Speaker 1: Runt You by Bank of America Mary Lynch. With virtual reality,
Speaker 1: virtually everything will change. Discover opportunities in a transforming world.
Speaker 1: Be of a, mL dot Com, slash VR, Mary Lynch,
Speaker 1: Pierced Fenner, and Smith Incorporated. 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 of economics, finance, investment, and international relations.
Speaker 1: Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, Bloomberg dot Com,
Speaker 1: and of course, on the Bloomberg Good Morning everyone, David
Speaker 1: Gura and Tom came. Mr Gura on assignment in Sun Valley, Idol.
Speaker 1: How do you be scarlet? How do you be on
Speaker 1: assignment in Sun Valley Idole? Myself? Come on, you know
Speaker 1: they never say scarlet food. Please go to Idaho or
Speaker 1: no they and you know it's it's so odd. He
Speaker 1: goes for an entire week at a time in the
Speaker 1: middle of July. It's it's all very suspicious. It's very suspicious.
Speaker 1: Scarlet food with us. If you didn't notice that, it's
Speaker 1: always a good thing. We will try to refrain. Diminished down,
Speaker 1: the hockey, diminished down, the New York Rangers discussions. There's
Speaker 1: a lot to be excited for on that front. There
Speaker 1: is two and Howard Word will be with us here
Speaker 1: in a moment. Sometimes Howard where's his New York Rangers
Speaker 1: tie into Bloomberg surveying? Not doing it today though exactly
Speaker 1: Bluin blew what white Bluin it's British, It's it's it's
Speaker 1: British to do. We'll get to Howard Ward in a minute.
Speaker 1: We say good morning, economics, finance, investment, politics, international relations.
Speaker 1: Huge day, huge news flow out of Washington, will do
Speaker 1: that along the way. Bloomberg surveillance this morning, Howard Ward
Speaker 1: with us, with Gabelly. And it's a wonderful time to
Speaker 1: talk to Howard Ward because he stated earlier how you're
Speaker 1: more cautious here the the elevation the multiples in such
Speaker 1: when do or are we even close to getting back
Speaker 1: to where yield is competition for dividend? Are we are?
Speaker 1: We miles away from where we go? I can make
Speaker 1: this in a bond, I can make this in a
Speaker 1: stock um well not really. When you look at the
Speaker 1: historical numbers where you had, let's say for the last
Speaker 1: thirty years and average yield on the tenure treasury of
Speaker 1: six and now it's two point four percent. That's still
Speaker 1: in that very attractive dividend yields right around two percent.
Speaker 1: So dividend really is for people that can have the
Speaker 1: patients to buy stocks and let the dividends grow. You're
Speaker 1: probably if you can handle the f altility of stocks,
Speaker 1: probably better offgoing the dividend route. I think that's been
Speaker 1: a major source of demand for stocks in recent years.
Speaker 1: So bonds bonny yields have a long ways to go
Speaker 1: before they really start to uh be competition for stocks.
Speaker 1: That's not to say that higher interest rates will not
Speaker 1: uh force a penalty on stocks, because I think they will.
Speaker 1: But I will say this that with all the talk
Speaker 1: about where bond yields are today, they're basically where they
Speaker 1: were in December of two thousand and fifteen when the
Speaker 1: FED made their very first tightening measure of this cycle. So, um,
Speaker 1: we've been trading between let's say a two percent yield
Speaker 1: and a two point six percent yield ever since, and
Speaker 1: right now we're sort of in the middle of that.
Speaker 1: How are you one of those people who are worried
Speaker 1: about an unwind of the risk parity trade? Uh, specifically
Speaker 1: in what sense well, with bonds and stocks falling. I mean,
Speaker 1: things have stabilized the last two days, but for a
Speaker 1: while last week there was a lot of talk that
Speaker 1: there is going to be this unwinding of UH risk
Speaker 1: parity trades in which stocks and bonds would fall at
Speaker 1: the same time, and there are so many lever bets
Speaker 1: on that positive rate stock correlation. Yeah, I Scarlet, I
Speaker 1: think that's a possibility, and it it certainly could happen
Speaker 1: over a very short term. But what I do think
Speaker 1: is more likely to happen is that bond yields decline
Speaker 1: in the face of weakening economic activity, and the stock
Speaker 1: market declines um due to issues that might have to
Speaker 1: do with growing trade friction, because I think that's going
Speaker 1: to be a big issue over the next several months. UH,
Speaker 1: because the FED is also tightening. I think that's another
Speaker 1: problem in terms of policy. Trade policy is a problem
Speaker 1: headwind for stocks, Monetary policy is a headwind for stocks.
Speaker 1: Fiscal policy is doing nothing to help stocks, and so
Speaker 1: I think the economic news deteriorates, UH bonny yields go down,
Speaker 1: not up, and the risk parity trade may they may
Speaker 1: go down. In sympathy every now and then, But but
Speaker 1: I think the primary trend for the next five percent move.
Speaker 1: Let's say in stocks, I think stocks are down UH
Speaker 1: is the next five percent move and UH and bonny
Speaker 1: yields will likely be going down with them, all right,
Speaker 1: so we'll continue to see a move into the safe
Speaker 1: haven of bonds UM. You mentioned the economic surprise index
Speaker 1: and how the rate of surprises from the data has
Speaker 1: been coming down. There's been some research done. People have
Speaker 1: pointed out how if you look at a sitecre economic
Speaker 1: surprise index over the last seven or eight years, it
Speaker 1: bottoms around June and each of the previous six years,
Speaker 1: and this is a self reverting, self correcting mean for
Speaker 1: reverting index for the most part, and we've bounced back up.
Speaker 1: What does that tell you, Well, we've had a little
Speaker 1: bit of a bounce after a really a three month collapse.
Speaker 1: And so if we look a little bit deeper at
Speaker 1: some of the underlying economic data, we know that auto
Speaker 1: sales are soft and production cuts have been announced for
Speaker 1: this quarter. We know housing activity has slowed. We know
Speaker 1: commercial industrial loan growth is slowing. We know credit delinquencies
Speaker 1: are growing across the credit chain. We know retail sales
Speaker 1: have been soft, and inventory to sales ratios have been rising.
