Cheney’s Bold Bet on Impeachment

You can also listen to our radio show at two pm Eastern Time on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. A lot of developments on the vaccine and COVID nineteen front Today Jane Jay's experimental one shot COVID nineteen vaccine generating a long lasting immune response in an early safety study. So we've got that

right now. We've got ninety two and a half million cases death surpassing one million, and as for the vaccine roll out, more than thirty two point four million shots have been given worldwide. Let's bring in our guest, Gig Grandfall. She is at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, supported by Michael or Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg

LP and Bloomberg Philanthropies. Her background is amazing as an Associate Professor Senior Scholar in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, and she's an immunologist by training. Among things she has authored and one is Preparing for Bioterrorism, the Alfred Peace Loans Foundations Leadership in Biosecurity. She's on the phone in Baltimore, so let's get to it. G g Um.

The one thing Tim and I really want to ask you about is a story we just talked about about a New York congressman who got UH the vaccine two shots and still diagnosed with COVID nine team, how do we need to kind of understand how that can happen? Yes, So, vaccines are not UM. They're not a like a kevlar vest for for viruses. UM. They are a training program for your immune system and and we look at UM how effective they might be. UM. So some of the

vaccines are like effective. That means that if you and I were both exposed and you were vaccinated and I was not, your risk of coming down with COVID is reduced. So it's not zero and UM and we don't know there are lots of variables involved. Um, you know, how long was it after the second shot before he came down with COVID, whether or not there was some failure along the way. Um, so all these things could uh

could interact with his his protection. But um, but yeah, it's it's not Uh, nothing is add percent in this world. But um, but definitely the vaccine has been shown to be protective for most people. Do you get concerned when you see stories like this news stories like this because it could give people the wrong impression about the efficacy

of a vaccine or about the need to get vaccinated. Sure, because you know, we were humans we love stories, right, and um, sometimes the stories don't tell the um what what it was actually true for most people statistically we don't think in terms of population. So that true, especially when it comes to any sort of adverse events from them from a vaccine. Um. You always worry about that

because bad things happen to people all the time. And if it's connected to a vaccine and a story, Um, the two things might not have anything to do with each other. But um, but it could be you know, linger in somebody's mind. And as fact, how they think of the vaccine, does the variants that are coming out in terms of COVID impact You know, even if you've

got a vaccine, could you get the virus? Get get are you more could you are you more likely to get the variant versus the original COVID nineteen I guess, is what I'm asking. Sure, So right now, UM, we think that the vaccines are protective against these new variants that we've been discovered. But unfortunately, I'm I'm worried because, UM, you know, viruses mutate all the time, all the time, and so one of the things that we need to

do is to limit their opportunities to mutate. And um, and that means driving down but that's through vaccination for masks and everything else. But UM, when we have these variants, UM, it looks like the vaccine will protect. But I just worry about you know, the next ones that we discuss go go with us. I think about all of those movies that are made about you know, the virus, the things that mutate and how they become you know, in a fictional world. UM, just difficult to kind of overcome.

What's the worst case scenario of mutation in this virus? The worst case scenario for this UH, for this virate, Well, um, there there are lots of different things that the virus doesn't do now that UM that it could do, and so we want to make sure it doesn't become more severe, more severe disease UM, have an expanded population that it causes more severe di is in UM. But what I think is the most serious concern right now is just making sure that it doesn't um evolve away from the vaccine.

So we don't want it to escape from the vaccine, and and the quicker we can get this under control, the more likely we won't have to worry as much about that it might be in the future that we need to update the vaccine UM saying it will be a longer time in the future than you know than these variants might suggest. Well, thanks for our producers. I know that one thing that you have looked closely at is the politicization not just of the entire pandemic, but

of the vaccine and the administration of the vaccine. What do lawmakers need to do in order to make it less politicized? So we can truly round the corner here, and we only have about forty seconds, Okay, Yeah. I mean you just really need to put um everything on the science and make decisions based on the science and admit that you know. Science changes, and so then that what you know about of the disease and what you

can your plans that will change as well. But UM, if you always stick to what you know, then you don't have to worry about about being wrong um and just acknowledge that you know. Things change. But we're doing the best you can with the knowledge and science that we have available. I wanted to go to what Charlie was talking about with Johnson and Johnson's one shot vaccine. It's it has not been a proof for emergency use authorization. We are still awaiting further information and data from a

