Help us bridge that gap? Then, what
Speaker 1: what could the rest of the world learn from Davas.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the robustness of the conversation, the opportunity to
Speaker 1: talk with people about issues, engage with them on issues
Speaker 1: of real importance. Are there themes here that you think
Speaker 1: are easily translatable? Well, you're making a very important point,
Speaker 1: and I think it's important to make the distinction. We've
Speaker 1: sat in meetings today and yesterday where people said, no
Speaker 1: one foresaw um breggsit, no one foresaw the Trump victory,
Speaker 1: no one foresaw the rise of populism. Twelve months ago
Speaker 1: at Davos, and I think, UM, it stems from the
Speaker 1: fact that there are a couple of things going on here. One,
Speaker 1: this is the one percent of the one percent of
Speaker 1: the one percent talking to itself. Um, there's no one
Speaker 1: represented among the number two. Claus has created this great
Speaker 1: Youth Leaders Young Global Leaders group, and I think we
Speaker 1: need to see more of them. They're very bright young people.
Speaker 1: But if you look at the power of the Internet
Speaker 1: today and power of social media, these people are creating
Speaker 1: their own fantasy worlds on social media, and then they're
Speaker 1: the ones who lose hope and are disappointed when they
Speaker 1: they're not employed. And there's a high degree of youth unemployment.
Speaker 1: There's a high degree of frustration with a lack of
Speaker 1: spirituality in the world. More people are in fact finding God,
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of things going on. So having
Speaker 1: more youth in the room here in Davos, I think
Speaker 1: would make um a big difference. I'm greatly honored to
Speaker 1: ask you this question. There is, without question, no one,
Speaker 1: no one. It appears on Bloomberg surveillance. Who puts money
Speaker 1: with mouth is and feeds the homeless? What have you
Speaker 1: learned and how do we feed those so disadvantaged that
Speaker 1: they are desperate for the next meal. What is the
Speaker 1: tactical or logistical reality of feeding the homeless? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting, it Tom, It's a very good question, and
Speaker 1: bravo to you for asking it, because it's not asked enough.
Speaker 1: Because what you're really asking is what is it that
Speaker 1: feeds um human dignity? Uh and the core of self esteem?
Speaker 1: And actually, what's happened a lot. You heard Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: speech earlier today where he used the term human dignity,
Speaker 1: which really comes from his strong Catholic upbringing. Um, and
Speaker 1: I was really proud of the fact that there's a
Speaker 1: man who's not afraid to be very comfortable in his
Speaker 1: Catholic skin. So to your point about you've got to
Speaker 1: be very focused on the human condition and making sure
Speaker 1: it's like we were talking about the Syrian refugees today,
Speaker 1: they're very proud. These refugees don't like taking handouts of
Speaker 1: food and accommodation. We're just trying to survive. But part
Speaker 1: of feeding the homeless is you've got to be prepared
Speaker 1: to give yourself not just time and money, but you've
Speaker 1: got to be prepared to listen. Okay, We're gonna have
Speaker 1: to leave it there, Johnson, thank you so much more.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on iTunes, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform
Speaker 1: you prefer. I'm out on Twitter at Tom Keene. David
Speaker 1: Gura is at David Gura uh. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio, brought you
Speaker 1: by Bank of America Mary Lynch. Dedicated to bringing our
Speaker 1: clients insights and solutions to meet the challenges of a
Speaker 1: transforming world. That's the power of global connections. Mary Lynch, Pierce,
Speaker 1: Fenner and Smith Incorporated, Member s I p C.