Speaker 1: We know durable goods orders, especially X defense and aircraft
Speaker 1: are soft. We know payroll growth is slowing. NIPPA profits
Speaker 1: actually declined in the press when somebody get by medications, please,
Speaker 1: NIPPA profits actually declined last quarter. They didn't rise like
Speaker 1: S and P profits. And uh we we've we And
Speaker 1: as I mentioned earlier, trade policy is about to get
Speaker 1: I think very heated because the one hundred days that
Speaker 1: Trump gave China to negotiate a trade deal expires next week.
Speaker 1: So are we in cash? No, because you know this
Speaker 1: is this is really hard, this market time and stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't advocate it. I'm just saying that you will
Speaker 1: probably get a better entry point for stocks and and
Speaker 1: otherwise you should try to be defensively. What does that mean.
Speaker 1: That's a great phrase. It's a famous Howard word phrase
Speaker 1: to help our our our audience. What is the tactical
Speaker 1: to do given an uber bulls caution, Well, if you
Speaker 1: want to stay in the market, you you you gravitate
Speaker 1: towards the more defensive names, the names that have lower beta,
Speaker 1: specifically lower beta, because that's been the most reliable banks metric. No,
Speaker 1: not not the banks. The banks the bank trade has
Speaker 1: been conditioned upon rising rates and rising loan growth, and
Speaker 1: I don't think either one of those is going to
Speaker 1: pan out. So what's a lower beta defensive position. Healthcare,
Speaker 1: consumer staples, utilities would be the three primary sectors. In fact,
Speaker 1: the latest new position in my portfolio is next Era Energy,
Speaker 1: which is in electric Italy, the old Florida Power and Light.
Speaker 1: It's the meeting. It's the leading generator of UH solar
Speaker 1: and principally when alternative energy in the United States where
Speaker 1: you're you are CEO of Growth Equities, right, Yes, So
Speaker 1: this is a business that is growing at around in total,
Speaker 1: including the regulated part, at about eight percent. And I
Speaker 1: will challenge you to find consumer staples names that are
Speaker 1: growing at eight percent. They're probably growing much less and
Speaker 1: they're priced much higher. This is fascinating. This is the
Speaker 1: old Florida Power Light. It is back in our back
Speaker 1: on Scarlett. How did I remember this? Where you owned
Speaker 1: like six utilities and one was always FPL And this
Speaker 1: is next What separates them from Dominion or the other
Speaker 1: victims of our ute, it's their large presence in wind
Speaker 1: power and solar power. And I think it's not well
Speaker 1: known than in much of the South and central United States.
Speaker 1: Right now, without any subsidies, wind power is cheaper than
Speaker 1: the alternatives. Can you can you book in here five
Speaker 1: year dividend growth of ten percent per year, that's a
Speaker 1: phenomenal number for for next Terra Energy, I would feel
Speaker 1: more comfortable with an eight percent dividend growth. That's yielding
Speaker 1: two point eight percent now. And UH there is a
Speaker 1: much smaller cap subsidiary that they have a big stake
Speaker 1: and called next Era UH Energy Partners. It's about a
Speaker 1: one point two or three billion dollar MLP, and the
Speaker 1: dividend yield is higher, and the dividend growth rate is
Speaker 1: going to be tied to their growth and alternative energy,
Speaker 1: and that might be a better play for people that
Speaker 1: are really focused on the income. And you tell these
Speaker 1: four scurs you can't make money in utilities ten year
Speaker 1: track record of Florida Power and Light thirteen point one
Speaker 1: percent per year. It's just a scarlett. You can't make
Speaker 1: money and you tie per years extraordinary, that is the cliche.
Speaker 1: And looking here at the utilities index in the SMP
Speaker 1: five hundred, price earnings eighteen point two times for next
Speaker 1: to any that took her correct. Uh, the pe is
Speaker 1: twenty two and the estimated p the and I think
Speaker 1: and again, if you go back and look at the beta,
Speaker 1: you'll probably find it's something like fifty. So Uh, it's
Speaker 1: going to give you a lot of protection. Historically has
Speaker 1: provided a lot of protection in a down mark. It's
Speaker 1: outperformed in the last decade dominion by two fifty basis points.
Speaker 1: This is a very wonky This is almost like a
Speaker 1: pim Fox conversation. Scarlett. We've gotten into the land of
Speaker 1: fox Well on a Tuesday morning. How appropriate, right? That
Speaker 1: would be very good. Yeah, there's a lot going on
Speaker 1: this morning. We'll have much more for you, including the
Speaker 1: politics of Land State Bank rumor has it. Will have
Speaker 1: that on news as well. Features yet Futures negative to
Speaker 1: Doubt features Negative. Seventeen, Bloomberg Business Week relaunched. I want
Speaker 1: to bring into your attention every week an issue has
Speaker 1: a different theme. Last week it was technology. Uh, the
Speaker 1: week before it was Job's a really good jobs issue
Speaker 1: as well. They'll be out with a new issue in
Speaker 1: forty eight hours. But Bloomberg Business Week we launched. I
Speaker 1: really can't say enough about it. Uh is a is
Speaker 1: a great overview of whatever their theme of the week is.
Speaker 1: I like the thematic approach to it as well. David
Speaker 1: gurn Tom Keane, Mr Gurra on assignment in Idaho, scarlet
Speaker 1: food the short straw. We'll get here a few more
Speaker 1: minutes with Howard warding than we have to turn to
Speaker 1: an important global debate. Um, Howard, I look at the
Speaker 1: equity markets. I look at all the mumbo jumbo of Graham,
Speaker 1: Dott and Coddle and an investment finance. The bottom line
Speaker 1: is a lot of people are wrong. The certitude was
Speaker 1: it's a single digit world and we haven't had that.
Speaker 1: Do you regress to the mean? Do you say, look,
Speaker 1: we had a double digit reality and are we going
Speaker 1: to be negative to get back to a single digit world?