clinical trial. But I'm wondering just about the one shot element here. How big of a deal is it that this could there could be a one shot vaccine coming out? Oh, it's such a big deal. So we only have gotten the phase UM one and two data for Johnson and Johnson, so we are still waiting to hear about the efficacy which will come in in the phase three data. So that's what we're still waiting for the data. So I don't want to get too excited. But um, it's a

one shot vaccine and it requires regular refrigeration. It's not one of these you know, needing to have an exotic minus a d degrees refrigerator, which is what you need for the visor and not so lesser degree than madiurnal vaccine. So UM, it's it's very exciting from a logistics point of view, because, UM, this is a hard enough task as it without having to add these additional logistical burdens.

It's like it sounds to me like, you know, this is pretty impressive, right, yeah, I mean, and as you said, it's early going. When do we expect to get that later? Uh? And key UM stage study. I've heard that we should expect it in the in the next couple of weeks, next two or three weeks, and that plans are to have late February early March at least. The last Ti've i've heard UM to have them submit the data for UM the process to hopefully get emergency to use authorization.

So it's it's some weeks away. There are some concerns I read about how manufacturing is not quite up the level that they want. UM. Hopefully they can correct whatever issues they are having but um but yeah, it's it's in Hopefully in the next couple of months, we will have another vaccine online. The vaccines that have been approved for emergency use authorization here in the US from MODERNA and from from fisor BioNTech. They use messenger RNA technology.

How is the technology or or the the way the vaccine is manufactured. How's that different in the Johnson Johnson one. Yeah, so that is using an ad no virus vector which can't UM as in the previous segment hurt. It can't replicate in humans, so it's not um you don't have to worry. You cannot get um covid from this vaccine. UM. But it is a different factor, a little more traditional UM vector to be used for for for um different types of vaccine. So um, it's it's just another product

like the others. Um uh. It will have a few side effects, so people just need to be aware that they might have a headache, they might have a store arms, things like that, but that you know, they can before fore armed, you know, so they that they can um be prepared for that. I understand. It was also the same science that was used in Jane Jay z Bolo vaccine,

Zekea and a few other things. Okay, I gotta ask you, this is something that I don't quite understand, you know, the kind of problems we've had with the vaccine rollout. What happened? Where was the breakdown? Because I feel like we had a ton of conversations over the summer that we knew it was coming, We knew the vaccine several we talked about distribution logistics. What happened do you think in terms of getting it out to people. I think we'll learn more as the weeks go on had happened there?

Because I think there were always going to be some hiccups. But one thing is for sure, the stimulus still UM included money for distribution, and that was not present before. So the other problem is that UM that states are doing a lot more than UM than probably they should be doing. There is UH just at least been the case for all aspects of UM the COVID response, where UM every state is UH doing their own plan instead of having UM much more aggressive federal UM you know, leadership.

And so I think that that situation will change in the in the coming weeks and UM and so hopefully people will get used to the logistics and laws really quickly, if you can in fifteen seconds, do you anticipate by summer will have the majority of our population vaccinated or maybe even sooner? I hope so. And that should be our goal because um, we need to get to prepare for these very and this vaccination is a huge way to get everybody going in the economy going again. Great stuff, listen,

Thank you so much, Really appreciate your expertise. Gig Gronvill, Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and Associate Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, of course, supported by Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg LP. This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovic from Bloomberg Radio.

So Big Business, Tim, Yeah, we've been see it backing away from President Trump after the Capitol Hill riot, and while that could be an opportunity for Democrats, it's likely not to play out that way. So reporting for Bloomberg business Week, business Week editor Peter Coy on the phone in New Jersey along with Bloomberg Business Week Editor Joe Weber,

he's on the access line in Brooklyn. Uh. You know, it has been interesting to see big business, you know, in terms of how quickly and probably understandably, Joel that they've been backing away from this president. Do we have Joel? I think we're having a little trouble getting Peter. I wanted, Peter, do we have you? Yeah? I can answer that question.

They have definitely backed away. I mean, what I said in my article is that the bridge between Trump and the big business was never as solid as it might have appeared, but now it's inflaming ruins. It's just completely destroyed, probably irreparable. Of course, that's with Trump. That doesn't necessarily mean the bridge between the big business and Republican Party is irreparable. I think that is reparable, and that's what we're gonna be watching for over the next few years.

