Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2: This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along
Speaker 2: with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day
Speaker 2: for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics
Speaker 2: from our global headquarters in New York City. We are
Speaker 2: live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine
Speaker 2: am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or
Speaker 2: anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Speaker 2: Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. The payrolls report comes
Speaker 2: in at three hundred and three thousand. It's a big
Speaker 2: upside surprise again, two fourteen was the estimate. If you
Speaker 2: work your way through the report, the unemployment rate comes
Speaker 2: down to three point eight percent, down from three point nine.
Speaker 2: Average AULIY earnings month over month zero point three, in
Speaker 2: line with the estimate of zero point three. The equity
Speaker 2: price action looks like this. We're positive a third of
Speaker 2: one percent on the SMP. We'ret by zero point four
Speaker 2: percent on the NASA. The bomb market price sanction, if
Speaker 2: you switch on the board, looks a little something like this.
Speaker 2: Yields up by seven basis points on a ten year
Speaker 2: getting close to the four forty again after breaking through
Speaker 2: that level earlier. On this week, the two year yield
Speaker 2: high by four or five basis points, getting very close
Speaker 2: to four seventy. And I'll give you a snapshot of
Speaker 2: foreign exchange off the back of this. I'll make it simple.
Speaker 2: Dollars stronger against absolutely everything in G ten. You're a
Speaker 2: dollar at the moment, one away fifteen to break down
Speaker 2: and react to some of this, some place to say
Speaker 2: that joining us from black Rock is Jeff Rosenberg, and
Speaker 2: joining us alongside him is Muhammad ol Area Mohamma. You've
Speaker 2: had a bit of time to chew over this one.
Speaker 2: What's your big takeaway?
Speaker 3: John?
Speaker 4: It is a job report that confirm US economic exceptionalism.
Speaker 4: You're having a strong supply side, strong demand side. So
Speaker 4: if you look at the economy, the economy continues to
Speaker 4: benefit from.
Speaker 3: The favorable supply shock.
Speaker 4: If you look at the FED, that's not going to
Speaker 4: change much what the Fed is thinking. And believe me
Speaker 4: that the administration will be celebrating this report. So overall,
Speaker 4: a very strong report that just confirms that the US
Speaker 4: is an economic exception among the advanced economies.
Speaker 2: Jeff Rosenberg, do you believe this labor market report is
Speaker 2: a report this Federal Reserve can fully embrace.
Speaker 5: Well, it can fully embrace it, but you know, it
Speaker 5: is a little bit challenging around the timing issue.
Speaker 6: I think the key thing in this report we.
Speaker 5: Haven't talked about is labor force participation and its impact
Speaker 5: offsetting some of the wage concerns. And I think that's
Speaker 5: kind of the good news. Lisa, you asked why a
Speaker 5: little bit of a more modest reaction out of the
Speaker 5: bond market for such a headline beat, And I think
Speaker 5: that's it is that you're seeing kind of the well,
Speaker 5: it's a strong labor market, but the wage picture isn't,
Speaker 5: at least in terms of what you see in the
Speaker 5: print today, ticking up beyond expectation, so that relieves a
Speaker 5: bit of fears. And then you look at that labor
Speaker 5: force participation rate chicking up. That's good news for the
Speaker 5: wage front.
Speaker 1: Given all of that, though, Mohammad why cutt, I'm going
Speaker 1: to go back to what Neil Kushkari was saying. Given
Speaker 1: the fact that the US labor market seems to be
Speaker 1: doing just great, what is the onus on the federal
Speaker 1: reserve to ease policy that does seem like it's hampering
Speaker 1: this economy.
Speaker 4: It's because policy acts with a lag. These favorable supply
Speaker 4: sharks are not going to last forever, and there are
Speaker 4: signs of weakness elsewhere. So you've got to navigate this.
Speaker 4: You know, you've heard me say this over and over again.
Speaker 4: The mistake the FED will make, if it makes a mistake,
Speaker 4: is being overly data dependent, becoming a play by play commentator,
Speaker 4: and not looking through various things.
Speaker 3: So you've got to look forward.
Speaker 4: Yes, we're having a wonderful supply shock has a lot
Speaker 4: to do with immigration, and that's why, as Jeff Wrighty says,
Speaker 4: the wage numbers are restrained. They're still not low enough,
Speaker 4: but they're restrained. But if you go forward six twelve months,
Speaker 4: you've got to be conscious that a lot of what
Speaker 4: has powered the US so far, including excess savings, is
Speaker 4: going away.