Speaker 1: I don't buy that for a minute. I just can't
Speaker 1: get that defeatist. No, but Tom thinks have changed. So
Speaker 1: we got a ten percent long term compounded return on
Speaker 1: stocks by way of essentially a seven percent nominal GDP
Speaker 1: number and a three percent dividend yield. That's and and
Speaker 1: the GDP number correlated exact almost exactly to the rate
Speaker 1: of earnings growth. And we're no longer in a nominal
Speaker 1: seven percent world. We're in a at the moment a
Speaker 1: nominal three and a half percent GDP world, and maybe
Speaker 1: we can get that to four or four and a
Speaker 1: half percent, and we have a two percent dividend yield
Speaker 1: on the SMP. So from this vantage point, the longer
Speaker 1: term returns on stocks are no longer going to be
Speaker 1: ten percent. They're more like seven percent um. And in fact,
Speaker 1: if you now look back over the last ten years,
Speaker 1: I think that's just about exactly what we've had, although
Speaker 1: with a lot of volatility in between. So, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: and this this, this, this is part of the you know,
Speaker 1: we had for thirty years or so real g D
Speaker 1: real GDP growth of three point three percent in the
Speaker 1: US that was the trend line, and that's now closer
Speaker 1: to two. You talk about the dividends and how it's
Speaker 1: not as rich as it could be or it has
Speaker 1: been in the past. We've seen companies, of course plowed
Speaker 1: their extra cash back into share buy backs, but that's
Speaker 1: tapered off quite a bit because prices are pretty high.
Speaker 1: And Gina Martin Adams and her team at Bloomberck Intelligence
Speaker 1: have done the research that show that the rate of
Speaker 1: buybacks has slowed down quite a bit. What are you
Speaker 1: looking for this earning season when it comes to returning
Speaker 1: cash to shareholders? Well, I think Scarlett, it's worth mentioning
Speaker 1: that corporations went on a binge of borrowing money in
Speaker 1: the in the debt market and using the proceeds to
Speaker 1: buy back stock to the extent that their balance sheets
Speaker 1: are not nearly as secure are safe as they were
Speaker 1: prior to all this. And I think it's also worth
Speaker 1: mentioning because if there is only one metric you want
Speaker 1: to look at to ask yourself, is the stuff? How
Speaker 1: how fairly valued or how attractive the stock market is? Uh,
Speaker 1: don't even look at earnings, but but look at the
Speaker 1: value of the entire stock market relative to GDP, and
Speaker 1: currently it's one. There's only one time in history when
Speaker 1: it's been higher, and that was in the first quarter
Speaker 1: of two thousand when it was one d and sixty
Speaker 1: seven of g d P. So having said all that,
Speaker 1: when you're looking at earnings expectations for the current quarter,
Speaker 1: I don't think that they're going to be bad. I mean,
Speaker 1: we all know that these corporate managers are so good
Speaker 1: at managing earnings that every single quarter, seventy some percent
Speaker 1: of the earnings beat the estimates and continue to be there.
Speaker 1: That's going to continue to be the case. So I'm
Speaker 1: not so focused on that. I think the guidance could
Speaker 1: be critical. I do expect that there will be some
Speaker 1: negative surprises on the guidance front, but in terms of
Speaker 1: the overall market, I'd be looking at the evaluation and
Speaker 1: the fact that we we typically have three five percent
Speaker 1: corrections every year and we haven't had one for the
Speaker 1: last year. We're going to rip up the script here
Speaker 1: with the Howard Ward right now, Scarlet fod with this
Speaker 1: is well for a global audience. Um I I can't
Speaker 1: begin to convey the excitement about Howard Ward and Scarlet Foods.
Speaker 1: New York Rangers. There's a gentleman named Shatton Kirk who
Speaker 1: I first saw with the St. Louis Blues Good Morning Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: one of six one FM Boston, who was a pride
Speaker 1: of Boston University and Howard. Before that, he was playing
Speaker 1: pond hockey just north of New York City, wasn't he well,
Speaker 1: Kevin's from New Marshall, and you know, he spent some
Speaker 1: time local boy and he wanted to come back to
Speaker 1: the Rangers, and he spent some time at the Brunswick
Speaker 1: School in Greenwich, where he played hockey with my son Chriss,
Speaker 1: and uh, it was evident from the moment that Kevin
Speaker 1: hit the ice that this young man was a very
Speaker 1: special hockey player. And he progressed from Brunswick to the
Speaker 1: us UH Olympic or Junior Olympic programming on Arbor, spent
Speaker 1: a couple of years there before becoming a terrier at
Speaker 1: BU And Mrs Lund, quiz, this is good for your husband,
Speaker 1: isn't it? This is very good. This is very good
Speaker 1: for for the goaltenders of the New York Rangers. UM.
Speaker 1: One thing, of course that people were worried about last
Speaker 1: spring was that he signed on with the Washington Capitals
Speaker 1: and that that was our one opportunity to get him,
Speaker 1: But of course it ended up not being. It was
Speaker 1: a tactical move on his part to get into the layoffs.
Speaker 1: And yes, Kevin wasn't Kevin was in big demand as
Speaker 1: one of the top defenseman and and an offensive defenseman
Speaker 1: at that and UH, he did not go for the
Speaker 1: top dollar. Everyone knows that he wanted to be a Ranger.
Speaker 1: He wanted to come home and play for his the
Speaker 1: team that he grew up with and so there's no
Speaker 1: doubt he took less money and he took a shorter
Speaker 1: contract than he could have had elsewhere. I should point out, folks,
Speaker 1: for those of you that follow basketball, it's the same idea.
Speaker 1: There's a huge pressure to leave college early, and he
Speaker 1: stayed at BEU. He could have left be you early. Well,
Speaker 1: I think he left a year earlier. He left year early.
Speaker 1: But a lot of other people have to win national championship,
Speaker 1: I might add, but they leave after their freshman of
Speaker 1: their sophtware year. He didn't do that. Hockey, it tends
Speaker 1: to be more I think the more standard situation if
Speaker 1: you are a college hockey player that Ghost Bros. You
Speaker 1: typically go after your junior Yearkay, is this a hockey
Speaker 1: talks so you'll stay around at the end of the show? Okay,
Speaker 1: very good, Howard Ward, Thank you so much. She's our
Speaker 1: expert on the New York Rangers, and we're Shuldis here today.
Speaker 1: I can say without question this is the most important
Speaker 1: interview for all of us today across economics, finance, and politics.