So the big question, though, Peter, is what the Republican Party looks like over the next few years, because there are segments of the Republican Party right now that aren't the traditional pro business uh no, low regulation and free market right correct, correct, correct, that's all right. The issue is now that a big Trump is put at imprint Republican Party He's pulled in new sets of voters and who are more populist and are suspicious of big business.

That elaps a big business the CEO just as much as their suspicious of academic and government and media elites. They don't give big business a pass, and so that makes it tough for organizations like the Business Roundtable, the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers. Joe Weber, I think we've got you, now, come on in on the conversation. Yeah, you don't need me, though, you can just stick with Peter that you know Peter the There

is this opportunity here UM for Democrats. And we think about big business and it's largely historically been UM been something that feels like it's drifted more towards GOP than than Democrats. And yet there's this kind of a jump ball moment. And what is the opportunity really for for Democrats here to take advantage of this moment? Now, they have always been segments of the business community that were

more favorable towards the Democrats. Tech was until fairly recently and now, but that serve marriages on the rocks a little bit. UM. But the the opportunity the jump all you call it, okay, Look already we've seen that the stock markets responded pretty well to the prospects of a Biden victory, and when the two Democrats won in the open seats in Georgia, which gave the Democrats the Senate control,

stock market went up on that news. So people are expecting two things from Biden that are favorable for big business. One is that he'll probably bring on more stimulus COVID relief bigger dollars, and two that he might be more effective than Trump has been at arresting the coronavirus arise epidemic. If he succeeds in both of those, that would be

great for corporate profits and therefore for stock prices. So what about how much of this is just big businesses backing away from Trump because of of last week and allonging for a GOP that it looks a lot more like it did pre Trump. That's I think that's most of it. It's it's not so much that they're in love with Biden. There's still a lot of suspicion of Biden, especially because the Democratic Party platform is quite liberal and

the most liberal has been in decades. Um they look at a lot of things that Biden wants to do and say, know, we don't want to go there, but Trump is you know, the obviously the breaking point was the invasion of the capital, which he seemed to incite. Um just shocked people. Organizations the National Associated Manufactors conventionally fairly true true read Republican group, uh almost right wing

in them in the past. And yet they were the first ones out with the statement calling this sedition and asking Biden asking, I'm sorry, Pence to uh try to get the cabinet to invoke the amend but that Trump re moved from office. You know what's interesting though, I think for so long and but a while ago, Peter, that we thought, you know, business was beholden only two Republicans.

But if you look at donations and you put it out your story that especially when Democrats call control Congress, you find groups like PE oil and gas, real estate companies tend to give a lot to the Democrats. Yeah. Yeah, it's very much opportunistic giving by these organizations. They want to give to people who I think they can help them with their agenda. Democrats rise up and gain a majority,

then suddenly they want to curry favor with them. So it's very clear from the chart the tears of the story. And so with the Democrats controlling the White House and both House of the Congress this time, I think that could be strong giving to Democrats for at least the next two years. Peter, what about um uh this idea of of you know, we're in this moment that obviously has been inflamed. We're going to see what inspires of

the next week. And I'm curious, like you know, from from your reporting, does it suggest that business will just stay on the sidelines for a while or will someone get back in and sort of like start to to angle sooner than that? You know they have they operate on multiple levels in the public. You don't hear a lot from them, like they don't really enjoy talking to people like me because you know, ask uncomfortable questions. But that doesn't mean they're not operating. They're very much in

their lobbying day to day. So they're not on the sidelines at all. They're pushing their agenda and that will continue. You um, if anything will be stepped up now that we have a new UH Congress and a new president. Well, I do wonder Peter, does business help kind of, you know, help with the reboot of the Republican Party and help in the maybe perhaps redefinition definition of them, Like how do you see it? Um? Yeah, they it's not so much that they want to go in a new direction.