Speaker 1: Jeff, what's your take on that. The argument that Neil
Speaker 1: Kashkari made yesterday, if the Minneapolis said, why cut rates
Speaker 1: if you have robust economic data and a label more
Speaker 1: mar that seems to be chugging along, especially if you
Speaker 1: do have commodities inflation that people can afford to keep
Speaker 1: paying because they are still employed.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I think it's about really the debate between what I
Speaker 5: call and the market calls maintenance cuts to maintain the
Speaker 5: degree of restrictedness. What Muhammad was talking about that you
Speaker 5: don't want the lag in policy to eventually become too
Speaker 5: restrictive by holding real interest rates at these high at
Speaker 5: least relative to historical levels, and the threat that that
Speaker 5: made down the road lead to more tightening than what
Speaker 5: you would otherwise want. But that's different than saying we
Speaker 5: need to calibrate the cuts to a slowdown. And I
Speaker 5: think what Neil Kashgari is talking about is really pricing
Speaker 5: out really what already happened in the bond market. We
Speaker 5: came into the year pricing in seven cuts, we're now three,
Speaker 5: maybe pushing down somewhere between two and three.
Speaker 6: I still think that's.
Speaker 5: Right in the sense of you want to have that insurance,
Speaker 5: and this is a FED that is very much wedded
Speaker 5: to trying to secure the gains of the soft landing.
Speaker 2: Jeff, how dependable do you think this economic data is.
Speaker 2: That's a subject we've revisited a few times over the
Speaker 2: last few months. How dependable do you think it is?
Speaker 6: Well, you know, it's really interesting.
Speaker 5: The back dropped what's going on in the movement to
Speaker 5: reprice away from seven cuts to three cuts is that
Speaker 5: you had this debate between two big sources of data,
Speaker 5: both for growth and for the labor market. On the
Speaker 5: growth side, it was the debate between GDP and GDI.
Speaker 5: GDI had been lagging the strength that was shown up
Speaker 5: in GDP that gave a lot of people in the
Speaker 5: market a lot of evidence that, hey, this economy is
Speaker 5: a lot weaker than we thought.
Speaker 6: What did we learn.
Speaker 5: Most recently, GDI rose to GDP and validated the stronger story. Similarly,
Speaker 5: on the labor market, you had the gap between the
Speaker 5: household and the establishment survey and a lot of people saying, oh,
Speaker 5: the establishment survey, the headlines is overstated, look at the
Speaker 5: household weakness.
Speaker 6: Well, now what we're.
Speaker 5: Seeing, and that's the latest theme is no, it's the
Speaker 5: immigration that's not being captured.
Speaker 6: The labor market is much stronger.
Speaker 5: So in both cases, with respect to alternative data, you
Speaker 5: had a debate. That debate is pushing more on the
Speaker 5: settle of the side of no, this is actually a
Speaker 5: stronger economy than we thought, and that's what's validating this
Speaker 5: kind of move to push back from seven cuts to
Speaker 5: three or less cuts.
Speaker 2: It's the supply side story. I think we all struggle
Speaker 2: with Mohammed when you restart to think about it. What
Speaker 2: the Federal Reserve is telling you is that basically, don't
Speaker 2: worry about strong data like payrolls growth of three hundred
Speaker 2: and three thousand, because it's not coming along with stronger
Speaker 2: weight growth off the back of that. Because we're embracing
Speaker 2: this big supply side phenomenon. At the same time, ihmbit,
Speaker 2: they're also pointing to the labor market as evidence they
Speaker 2: are sufficiently restrictive, and I struggle to reconcile the two things.
Speaker 2: Can you reconcile the two things? How can you use
Speaker 2: something as evidence of being sufficiently restrictive but also acknowledge
Speaker 2: the majority of it is supply driven.
Speaker 4: Because they're trying to have maximum optionality John, and that's
Speaker 4: what they want. It's the same thing that led Chair
Speaker 4: Pale at Stanford to say, on the one hand, the
Speaker 4: inflation story has not changed after the harder than expected
Speaker 4: prints in January February, But on the other hand, we
Speaker 4: need better, we need more evidence that actually the inflation
Speaker 4: story is what the inflation story, what we think the
Speaker 4: inflation story is. Look, I would be doing the same thing.