Speaker 1: And no, we don't have to talk about the madness
Speaker 1: of the Beltway. David Schulkin has about eight other things
Speaker 1: to do besides serve the nation. He does that now
Speaker 1: in the tinder box known as Veterans Affairs. He is
Speaker 1: the President's Secretary of Veterans Affairs and has brought a medical,
Speaker 1: tactical approach to what we do with their veterans. Secretary,
Speaker 1: wonderful to have you with us, uh today. I remember
Speaker 1: whatever the Politzer Prize winning article was about the scandal
Speaker 1: of Walter Reid Hospital a decade ago or whatever. We
Speaker 1: all have our horror stories of veterans affairs. You've brought
Speaker 1: a can do, solution braced approach. Give us one example
Speaker 1: of what you did day one. Well, first of all, Uh,
Speaker 1: it's good to be here. And I think that the
Speaker 1: country agrees that we're tired of reading about all the
Speaker 1: ways that we failed our veterans and it's time to
Speaker 1: fix this. And everybody agrees on this. This is not
Speaker 1: a political debate, is it. No, this is really a
Speaker 1: bipartisan issue. And um, so we're serious about making these changes,
Speaker 1: and this is something that the President actually ran on
Speaker 1: and is committed to doing this. So we're doing a
Speaker 1: lot of things, but one of the things we're making
Speaker 1: sure is those who have healthcare needs are being seen
Speaker 1: and being seen in a timely fashion. So we've put
Speaker 1: into place same day services and every one of our
Speaker 1: v A medical centers throughout the country for primary care
Speaker 1: and mental health, and we've also posted all of our
Speaker 1: weight times for everybody to see. I mean, they don't
Speaker 1: they scarlet. They don't do that. At the hospital up
Speaker 1: in Westchester, they don't do that. You know, it's a
Speaker 1: it's a revolutionary idea. How bureaucratic is it? You did
Speaker 1: service at the Great Institution in Pittsburgh, you did service here,
Speaker 1: service there in general medicine, did you expect a bureaucracy
Speaker 1: of doctors and nurses saying no, no, no, we don't
Speaker 1: do it that way. Guy, Well, uh, what my experience was,
Speaker 1: I've spent my entire career in the private sector, so
Speaker 1: I came expecting it was going to be tough to
Speaker 1: make change. What I found was was that, um, what
Speaker 1: the system needed was just new ideas and needed people
Speaker 1: to show them the way. But people want to be successful,
Speaker 1: particularly when they work in the v A. Their very
Speaker 1: mission driven, and when you show them a different way
Speaker 1: of doing things, they're very open to it. And so
Speaker 1: I have not found it to be resistant to change.
Speaker 1: Do you have the institutional support though for UH to
Speaker 1: make all these changes? You were confirmed by the Senate
Speaker 1: one zero, which is unheard of in this very partisan
Speaker 1: environment right now, What kind of support do you have
Speaker 1: from Congress, from the executive branch. Well, I'm very fortunate
Speaker 1: that there's just great leadership in Congress. Um are chairman
Speaker 1: of our committees and our ranking members, both the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the Republicans are completely united around making the changes necessary.
Speaker 1: And so when we have our committee hearings, there's of
Speaker 1: course debate over the right approach, but in the end
Speaker 1: they get in a room, they decide what the right
Speaker 1: decision is, and they move forward. And does it matter
Speaker 1: that you were part of the Obama administration as the
Speaker 1: Undersecretary or of Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Speaker 1: Does that play into anything? Well, I think that people
Speaker 1: understand that I don't approach to this job in a
Speaker 1: political way. I approach it that this is a job
Speaker 1: that the country needs to get done, and I'm here
Speaker 1: to get it done. I also think it does help
Speaker 1: that people understand that I haven't changed my position on
Speaker 1: what needs to happen to fix the v A. Whether
Speaker 1: I was in the administration or in the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: I think that President Trump wasn't as concerned about anything
Speaker 1: other than getting this fixed for our veterans. Veterans medicine
Speaker 1: has been a lightning rode back to the Revolutionary War.
Speaker 1: Had to be honest, I've got ancestors has fought in
Speaker 1: this war that warn't forty years later they were trying
Speaker 1: to get a check cut from somebody like Veterans Affair.
Speaker 1: Help our audience that believes it's a money pot for
Speaker 1: anybody that wants to come get it. How is the
Speaker 1: budget integrity? Folks, we say this about the guy that
Speaker 1: were in Morristown Memorial Hospital, like a real practicing hospital.
Speaker 1: How do you handle the cash and the money so
Speaker 1: that we know it's fair and audited. Well, I think
Speaker 1: what we've seen over the past couple of administrations is
Speaker 1: more and more money flowing into v A, and it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily translated into better service or better results. So
Speaker 1: I've been very clear, I do not believe that fixing
Speaker 1: and reforming v A is a money issue. This isn't
Speaker 1: that we need, um, you know, more funds to get
Speaker 1: this fixed. What we need are the best practices from
Speaker 1: the private sector, and we need to modernize the system
Speaker 1: and in terms of auditing where our money is going.
Speaker 1: Right now, one of my major initiatives is to bring
Speaker 1: much more integrity to our fraud wasted abuse systems because
Speaker 1: I do believe that there are inefficiencies and areas that
Speaker 1: we do need to audit much closer to make sure
Speaker 1: taxpayers are getting the best value. Well, speaking of modernizing
Speaker 1: the system, there are a lot of concerns for anyone
Speaker 1: who runs a huge bureaucracy about how to protect your
Speaker 1: system from cyber from hacking. What are you doing on
Speaker 1: that and how do you make the v A department
Speaker 1: hack proof or as hack proof as possible. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: wish that there was a way to be hack proof.
Speaker 1: But we have invested significantly in the last few years
Speaker 1: in cybersecurity, and we have systems in place that I
Speaker 1: feel confident in. We essentially identify and protect against thousands
Speaker 1: of threats every day, and some of the recent threats
Speaker 1: that have hit hospitals we have been able to detect
Speaker 1: and stop. So you've you've it's been tested several times,
Speaker 1: absolutely tested every day. Your father had the courage to
Speaker 1: deal with psychiatry. I believe it forth shared and ages ago.