They kind of want to go back to you. They kind of like that deregulation, low taxes. Um. But but it's that's the caricature that the big business is not um entirely against all kinds of regulation. In my article details several areas in which the big business, if anything, we melt against some of the deregulatory measures of the Trump administration. Well, definitely something to think about with everything else that's going on into kind of how we we

get our way back. Peter, Um, always great. Peter Koy. He is Bloomberg Business Week Economics editor on the phone in New Jersey. Check out his story in the magazine Bloomberg Business Week. Getitor Joe Webber joining us on the access line in Brooklyn. This is Bloomberg Business Week with Carol Masser and Bloomberg Quick Takes Tim Stinovic from Bloomberg Radio. So all this week politics and the happenings in and

around the nation's capital, no doubt about it. It has been our top story topped off with the second impeachment of President Trump, writing about it, and the one high ranking House Republican who has stuck her neck out when it comes to this, Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming. You caught up with him earlier today on Quick Take, Am

I talking about Josh I did? Yeah, Josh Greeney's national correspondent for Bloomberg Business Week, and he joins us now on the throne from Washington, d C. Josh, I cannot get enough of this column that you wrote last night about Liz Cheney's bold bet on impeachment. Did it backfire? Well?

I don't think we're gonna know for a little while, but but certainly her going out and making the searing statement against Trump saying, there, you know, he's portrayed the United States, it's violated as over the office and his oath to the Constitution. UM. I think she probably expected to hope for a bigger following among Republicans. In the end, only nine other Republicans voted for her to support Trump's impeachment.

But I think the real asset test is going to come in the months and years ahead, as you know, Trump fades from the scene. A bit. Part of the bet she was making is the future of the GOP is going to be something more along the lines of what it used to be. I mean Cheney before she came to Congress, Um was a very well known Neo Cohn who had uh serious conservative views like her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney. I think part of the bet here is that she can steer the party back

in that direction. But having said that, uh, you know, just just in the day or so since the vote, in the week or so since the riots, it's pretty clear from from UH polls that the majority of Republican voters are sticking with Trump. So something is going to have to change in order for her bet to be proved to be the right one, uh politically. But but I do think it's probably too soon to make that judgment.

So does she accurately represent the people of Wyoming and the people put her in office, Well, she certainly does not. In terms of the vote she took to impeach Trump. Trump won Wyoming last November. I think it was seventy six percent, and he's one of the red estates in the country. So so certainly a lot of supports for Trump there. Uh And then speaking to people internoun Wyoming politics for this column, they said, look, there's going to be unhappiness. It is gonna ruffle a lot of feathers.

But that being said, Cheney, you know that the Cheney name has a long and story history in Wyoming politics. Um, you know she isn't she isn't. Uh knew she has a serious base of support. I think there's a lot of good will toward her in Wyoming, just generally leaving

aside the issue of Trump and his impeachment. So most people I talked to thought she would have no real problem surviving and timing wise, this is probably good for her in the sense that she was just reelected to another two year House term in November, so it's gonna be quite a while before she has to face voters again. What's the potential upside of this becoming a leader within the party, I mean, if she does successfully sort of forged her own path away from President Trump with a

handful of other Republicans, what's the potential upside she faces. Well, you know, I think in the best possible world, you know, the upside she'd have is that you know, the party is going to face a reckoning after Trump, and that maybe when he's no longer in the Oval office and not splashed on Fox News all the time, assuming the social media platforms keep him curbed, that his influence on Republican politics will wane um in much the same way Sarah Palems did ten years ago. You know, for a

while there she was the hottest thing Republican politics. Everyone covered her endorsement, was afraid of her criticism, you know, but eventually she kind of blew away and and and didn't exert any real lasting influence. Personally, I think Cheney's best case hope would be the thing like that would

happen with Trump. The two years from now, the world will have long moved on Biden, the Democrats will be in charge, unifying thing among Republicans will be opposed Biden, and that Cheney will be seen as someone who, you know, bravely ventured out and broke with the trumpets at a time. And that was a dangerous thing to do. And one thing that both her supporters and critics I talked to said was that this move was absolutely a bold one and a risky one. It wasn't an easy political thing

to do. I think a lot of people give her credit for take that step. Well, I kind of know the answer to this question because I've read your story. But you know what embolded her to do it? Was this just a politician saying, you know what's right, what's wrong? Basically. You know, I got a lot of debate while reporting

about this. I mean, on one hand, clearly this is a principal span that she has no love for Donald Trump and has been unhappy with him and has said so publicly all along, although not to the degree that we saw with her impeachment statement. Um that being said, she is a professional politician from a family of politicians, and everything they do is to some extent a political bet.