Speaker 4: They are trying to maintain optionality, and they are having
Speaker 4: competing claims. Also, don't forget that the positive domestic supply
Speaker 4: side story is countered by a very negative international supply
Speaker 4: side story, so they've also got a balance these to
Speaker 4: things out.
Speaker 1: Mohammed, I obstruck by what you said a while back,
Speaker 1: where you were saying that this is going to be
Speaker 1: a federal reserve that ultimately will probably accept a two
Speaker 1: points something inflation rate. If you take a look at
Speaker 1: the preliminary bond market action after this report, and understanding
Speaker 1: that the first reaction is always the right one, this
Speaker 1: bigger cell office in the long end, this is basically
Speaker 1: a kind of confirmation that this market believes that the
Speaker 1: Fed will make good on its promises, actually that it
Speaker 1: will cut rates at some point this year, will allowing
Speaker 1: inflation and growth to continue to run at a somewhat
Speaker 1: hard speed. At what point does that become concerning to you, Muhammad?
Speaker 4: It only becomes concerning Lisa if it the anchors inflation expectations.
Speaker 4: I think there is a slow but show migration in markets,
Speaker 4: even among policy observers and certainly among quite a few
Speaker 4: economists to the view that yes, we're not going to
Speaker 4: get to two percent, We're going to get to above two,
Speaker 4: closer to three, and that's going to be stable. And
Speaker 4: the policy mistake would be to go after two percent
Speaker 4: inflation too quickly. You heard Bill Dudley yesterday and I
Speaker 4: agree with him saying, you know, think more about a
Speaker 4: two and a half percent inflation weight on average. You've
Speaker 4: heard about how asymmetrical defeat is to when it misses
Speaker 4: on one side or the other side on inflation. Look,
Speaker 4: we're going to settle into an inflation world that's higher
Speaker 4: than two percent, and I suspect that that is stable.
Speaker 4: The risk is to try to force it down when
Speaker 4: the economy can sustain a slightly higher one, because you're
Speaker 4: then undermine economic well.
Speaker 1: Being, Which raises this question, Jeff, about at what point
Speaker 1: the bond market will adequately price in a higher inflation future.
Speaker 1: John was talking about the BEMO survey and how there
Speaker 1: essentially is an inherent bias among bond investors to buy duration,
Speaker 1: to buy longer term bonds on selloffs, just simply because
Speaker 1: they believe the FED will achieve their goal and will
Speaker 1: continue to set rates at a lower rate. How much
Speaker 1: can you get behind that and how much do you
Speaker 1: push back and say, no, there is something else afoot
Speaker 1: in the long end of the treasury curve that makes
Speaker 1: you not like them.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I really think that with rates at this level,
Speaker 5: that we're going to shift away from that view that
Speaker 5: the long end is the best place for the hedge.
Speaker 5: You know, it used to be a long time ago
Speaker 5: that flight to quality meant that the curve would steepen,
Speaker 5: that the best performance in terms of yield change would
Speaker 5: be in the short end.
Speaker 6: And I think that's the environment that we're in.
Speaker 5: If you go back a year ago during SVB, it
Speaker 5: was exactly what you saw happen in the curve. The
Speaker 5: best performance in terms of yield change for your hedges,
Speaker 5: you know, granted that you need to have the right
Speaker 5: notional amount to make this a fair comparison, happened in
Speaker 5: the front end. The strongest negative stockbond correlation by bond
Speaker 5: maturity was in the two year, the weakest was in
Speaker 5: the thirty year. And I think that's the environment that
Speaker 5: we're in, and as we start to see more evidence.
Speaker 6: Of that, that's going to help.
Speaker 5: If you will to bring back in some term premium
Speaker 5: because part of the flattening of the term premium was
Speaker 5: the pinning of zero interest rates in the front end,
Speaker 5: which meant that a flight to quality had to be
Speaker 5: in the back end because you didn't have the room
Speaker 5: to run in the front end. With a level of
Speaker 5: front end inversion that we have today, you go back
Speaker 5: to that earlier kind of textbook that flight to quality
Speaker 5: is in the front end and a steepener, and that
Speaker 5: I think is going to help to bring back a
Speaker 5: higher level of term premium, more consistent with the inflation
Speaker 5: narrative we just heard from Muhammad.
Speaker 2: Interest In Jeff, before you go, I want to talk
Speaker 2: about Stokes with you sell. Just to put a bow
Speaker 2: on it, is this a stock market front of the
Speaker 2: Job's report this morning?
Speaker 3: You know?
Speaker 6: I think it's it's okay.