Speaker 1: This is a very delicate topic, the psychiatric framework of
Speaker 1: our veterans, the trauma of battle and combat. What is
Speaker 1: the new new there? We've been fighting two wars and
Speaker 1: what I noticed, Sir, is the is the chronic nature
Speaker 1: of a year after your commitment to Afghanistan interact. What
Speaker 1: will the v A do on the mental health front
Speaker 1: to assist these people? Well, first of all, when I
Speaker 1: talk about the priorities that I have a secretary, there's
Speaker 1: only one clinical area that I talk about, and that
Speaker 1: is reducing veterans suicide. Twenty veterans a day are taking
Speaker 1: their life, which is really just a statistic that just
Speaker 1: hard to ever get used to accepting. And so we
Speaker 1: are focused on this in a way that unlike any
Speaker 1: other problem that we have in the v A UM,
Speaker 1: no other system is doing as much for behavioral health
Speaker 1: as the v A. And having said that, we have
Speaker 1: to be doing more, and that more includes reaching out
Speaker 1: to the community, making sure that we're involving family members
Speaker 1: and others in veterans lives, making sure that they're getting
Speaker 1: access in the right treatment, but also additional research so
Speaker 1: that we can find way is to make sure that
Speaker 1: we have more effective treatments. Obviously for those who have
Speaker 1: fought on the front lines, there's a lot of damage
Speaker 1: done to you. If you've been at the forefront of
Speaker 1: the fighting. What about from drone attacks? What kind of
Speaker 1: psychological impact does that have? Have you started to see
Speaker 1: that yet, Yes, we have UM. I believe that UM.
Speaker 1: In every war, there's a different way of experiencing conflict.
Speaker 1: Of course, in our most recent conflicts, they have been
Speaker 1: the I E. D s that have caused not only
Speaker 1: tremendous physical damage, but significant invisible wounds and emotional damage.
Speaker 1: And so in drones it's a very similar type of
Speaker 1: emotional experience as an I E. D. You're having UH
Speaker 1: devices come out of nowhere UH and surprise attacks, and
Speaker 1: so it causes an emotional startle reaction that is very
Speaker 1: similar to what we see in post traumatic stress. You
Speaker 1: think you're visiting us today, David Schalkin Folks is the
Speaker 1: ninth United States Secretary for veteran MR Secretary. Look forward
Speaker 1: to seeing our studios at Washington as well. David Short,
Speaker 1: Conductor Schulkin, thank you, Brunch you by Bank of America,
Speaker 1: Mary Lynch. With virtual reality, virtually everything will change, discover
Speaker 1: opportunities in a transforming world b of a mL dot
Speaker 1: Com slash VR, Mary Lynch, Pierced Fentner and Smith Incorporated.
Speaker 1: That wasn't David Gurria heard that was Scarlet Foo and
Speaker 1: I told her, if the Rangers pick up Kevin Shatton Kirk,
Speaker 1: you have to host. We did that with Howard Ward.
Speaker 1: Thank you to Howard Ward for and I'm going to
Speaker 1: be here all week as a results resul. We talked
Speaker 1: about the Rangers and this big trade they had for
Speaker 1: Mr Schatton Kirk and so then Scarlett will stay through
Speaker 1: the which is a good thing. Mr Gurra on assignment
Speaker 1: and has it been a Gura siding Scarlet? You know
Speaker 1: what he did post on Instagram. I did spot some
Speaker 1: kale in the background. So he's he's holding true to
Speaker 1: what he normally does. Yeah. Um, Doug Bondo with us
Speaker 1: with a Cato Institute libertarian some would say more conservative,
Speaker 1: but on an idea that that is away from the
Speaker 1: normal budget things of the Cato Institute, and that's North Korea.
Speaker 1: He's senior fellow. Uh, working a few years ago with
Speaker 1: President Reagan. That ages him right there. We're thrilled that
Speaker 1: he's with us right now. Uh, Doug, wonderful to have
Speaker 1: you with us. What is the distinctive CATO view on
Speaker 1: how we should adapt and adjust to a unique North Korea.
Speaker 1: I think we have to kind of look for some
Speaker 1: alternatives to the current policy that we're at. I mean,
Speaker 1: the North Korea is a very problematic actor, and no
Speaker 1: one that I know of wants them to have nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: But the reality is they want them, not because they're
Speaker 1: crazy and nubs. They want them, I think largely because
Speaker 1: they fear the US and view this is being the
Speaker 1: best to terror possible. You know, they've looked at Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: They've looked at the Rock, They've looked at Libya, where
Speaker 1: the more market Dafi negotiates away his nuclear weapons and
Speaker 1: his missiles, and as soon as the opportunity arises, the U.
Speaker 1: S And Europe helped take him out. You know, this
Speaker 1: is a regime that's committed to moving ahead. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not at all clear that even sanctions supported by
Speaker 1: China would necessarily stop them. We don't have any good
Speaker 1: options here for more threats we make, frankly, the more
Speaker 1: justification we give them from building unclear weapons. One of
Speaker 1: the characters of your note is you worry less about
Speaker 1: bombing Alaska or for that matter, the circle of that
Speaker 1: missile if they ever developed it would go to Ueen,
Speaker 1: Queensland in Australia. And you take a real interest in
Speaker 1: the border between North North Korea North Carolina. Help me,
Speaker 1: Scarlet nor I stayed up for the home run. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is your speechless after the home in Derby, Doug,
Speaker 1: I look at the China border. It's really the first
Speaker 1: order condition give us an update. As you see that
Speaker 1: river between China and North Korea, Well, the Allu is
Speaker 1: not much of a barrier. You know, the North Koreans
Speaker 1: are working harder now to stop people from going across.
Speaker 1: But what if you want Chinese support? What you have
Speaker 1: to recognize. China looks at that and thinks, oh boy,
Speaker 1: we put sanctions on North Korea, collapses, we get five
Speaker 1: million refugees across the Yalu, we get factional fighting, we
Speaker 1: get maybe military combat, you know, we get stuff flowing across.
Speaker 1: This is not good for us. They also look at
Speaker 1: that and say, you know, isn't that nice? The US
Speaker 1: wants us to essentially give them North Korea so they
Speaker 1: can have a United Korea aligned with America and US
Speaker 1: troops on the Yalu. We went to war in nineteen fifty.
Speaker 1: Stop that. You know, we're trying to put pressure on
Speaker 1: China without acknowledging why they view this as a security interest,
Speaker 1: and again very problematic. Unless you're willing to acknowledge what
Speaker 1: is motivating them, it's very hard to get them on
Speaker 1: our side. You just came back from North Korea as well,
Speaker 1: didn't you. That's what I was there a month ago.
Speaker 1: What did you observe. I mean, there's obviously the official version,
Speaker 1: what the Korean officials want you to see, want you
Speaker 1: to report back on, versus what you saw in the undercurrent. Well,
Speaker 1: let's say interesting, I was there twenty five years ago.
Speaker 1: I mean peong Yang has changed a lot. I mean
Speaker 1: it's much more kind of money. Their newer buildings, has
Speaker 1: private automobiles, people have cell phones. You know, women dressed
Speaker 1: very nice. They were very plain twenty five years ago.