I think the bet here is that long term, this is going to be seen in hindsight to be the right move, in the same way that a lot of people who voted a lot of Republicans have voted to impeach Richard Nixon. You know, that's now the first line in their obituary, and something that will in hindsight come to be seen as brave and principles and will pay political benefits for the few Republicans willing to do this at the time. Yeah, I just wonder how long it

will take for for that hindsight to become clear. Is it, you know, two years when she faces re election, or is it you know, ten years from now, or or even know. It's an interesting story because I think what's

likelier to happen in the short time. They are already petitions going around among House Republicans to oust from her leadership position in the House, So she may well face a steep short term penalty, not in terms of losing her seat in Wyoming, but I'm losing losing her leadership spot in the Republican House leadership, So she could actually pay a steep price before she realizes any political game. I think that would come later on in the future.

But all of this, I think, uh, certainly, her fate in the House is probably gonna be decided in the next fifty days or so. I think we'll have a sense that this is survival, not quite cancel culture. But I just think about this whole idea that you're right, you're allowed to have different perspectives. You know, Josh, You've been following politics like this is something we've got to

figure out. That's the whole crux of what makes I think good politics is when you have different points of view and people can discuss it and figure out what's a smart way forward for both. Yeah, I think that's right. And look, you know, in fairness to those Republicans who want to cancel this, Cheney, you know, she she's the number three ranking House Republican. Her vote was clearly out

of step with the majority of her caucus. And if they decide the pass loution resolution to revoke it, yeah, they're well within their rights to do that, and she was well aware of that going into it. I think for her that it's a combination of principle, like I said, and also a belief that longer term, her brand of politics, it's still one that that she and other Republicans can be bullish on and that there will come a day, even though it's harder vision now when Trump won't have

this iron grip on the Republic. I'm just gonna say to Dick Cheney wears a mask, and that picture is in Josh's story, Josh Green, and I want to say thanks, Josh, because we're gonna talk with Adam Gentlesen a little bit later on, Who's got a book out called kill Switch, all about the Senate UH and the crippling of American democracy. So Josh, thank you because you brought us to us. Josh actually has a story about that book. It's on

the Bloomberg terminal as well. Josh Green, National correspondent, Bloomberg Business Week, brom A Journal. Yeah, but you let me drive. No, no, no, honey, please, I'll do the right I want to drive. Just drive the questions, Drive to the globe, Dawn Radio. Yeah, it's time for the Drive to the close. And today we're hearing from Wall Street Visionaries, three executives who spent their careers on the cutting edge of the financial industry, who shared their views on what's to come in the next

five to ten years. This is so important for investors, and they shared it all with Bloomberg News. Is Shenali Bass. She's Wall Street reporters, she's on the phone. She's in our New York City bureau. But we believe in social distancing, so she's down in our studio. Sally, this is a killer story. It is among the most read, It will be among the most read for the week overall. So tell us first of all, what you set out to

do and who you talk to. Thanks Carol. This is something that I had been working on for a while, something I will ask all industry executives. Actually, it's what do they think the next big worry is for them over the next five to ten years? And finally we got it all down on paper this time around, in the middle of a global pandemic. The biggest surprise is that from three financial asinaries in the middle of a global pandemic, they're most concerned about the impact on technology

on society, Technology and society. Um Chinali, We've been lucky to have you throughout the week join us on quick Take to talk about some of these interviews you did. One thing that I'm curious about is this thread that runs through them. What did these responses have in common? What do these interviews have in common in terms of their concerned about next big risk? Well, there are a

couple of things to him. One of them was that a lot of our guests believe that there should be a much bigger role that the government plays in terms of reigning in some of these technology companies. Marty Chavez, who was really an architect of the technology businesses within Goldman.