Speaker 5: I think when you look at the stock market, what
Speaker 5: we've seen this year is a lot less.
Speaker 6: Dependence on the denominator. Right.
Speaker 5: It's last year was all about inflation, inflation expectations, the
Speaker 5: five year, five year driving headline equities. You've seen a
Speaker 5: lot less of that. So I think it's less of
Speaker 5: an issue because so much more of what we've seen
Speaker 5: in stock market domination is really coming out of the numerators,
Speaker 5: coming out of the earnings. The power of secular growers
Speaker 5: really overwhelming the much smaller concerns in terms of the
Speaker 5: degree of change that we're seeing in terms of the denominator.
Speaker 2: Jeff, this was great. I know you've got to run
Speaker 2: because you're at work today. We're not all in Lake Como.
Speaker 2: Jeff Rosenberg of Blackrock has got to run. Mohamma's going
Speaker 2: to stick with us in place to say if you
Speaker 2: aren't just joining, I guess We've got the brilliant Mohamad
Speaker 2: eleven of Queen's College, Cambridge alongside it is to break
Speaker 2: down this job's report, Mohamed, let's get into a piece
Speaker 2: you wrote earlier this week on American exceptionalism for Bloomberg Opinion.
Speaker 2: You've mentioned that a few times, Well, it didn't mention
Speaker 2: was something you pointed to in the pace and really
Speaker 2: really highlighted, and it was a difference between what's happening
Speaker 2: in Germany versus what's happening in the US bond market.
Speaker 2: How important is that spread between the two of the moment.
Speaker 4: It's important, and it's the reason why you seeing the
Speaker 4: dollar strength, then look, John, it's gone up to about
Speaker 4: two hundred basis points. If you look at the last
Speaker 4: three years, the low was ninety seven basis points.
Speaker 3: And it reflects two things.
Speaker 4: One is that US economic growth has and will continue
Speaker 4: to outpace Germany's and the rest of Europe. And the
Speaker 4: second thing is that inflation will come down in Europe
Speaker 4: faster than will in the US. And you may well
Speaker 4: end up with more ECB cuts than the FED, even
Speaker 4: though the ECB didn't hike as much as the FED.
Speaker 4: And I think these the markets are starting to incorporate
Speaker 4: these two things, and that single differential captures really well
Speaker 4: these different factors.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm struck by the idea that the US immigration
Speaker 1: story is so different from other areas around the world
Speaker 1: that are facing real demographic problems, like the euroregion. From
Speaker 1: that point of view, when does the euro become a
Speaker 1: problem in terms of a weakness and an important inflation
Speaker 1: issue or is that almost a welcome development so that
Speaker 1: the European region can compete against American exceptionalism.
Speaker 4: It would be at the margin welcome. That I think
Speaker 4: more concerning is what's been happening to oil prices, and
Speaker 4: that's something we don't talk enough about. But when you
Speaker 4: see Brent in the nineties that is going to have
Speaker 4: a stackflationary impact on Europe. You know it's good to
Speaker 4: come and visit and participate in these European conferences. And
Speaker 4: the one here at Umbrosoti is excellent because you hear
Speaker 4: a completely different narrative about the economy, about what's happening
Speaker 4: to the supply side, and you realize how exceptional the
Speaker 4: US is right now, and this divergence is not just
Speaker 4: going to stay, It's going to increase over time. And
Speaker 4: that's something important when people want to rush to fade
Speaker 4: the US in terms of equity allocations elsewhere, just look
Speaker 4: at the underlying stories.
Speaker 3: They are very, very different.
Speaker 1: Lisa, Well, just to put together some of the things
Speaker 1: that you said, Given the fact that we are seeing
Speaker 1: oil prices rally, are you saying that that could be
Speaker 1: a staideflationary shock for the European region and that frankly
Speaker 1: could only widen the divide between Europe and the US.
Speaker 1: It also stands to benefit on the other side from
Speaker 1: higher oil prices.
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean I wouldn't say shock as much as
Speaker 4: I would say is techfilationary headwind? And it makes a
Speaker 4: transition that Europe needs to make, which is the US
Speaker 4: is making from an old, exhausted growth model that depended
Speaker 4: on exports to China, that depended on all sorts of
Speaker 4: things that are no longer happening, to a new growth
Speaker 4: model that stresses things like genitive AI, life sciences, sustainable energy.