Speaker 1: Men are still very plain. But you know that there
Speaker 1: are changes that suggests there's money, and to some extent
Speaker 1: that's good in the sense that it suggests they have
Speaker 1: something to lose, and the other hand, it also shows
Speaker 1: that they've done reasonably well despite the sanctions. Regime, you know,
Speaker 1: reasonably well over the years, despite you know, all of
Speaker 1: the pressure of the US has put on them. You know,
Speaker 1: the consistent message I got to that, you know, was
Speaker 1: they look at this as being you Americans who put
Speaker 1: pressure on us, threatened us. We're doing this because we're
Speaker 1: we don't like that, and we're afraid of that. We're
Speaker 1: gonna match nuke for nuke, as they put it. And
Speaker 1: it struck me that as part of the challenge, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, they look at this as being a national
Speaker 1: security you should they don't. You know, this is a
Speaker 1: weird political system and there's one person there. It's Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un, the supreme leader. He's the guy everybody refers to,
Speaker 1: you know. But despite that, it doesn't mean they're not rational.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're evil, but they're not crazy. And I
Speaker 1: think that's the problem of the US as yet to
Speaker 1: really address their reasons why they do what they do.
Speaker 1: That came out of the meetings I had very consistently.
Speaker 1: You know, there's an argument and I think you referred
Speaker 1: to it as well, that some people make about how
Speaker 1: the US could just accept the reality of North Korea
Speaker 1: having nuclear weapons. Um, we spent more than a decade
Speaker 1: before finally acknowledging, for instance, that Indian Pakistan have nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons for us to get there, what would need to
Speaker 1: have then? Well, I think that what we need to
Speaker 1: look at, you know, is the question of do we
Speaker 1: think it's possible. Again, this is the issue of bringing
Speaker 1: China in, you know, to get a verifiable freeze on activity.
Speaker 1: I don't think they will ever voluntarily give them up,
Speaker 1: you know. So then the question is is can you
Speaker 1: put pressure on the regime, can you destroy it? Can
Speaker 1: you get regime change? All of those are things which
Speaker 1: frankly everybody would like, but the process of getting there
Speaker 1: is what scares the Chinese. So could we come up
Speaker 1: with this process and say, look, the reality is they
Speaker 1: have them. I mean we're talking perhaps twenty or so. Now,
Speaker 1: how better if you could freeze that to deal with
Speaker 1: them a few years from now and they have a
Speaker 1: hundred and they're still building more. Those are two very
Speaker 1: different scenarios, Doug, is our traditional military off the coast
Speaker 1: of North Korea? Is there a benefit to that? I
Speaker 1: think of six thousand sixty two is the crew of
Speaker 1: the Carl Vincent. I don't know if that's the number.
Speaker 1: That's what Wikipedia says, but does it does it matter
Speaker 1: that the Navy has planted off North Korea again as
Speaker 1: a deterrent? Well, I mean the problem here is the
Speaker 1: North Koreans, I don't believe have any interest in starting
Speaker 1: a war. They know they lose. So sending another aircraft
Speaker 1: carrier there's you know, sending B two bombers flying over
Speaker 1: in and of itself is probably more relevant to South
Speaker 1: Korea than North Korea. That is, if you want to
Speaker 1: reassure the South Koreans were there, It doesn't. It doesn't
Speaker 1: really tell the North Koreans anything. They don't know. You know,
Speaker 1: they know the U s could bombom them out of existence.
Speaker 1: And we don't even have to have an aircraft carrier
Speaker 1: that we could use. I mean, if we really wanted to,
Speaker 1: we could use nuclear weapons on our cb ms. So
Speaker 1: the question is what are you achieving anything in terms
Speaker 1: of the North Are you making them more pliable? I
Speaker 1: think the answer is no. So then the question, well,
Speaker 1: does it help with China? Does it help with South Korea?
Speaker 1: Those are the questions you've really got to ask. I
Speaker 1: do think the problem is that when you're out there
Speaker 1: saying we planned to bomb them, we're going to threaten them.
Speaker 1: We're thinking preemptive action. From this standpoint, if the US
Speaker 1: is thinking about launching a preventive war, that's an even
Speaker 1: good better reason to have a missile that could hit
Speaker 1: the US. So the US knows there's a cost to that. Well,
Speaker 1: let's thank you so much. We look forward to continuous discussion. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I think we will given the news flow. That's other UH.
Speaker 1: It's out there. Mr Bando's with a CATO Institute their
Speaker 1: senior fellow, and we speak on our international relations with
Speaker 1: North Korea. It was a few years ago and it
Speaker 1: was an important discussion and essay commitment, rules and discretion.
Speaker 1: Charles Plasser has said this for his career, this at CATO,
Speaker 1: but also really across every other speech as a former
Speaker 1: president of the Federal Reserve System in Piladelphia. Professor Plaster
Speaker 1: joins us UH. Now Charles Plaster is Randall Corals is
Speaker 1: vice Chairman and regulation is he the beginning of a
Speaker 1: rules based Trump Federal Reserve System. Good morning, Tom, It's
Speaker 1: good to be with you as always, and I'm very
Speaker 1: pleased with the appointment, our nomination of Randy Quarrels. I
Speaker 1: think he's going to be a great addition to the board.