Sachs had said the big tech giants should be stress tested similar to how the big US banks were stress tested after the two financial crisis, because just like any other business that has gotten very big over time, um, you know, there's really externalities that can come from unrestrained grab to profit. I think that is such a key thing considering that massive hack, and it's really been overshadowed, understandably so by all the political news that we've had

here in the United States. But you know, when I have side conversation shinale with individuals, they're like, you know, we got to keep on this story. We gotta figure out what happened that massive hack into US, into the U S. Government, into various institutions and organizations. We kind of that was a really big warning sign. It certainly is. And you know the thing about it is, there's so

much else going on in the world right now. I think that's what makes it important that you have all of these executives who are not only looking at this as a long term product problem, but also I'm trying to call on leaders to do something about this. Anyways, as tired and exhausted and tied up as they are with all the other issues that are going on in society. So there's another individual that you spoke to, Eileen Murray.

She's former co CEO at Bridgewater Associates, And we do want to share, first of all with our audience a little snippet of the conversation where in this little clip she talks about the need for businesses and the Biden administration to come together job training and education. Check it out, everyone,

It's like the current pandemic. You know, just as all of the companies that were producing a vaccine how to work closely hand in glove with the government, businesses need to work closely, hand in glove with the Biden administration to deal with people that need to be retrained. And then I think, let's let's step back to lower income people.

I'm in this COVID situation. There are children that that their parents can't afford a computer for them to be educated online and a lot of a lot of education has gone online. It breaks my heart. Uh, you know, so how do we inset people to donate computers to to to to donate money to helping those people get educated, give them a tax break? You know, I don't know if that's the full solution, but the problem is getting bigger. Yeah, there you have it. That's Eileen Murray, she's former COCO

of Bridgewater Associates speaking with um Shinali. The idea of permanent unemployment, the idea of not just the pandemic, but but people who cannot get jobs again. What is the solution to that according to the people you spoke with. Yeah, and and remember, Kim, one thing that's terrifying about this is she is speaking about this issue irregardless of a

global pandemic. And because of this COVID nineteen crisis and economic crisis, we have eighteen million people who have claimed unemployment across regular and emergency program so we already have a lot of joblessness. One of the things she offers is the idea of a tax break to companies that are willing to retrain workers and help really kickstart employment in this new economy because it does look different with

u with technology than it did in the past. So instead of laying people off and letting automation take over, why not create jobs kind of like the Henry Ford model with um you know, with cars, build technology and build processes that make the economy more productive, but also do it in a way that allows the people to afford the goods that they are making. That's what David Siegel, who was the co founder of quantitative finance Giants to

Stigma had promote proposed. Well, that's what's interesting too, is that listen, you know, we constantly are talking about this time of crisis and strain and stress you know, leads to innovation. That's the good sign. But you do wonder what it means for There's so many jobs that are constantly being automated at this point. I mean, listen, we've kidded around here, how now even stories are being written, you know, by robots and automated system It's not a joke.

It's real. It's a thing, and it's so it's it's areas snale that we never thought would be automated. Yet it's possible, It's absolutely possible. And you know, another thing that the two Sigma founder had said was what does that mean for our role as investors? Is what he said?

He said that for him and meant investing in places like education and healthcare and places where you know you can actually earn a great return on top of also creating technology that could help people at the end of the day, there's a novel thing, right, mean, he said, were really at risk here of just focusing on GDP for GDP's sake and not focusing on the things that are harder to measure, like happiness. Um, how does one from a government to an investor, how do you measure happiness?

You just want to end with with how this came together, What was the idea of the genesis for this and and why this question? Well, for one thing, from the investor perspective, these people are paid to think about risk. They sit there and they do it all day long. So from that respective, you know it's something that's already on their minds. But what did surprise me at the end of this project was how much they were worried

about the broader society and their role in it. Because guess what, tim at the end of the day, if people don't sort this thing, these things out, it will become a problem for companies and executives in terms of how much they're paying in taxes or how much they're having to get back to society. Um, at the end of the day, if they don't take care of it.

I love that the light in your story about David's Eagles, saying I don't think people are reflecting enough, and he talks about in Japan how they think about, you know, the experience a lot. We say that, we say that a lot, but I don't know that we're thinking about it and putting it into action. Shnally, you are amazing. Selik Well Street reporter at Bloomberg News. Joining us here at our New York studios and headquarters. Check out our stories on the Bloomberg. I'll put it out on Twitter again.

It is among the most read on the Bloomberg and it will be for the week overall easily. Thanks for listening to Bloomberg Business Week. Download the podcast on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com, and you can also listen to our radio show at two pm Eastern on Bloomberg Radio or watch us on YouTube. Search to Bloomberg Global News