Speaker 4: It makes that transition for Europe even harder. So yes,
Speaker 4: it is an important factor to keep in mind because
Speaker 4: Europe doesn't need additional headwinds right now.
Speaker 2: Mohammed, we'd love a final thought on what we got
Speaker 2: this morning and what it makes the FED policy. This
Speaker 2: from Torson Slock of Apollow. He said, the source of
Speaker 2: this strength is easy financial conditions. We are sticking to
Speaker 2: our view that the FED will not cut interest rates
Speaker 2: this year. Mohammed, what's your reaction to that? And do
Speaker 2: you agree?
Speaker 4: So I understand where he's coming from. Me even had
Speaker 4: a non voting member of the FOMC as today role
Speaker 4: market by a statement. I think that if this FED
Speaker 4: is continuously overly data dependent, then maybe we don't get cuts.
Speaker 4: But I'm hoping that they will see through the backward
Speaker 4: looking data and look forward, and I think we will
Speaker 4: end up with two cuts this year. It may not
Speaker 4: start as early as a lot of people thought initially,
Speaker 4: but I do think we will get two cuts.
Speaker 2: Muhammad, this was great. Thanks for making time for us today.
Speaker 2: We appreciate it, as you often do. On pay Ross Friday, Mouhammad,
Speaker 2: Aaron of Queen's College, Camper's working through another upside surprise
Speaker 2: Lisa on the job's report Stolenberg, NATO Secretary General joins us. Now,
Speaker 2: mister Secretary General, want for to catch up with you
Speaker 2: against I just wanted to stand with some comments from
Speaker 2: the French President Emanuel Macron, a series of comments over
Speaker 2: the last month. I'd love your response to He hasn't
Speaker 2: ruled out eventual boots on the ground in Ukraine. He
Speaker 2: recently suggested sending personnel there, including the possibility of training
Speaker 2: troops in the country. I just wondered have you spoken
Speaker 2: to him directly about some of these proposals.
Speaker 7: I'm a regular contact with the French President and all.
Speaker 8: The leaders in the NATO alliance, and what is clear
Speaker 8: is that NATO has all plans of deploying combat troops
Speaker 8: into Ukraine, but we will step up our military support
Speaker 8: to Ukraine with ammunition, equipment, weapons, so Ukraine can liberate
Speaker 8: more territory and Kraveilia and as a sovereign independent nation
Speaker 8: in Europe, because that match for Ukraine, but it also
Speaker 8: matters for all NATO allies.
Speaker 2: So could I be more specific sending person out there
Speaker 2: to train troops? How risky is the training option in
Speaker 2: your view?
Speaker 7: Well, again, as we are providing.
Speaker 8: Training, NATO alas are providing taining for tens of thousands
Speaker 8: of Ukrainian troops, have done that for many years, but
Speaker 8: that space now outside Ukraine. So our support is to
Speaker 8: provide training, it's to provide amnition weapons, but not to
Speaker 8: have combat operations inside Ukraine.
Speaker 9: I want to also ask you about the fact of
Speaker 9: the former president coming back that's looming large on some
Speaker 9: of these partners within NATO, especially when it comes to
Speaker 9: the Ukrainian Defense Contact Group, which is run by the
Speaker 9: United States. Is there a chance you bring that in
Speaker 9: house so that NATO controls that and pretty much safeguards
Speaker 9: it no matter who runs the US.
Speaker 8: Well, we are we agree that the NATO Forum and
Speaker 8: is still admitting this week to start planning for a
Speaker 8: stronger native role in providing and coordinating support to Ukraine.
Speaker 8: The US said contact for Ukraine has played and contains
Speaker 8: to pay a very important role. But I think that
Speaker 8: NATO can ensure that we have even more robust and
Speaker 8: more predictable framework for our support to Ukraine. That's needed
Speaker 8: because Ukrainians need to know that we are there for
Speaker 8: the long haul. So that's what we're starting to do
Speaker 8: at NATO, and I expect the decision before the NATO
Speaker 8: seventeen Washington in July.
Speaker 9: Other other areas you're trying to shore up NATO control
Speaker 9: because you are concerned about political instability.
Speaker 8: Well, my proposals on a stronger NATO role is based
Speaker 8: on the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine, the urgent
Speaker 8: need they have to have more reliable, more predictable support,
Speaker 8: the need we have within NATO to ensure more fair
Speaker 8: burden sharing among allies. Nineteen nine percent of the military
Speaker 8: support comes from NATO, and we how to be sure
Speaker 8: that bern is shared equally among allies. And then of
Speaker 8: course we also need to send a message to Moscow
Speaker 8: that we are there for long hauld because now Preston
Speaker 8: Puttin believes that he can wait us out, he has
Speaker 8: to understand that he will not win on the battlefield.