Speaker 1: And um so I'm actually a very UH encouraged by
Speaker 1: his his nomination and I think he'll be a great addition,
Speaker 1: particularly in supervisionary. See that he didn't he didn't answer
Speaker 1: my question. He ploster is taped to answer around it,
Speaker 1: just like a pro FEDERSTI come on, come on, Charl,
Speaker 1: We've known each other forever. Randy Corals has published on
Speaker 1: rules based UH advantages are we Is this the beginning
Speaker 1: of a rules based Trump Federal Reserve? Readjust it's I
Speaker 1: think Randy can contribute to that debate and how push
Speaker 1: the debate along, as you know, As you said, I've
Speaker 1: tried to push this along for many, many years. It's
Speaker 1: not it's an uphill battle. But I do think that
Speaker 1: he will be a contribute to help do that, and
Speaker 1: I think depends on what other appointments are made and
Speaker 1: other things that um I'm hopeful that we can make
Speaker 1: progress in that direction with Randy. I think it very
Speaker 1: much depends on what other poems are made. And I'm
Speaker 1: glad you bring that up because our Bloomberg Intelligence analysts
Speaker 1: Nathan Dean and Ben Elliott have made the point that
Speaker 1: Randy Karl's as the Fed Vice Chair for Supervision would
Speaker 1: have limited clout as long as Janet Yellen is chair
Speaker 1: um and of course he still needs to be confirmed
Speaker 1: as well, so his start day may not be until
Speaker 1: fourth quarter or later. What does he do in the
Speaker 1: meantime to get his ducks in order? Who, Yeah, he's
Speaker 1: got He's got to prepare for confirmation hearings, and that's
Speaker 1: that's a huge undertaking for anybody. So he has he has, Uh,
Speaker 1: he has a lot of work work to do. I
Speaker 1: suspect in preparing himself for that, both for questions coming
Speaker 1: from on on the regulatory side and supervision, but also
Speaker 1: on monetary policy. So I think he has he has
Speaker 1: a lot of homework to do, But I think he's
Speaker 1: perfectly capable and a good person for this. What would
Speaker 1: be his first order of business presuming he is confirmed
Speaker 1: and Janet Yellin is still sent share. I think he's
Speaker 1: certainly on the supervision side. Uh, he is vice chair
Speaker 1: for Supervision and he will have a lot of responsibility
Speaker 1: about how the supervisory process unfold, how the set approaches
Speaker 1: regulatory issues, whether they cut back on things like UH
Speaker 1: reviews of community banks and and I means there's lots
Speaker 1: of things on the table. Dance Rule left the whole
Speaker 1: menu of things in his last speech about things that
Speaker 1: the FEND needed to consider. So I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of opportunities he can his leadership can do. Professor
Speaker 1: Plats or cher Yelling, will will speak, will have testimony
Speaker 1: tomorrow before the House. Is she presenting a limited central bank?
Speaker 1: Or is a central bank of which you remember for
Speaker 1: a bit, would you suggest they have overreached and be
Speaker 1: gone and gone beyond your acclaimed phrase a limited central bank? Well,
Speaker 1: I take the central central banks around the world have overreached,
Speaker 1: and I think it's it's it's very dangerous. And it's
Speaker 1: because then the risks we face in the coming years
Speaker 1: of the consequences of that could be long time. What
Speaker 1: could be felt. Are the risks there that we need
Speaker 1: to be a coordinated action. As we see out of
Speaker 1: Portugal a few weeks ago. Will coordination diminished the overreach
Speaker 1: of central banks? No? In fact, I'm afraid that if
Speaker 1: their efforts, if their efforts to coordinate, it will be
Speaker 1: quite the opposite, because they'll be central banks reacting to
Speaker 1: what other central banks are doing in other countries. And
Speaker 1: you know who's to say, do I reacted. Does the
Speaker 1: Central Bank react to Portugal to the act of ECB,
Speaker 1: the react to Russia. It's just it's I think that's
Speaker 1: a dangerous path to go down. The coordination ought to be.
Speaker 1: Setting setting common inflation targets would be a better way
Speaker 1: at form of coordination. Charles Plaster, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: He's a former president of the Fullers Bank of Philadelphia,
Speaker 1: of course associated with Chicago, Vanderbilt, and of course with
Speaker 1: his years at Rochester and the Simon School or Mr
Speaker 1: Kachel Coote as a shingle out. I believe at the
Speaker 1: moment we are honored to bringing out someone that David
Speaker 1: Remnick wrote about. I believe it was yesterday for the
Speaker 1: New Yorker magazine. Let me quote completely. There has also
Speaker 1: been a great deal of solid journalism committed by Adam
Speaker 1: Davidson of The New Yorker, Timothy O'Brien of Bloomberg and
Speaker 1: others on Trump's business history and his links to etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Not joining us from Bloomberg view Timothy O'Brien, Tim, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go to the heart of your reporting and the
Speaker 1: heart of your acclaim. I'm looking at the president of
Speaker 1: the United States. In your acclaim book of years ago,
Speaker 1: you said, this guy is not as rich is we
Speaker 1: think we are. With everything that's going on. Do you
Speaker 1: have a sense or do you have reporting that there
Speaker 1: were agreements made with outside parties because he wasn't that
Speaker 1: well off. Were there periods in oh eight, oh seven,
Speaker 1: oh nine, or he had to sign some kind of deal.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think if you look at his his
Speaker 1: business career, Tom he hits the skids in the late
Speaker 1: eighties and early nineties, He loses the real estate, he
Speaker 1: ends up giving up a big chunk at the casinos,
Speaker 1: and from the early nineties really until The Apprentice launches
Speaker 1: in two thousand and four, Um, the large banks have
Speaker 1: shunned him. He's lost most of his key holdings, and
Speaker 1: he's really willing to do deals almost any Boddy who
Speaker 1: walks into Trump Tower. I mean, so much of this,
Speaker 1: And there was a great essay today about just the facts.
Speaker 1: Just what everybody just get back to, you know, reporting
Speaker 1: and not getting ahead of the facts, like Woodward and
Speaker 1: Bernstein ran into some trouble even with Watergate. To you
Speaker 1: animals who are doing adult journalism, what's the focus in
Speaker 1: the cacophony of Washington right now, What are the pros
Speaker 1: focusing on who are grinding the story out every day?
Speaker 1: I think it's always got to be on the money trail, Tom.
Speaker 1: I think it's this is an old adage, follow the
Speaker 1: money in journalism, but it's it is the source of
Speaker 1: power and influence ultimately in all things. And um I
Speaker 1: think that that's a very fruitful path to people to
Speaker 1: stay on with Trump. We've obviously looked at it here
Speaker 1: a bloomberg in terms of both his and his son
Speaker 1: in law and his children's relationships with UM Russian business partners,
Speaker 1: and and funds that have come through unexpected locales like Iceland.
Speaker 1: When we look at the fact that this is Don
Speaker 1: Trump Jr. Who has reportedly had these conversations, can we
Speaker 1: presume that the president directed any of this or is
Speaker 1: it something where Donald Trump Jr. Acted out on his
Speaker 1: own accord that he did it on his own and
Speaker 1: there was a Chinese wall between him and his father.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should presume anything, Scarlett, I think
Speaker 1: we should wait for the facts. Having said that, there's
Speaker 1: never really been a Chinese wall between Donald Trump Junior
Speaker 1: and his father in their whole existence um in fact
Speaker 1: in uh in the In the last one of the
Speaker 1: last articles I wrote about the Trump family's relations with
Speaker 1: Russian business partners, one of Trump's old business partners gave
Speaker 1: me this very great quote, a guy named Jody Chris,
Speaker 1: about how Donald Jr. And his father operated, and he
Speaker 1: said Donald was always in charge. Donald had to agree
Speaker 1: to every term of every deal and had to sign
Speaker 1: off on everything. Nothing happened unless he said it was
Speaker 1: okay to do it. Even if Donald Jr. Shook your
Speaker 1: hand on a deal, he came back downs renegotiate if
Speaker 1: his father told him to. And that would be the
Speaker 1: case now as well. Oh, I'm certain of it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I think they've had very flimsy um trust set
Speaker 1: up to insulate the family business from White House decision making.
Speaker 1: I don't. I I think they've shown actually disdain for
Speaker 1: having strong barriers between their business life and their pology.
Speaker 1: Your new essay in Bloomberg Few I think encapsulates great
Speaker 1: defining presidential downward. And we have many people listening who
Speaker 1: are supporters of the president, many people who have levels
Speaker 1: of outrage. How do you perceive Tim O'Brien, the counsel
Speaker 1: that he's receiving within the White House, and let me
Speaker 1: reverse that, how alone is his president? Um, he's someone
Speaker 1: who's never really taken counsel from anyone. He has his
Speaker 1: own first and last counsel. There's a there's a little
Speaker 1: separate tier there that I think involves Ivanka, his daughter,
Speaker 1: and Jared Kushner has done in law. He will listen
Speaker 1: to them at the end of the day, and then
Speaker 1: it just drops off a steep cliff there in terms
Speaker 1: of him listening to other people. Uh So, in that sense,
Speaker 1: he's always been a loner. But that's how he prefers
Speaker 1: to operate. Would we have heard of all the stuff
Speaker 1: of the last two or three days unless somebody was
Speaker 1: getting in front of the news slow like Mr Mueller's
Speaker 1: coming out with something or this, that or other thing.
Speaker 1: Are they essentially front running what was going to become
Speaker 1: news as well? I don't know. I think the Times,
Speaker 1: I think the Time stories are from just good, solid,
Speaker 1: gum shoe reporting, and I think they intersued a storyline
Speaker 1: knowing Trump as you do from writing his biography, um,
Speaker 1: which he didn't appreciate because he sued you. Um and
Speaker 1: the case was later dismissed. Right right, Um, what he
Speaker 1: participated extensively with the book, and I think it's a
Speaker 1: I think the book is a fairly row toned, three
Speaker 1: sixty degree look at his life and career. I like
Speaker 1: that rotuned Look what did you was looking at me
Speaker 1: when he said it? What do you think is happening
Speaker 1: when it comes to his discussions with his lawyers? I
Speaker 1: mean that the president now has so many different legal
Speaker 1: consultants or or folks um consulting him on legal issues.
Speaker 1: What what? What are the conversations he's having because Mark Casswitz,
Speaker 1: his personal attorney, does not exactly have a background in
Speaker 1: doing what he's being asked to do well. In fact,
Speaker 1: Mark cass Wits was the attorney he used when he
Speaker 1: sued me and when they litigated with with my legal
Speaker 1: team and myself um. Mark Casswitts had no background in
Speaker 1: libel litigation. He was somebody who filled Trump's comfort zone.
Speaker 1: And the issue now in Washington is Casswitz has no
Speaker 1: background in handling congressional investigations, but Trump is comfortable with
Speaker 1: the way he rolls, and is Trump also directing him
Speaker 1: as a result, if you're talking about a lawyer who
Speaker 1: doesn't have familiarity with congressional testimony, with congressional investigations, with
Speaker 1: libel laws for instance. This is all being directed by
Speaker 1: the president. Well, I think he's going to have to
Speaker 1: try to take some advice around some of this stuff
Speaker 1: because it's unfamiliar territory. But again, Trump often does what
Speaker 1: he wants to do. Let me talk like a Republican
Speaker 1: woman one of our listeners who maybe they voted for Trump,
Speaker 1: but they're not a big Trump fan. All the Democrats
Speaker 1: are an outraged liberal media is an outraged The Post,
Speaker 1: the Times, and all the rest of it. Do you
Speaker 1: see Republicans wavering that maybe supported the president, but just
Speaker 1: the day after day drip of all this stuff is
Speaker 1: beginning to have an effect or are they still dying?
Speaker 1: You know, we're going to support the president. Look, I
Speaker 1: think the people who supported the president um are looking.
Speaker 1: One part of his support group wants jobs. I think
Speaker 1: that's the post industrial blue collar worker that's voted for him.
Speaker 1: I think affluent Republicans who voted for him wanted tax cuts,
Speaker 1: and they wanted to see smart deregulation. He's not delivering
Speaker 1: on policy so to the extent that they like his
Speaker 1: mojo and the way that he runs in Washington. Great,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, the president, like
Speaker 1: all presidents, are gonna have to deliver the goods. Uh.
Speaker 1: Tim O'Brien, thank you so much. Let me do a
Speaker 1: shout out, folks for bloom Review. You can make it
Speaker 1: a regular morning and a Twitter feed kind of thing.
Speaker 1: What do you get? Let me explain what O'Brien and
Speaker 1: David Shipley have done just on the cover of Bloomberg
Speaker 1: View today. First of all, you don't get Tim O'Brien,
Speaker 1: they buried him before. Below the fold. You get Muhammad
Speaker 1: Larrian Nariana cauche Lakota, who we just mentioned that Rochester
Speaker 1: were professor Plaster used to be. You get a view
Speaker 1: of Grand Rapids, Michigan and the great economist Tyler Cowen,
Speaker 1: the great George Mason. Uh joy on what China may
Speaker 1: never moved to? A more modern China. Bloomberview, smart and eclectic.
Speaker 1: Look for that from Shipley and O'Brien. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and
Speaker 1: listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, on Cloud or whichever
Speaker 1: podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keene
Speaker 1: David Gura is at David Gura. Before the podcast, you
Speaker 1: can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio. Runt You
Speaker 1: by Bank of America Mary Lynch. With virtual reality, virtually
Speaker 1: everything will change. Discover opportunities in a transforming world. Be
Speaker 1: of a mL dot Com, slash VR, Mary Lynch, Pierced
Speaker 1: Fenner and Smith Incorporated,