Speaker 8: He cannot wait out Ukraine and NATO allies and therefore
Speaker 8: stronger institutionalized NATO framework will send that message and then
Speaker 8: force him to sit down and negotiate an agreement where
Speaker 8: Ukraine pervades as a severn independent nation in Europe.
Speaker 1: Secretary General, we talk almost every morning about the potential
Speaker 1: for Ukraine funding in the US to be passed, and
Speaker 1: how it's gotten hung up by politics again and again
Speaker 1: and again.
Speaker 6: How difficult does.
Speaker 1: It make it for you to wrangle support to get
Speaker 1: to one hundred billion dollar fund that you plan for
Speaker 1: the next five years for Ukraine.
Speaker 8: Of course, it matters that the United States has delayed
Speaker 8: its decision to provide support to Ukraine. That's one of
Speaker 8: the reasons why the Ukrainians now how to ration the
Speaker 8: number of sho their forces can use, and why Ukraine
Speaker 8: is outgunned by the Russian forces. At the same time,
Speaker 8: we have to remember that European Aals and Canada are
Speaker 8: providing roughly fifty percent half of the military support to Ukraine.
Speaker 8: So it's not only the United States, it's also ordnate
Speaker 8: to allies, but of course the United States being by
Speaker 8: far the individual ally which is providing the most.
Speaker 7: It matters and.
Speaker 8: Therefore, I really hope that the US Congress can make
Speaker 8: a decision as soon as possible. This is important for Ukraine,
Speaker 8: but it's also in the security interest of the United
Speaker 8: States to prevent President Putin from winning, and that will
Speaker 8: send a message to him, but also to President g
Speaker 8: in China that when they use military force, when they
Speaker 8: invade another country, when they'reviolet international law, they achieve their aims.
Speaker 8: That will reduce the threshold and the future use of force.
Speaker 8: What happens in Ukraine today can happening how long tomorrow.
Speaker 8: So therefore it is in the national security interest of
Speaker 8: the United States to provide the military support to Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Secretary General Henry was talking about former President Trump coming
Speaker 1: back to power and how that's looming large, and I
Speaker 1: wonder how much those criticisms are also looming large that
Speaker 1: are not just isolated to Donald Trump, but others as well,
Speaker 1: saying that frankly, a lot of NATO members have not
Speaker 1: contributed enough to the spending and to the financing of some.
Speaker 6: Of these efforts.
Speaker 1: How much reluctance are you hearing from some of the
Speaker 1: NEEDO members that haven't traditionally contributed as much to really
Speaker 1: helping fund or disproportionately fund that one hundred billion dollars.
Speaker 8: So I strongly believe that it has been a valid
Speaker 8: point from the United States that European allies have not
Speaker 8: invested enough in NATO in the events, but that has
Speaker 8: really changed. We made a pledge in twenty fourteen Whenson
Speaker 8: Obama was person to the United States to ensure that
Speaker 8: all allies spent two percent of GDP on defense. At
Speaker 8: that time, in twenty fourteen, only three allies spent.
Speaker 7: Two percent of GDP on defense.
Speaker 8: This year we expect around twenty allies two thirds of
Speaker 8: the allies to spend two percent. That's a huge difference.
Speaker 8: It's a significant improvement. And when it comes to the
Speaker 8: extremony for Ukraine, one of the reasons why I want
Speaker 8: a stronger NATO framework, institutionalized framework around the support is
Speaker 8: that that's a way to ensure fair burden sharing, to
Speaker 8: actually agree some kind of cost shares or to agree
Speaker 8: a way to finance.
Speaker 7: And by doing it.
Speaker 8: We can ensure fair burden sharing and that and that
Speaker 8: makes it easier to get all ours on board also
Speaker 8: the United States.
Speaker 2: Secondly, general, we appreciate the ongoing conversation. Thanks for joining
Speaker 2: US this morning's in Stalldenberg there of NATO. This is
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg's Events podcast, bringing you the best in market, economics,
Speaker 2: a geopolitics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg
Speaker 2: TV weekday mornings from six am to nine am Eastern.
Speaker 2: Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else
Speaker 2: you listen, and, as always, on the Bloomberg Terminal and
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Business app.