Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is Bloomberg business Week Daily reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead with insight on the people, companies, and trends shaping today's complex economy. Plus global business, finance and tech news as it happens. The Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast with Carol Masser and Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio.
Carol Masser along with David Gera. Tim is out on assignment. We'll be back tomorrow. So, hey, we want to talk a little bit about the inflation report, because David, as you mentioned at the top, I mean, it really did feel like investors like what we got that there wasn't any kind of big surprise here.
Yeah, just to give everyone an update on what we did learn. The core consumer price index, excluding that often volatile food and energy categories, increased byo point three percent from June from the month before. That's according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data that was released this morning, largely in line with what economists were forecasting Carol, and on an annual basis, it picked up to three point one percent, so of those.
Wereew okay, not worse than could have been. Let's get more on the release, the outlook for US inflation and really FED policy. With US is Bloomberg TV and Radio. International economics and policy correspondent, of course are Michael McKee. He's here in studio. And also with US is Poojam Stream. She's vice president of US Economics Research over at Barkley's. She's joining us from New York City. Welcome, Welcome to
both of you. So, Mike, for those who maybe I don't know, slept in on this Tuesday, what do we need to not you, Mike, what do we need to know about the inflation print this morning?
Well?
I think what you want to say is don't count your chickens before they're priced, because there is some evidence of tariff passed through in these numbers. There's maybe some evidence that Chris Waller's right that it's a one time increase, because we saw things that went up in price last month because of tariff's come down. So it may be a one off, but it may be a continuing one off that pushes inflation higher because you saw things like
used cars go up half a percent. New car prices which had been declining, are now flat, which the President claimed as a victory.
But then you look at the.
Profit margins for the automakers in the second quarter and they were all minuscule or negative because they're absorbing it and they're not going to continue to do that.
So there is no.
Proof that the tariff issue is over in these numbers. And the other aspect of it is services prices have gone up. They went up more than anticipated. So that's something that doesn't have to do with tariffs, but is a concern to economists, and it'll obviously be something that FED wants to watch.
Could you pick up on that if you would.
I was looking bad back in a recent note that you wrote before these numbers came out this morning, and you said that while firms tend to raise prices, they've been restorting to other mitigation measures. First, what did these data this morning tell you about the way the economy has been reacting? Is reacting to the presence trade policies?
Yeah?
Sure, a great question. You know, the release this morning was to us a pretty mixed bag. What was interesting is a lot of the acceleration that we saw in core CPI came from the core services component. Core goods prices were up. Inflation. Was you know, on the core good side, still a point two percent, very similar to what we saw in June. But really the increases in prices, they're not as broad based as one would have expected.
Now.
To be clear, we think it's too soon for us to conclude that the tariff passed through is not happening or is more muted. We do think there are a couple of things that could have happened in July which just made the core good side of the report look a little softer. One is, you know, if you remember, July was a big motion period. We did have an Amazon Prime Day event that lasted longer than usual, and we had similar promotions from retailers like Walmart and Target.
So it's plausible that we just had you know, slightly lower looking prices this July, you know, than we did last July. And if you look at some of the details within categories, that seems to corroborate with this narrative. But I also will allude to what Mike McKee pointed out earlier. We are seeing signs of early tariff passed
through already in the economy. Within the CPI release itself, We've been flagging for a while that household furnishing prices, for example, are up three percent just year to date. This is very different from how prices historically have behaved. Something very similar can be said about appliances in the US.
So I just think tariff effects are in train, and while today's report may not suggest that we're seeing much pid of effects, I just think it's too soon for us to dismiss that effect altogether.
Mike, let me ask you, if I could, about housing. We look to these data for some indication of those costs as well. We have for many months. Now, what is it telling you about the state of the housing market in the US today.
Well, we're not saying price declines, but certainly the price increases have leveled off.
This is the third.
Month in a row that owner's equivalent rent was up three tenths of eight percent, and on a year over year basis, we see slight declines here in home prices. We're seeing in the more immediate data that the case shillers and things like that, that home prices are not rising as fast because at this point people have give it up on selling, it appears, and so they're not raising prices because it's a seller's market. But let's see what happens going forward. The interesting question is going to
be how does the housing market recover. Is a FED rate cut or two going to be enough? How much does it have to go down before people get out there and start buying again.
One thing I wanted to ask both of you, and Mike, let me start with you first, is that I think I heard it on surveillance this morning, the idea or the concept of it's not just the number and where it goes to, but the percentage of the increase or decrease. So when we think about that, I mean, I know the numbers came in line, but what we've seen in terms of trends in inflation, are we seeing it continue to kind of move down in a significant way like that percentage change.
Use if you have a Bloomberg go ahead and put in cpiyoy index GP and graphic. And in the last two and a half three months, the inflation arrow has changed from going down into the right to going up and to the right. It's not been a huge change yet, and we don't know for sure that that's going to happen or if it's just going to come to you to steadily rise, but it definitely shows the inflation trajectory has changed.
All right, So let's cut to the chase. What does this mean for the Fed? Pooja weigh in on this. I know Mike tends to say, and he's always right about this, that like there's a lot more data come in our way before the next FED meeting. So has this changed anything for J. Powell and company? Well, I think not.
The Barclays baseline for a while now has been one rate cut and all the way at the end of the year in December. Now we're looking quite out of consensus, admittedly, but we think, you know, there is a lot of data to come. Nothing in this inflation print to us was you know, was suggestive of inflation being more muted or the tariff effects are not coming. So we do think that, you know, the next employment report is going
to be the big one to watch out for. Also, we're going to hear from Chair Powell at Jackson Hall and so we think those would be good signals to watch for. But right now we maintain our call the Fed is in rush to cut ryds, and we have a call for December.
Mike's getting is you mentioned?
Mike lights up? You can't see it on the Getting Ready.
But Mike, how are you sort of thinking about the way this influence is for FED decision making going forward, the report today, and of course sort of what this might tell us about the PCE report coming up little bit later.
Well, I think it puts them in the category of if we get the same numbers that we've gotten, and by that I mean inflation numbers and the another round of bad jobs numbers, the FED might be more inclined to cut. But when you parse who the voters are and what they've said since the last FED meeting, you got about two people who think they should go down, two people who think they should not, and two people who are undecided. The rest have yet to weigh in.
So we will hear more over the next couple of weeks, including from the chair, and we'll see where they are going into September. But again, there's another jobs report, and another CPI report, and a PCE inflation report, and so there's a lot of information to come that will help decide what's going to happen. The odds are now ninety six percent that they cut in September, but I wouldn't put money into that market right now.
I feel like I've seen this movie before, expectations that change very quickly on a data point. Michael McKee, thank you so much. I always appreciate it, And of course Projirium, vice president of Yous Economics Research at Barkley's Hey. Coming up later next week, do join us for our live
coverage from Jackson, Hull. We'll be on the ground in Wyoming, Well, we meaning Mike and team covering the Kansas City Fed's Annual Economic Policy Symposium and highly anticipated remarks from fedscher J. Powell. All happens and starts Wednesday, August twentieth, and finishes up with a special edition of Bloomberg Surveillance. Tom Keene, Lisa Bromoitz, and the one and only Mike McKee will all be part of that special Starting at nine am Eastern on Friday.
You are listening to the Bloomberg Business Weekdaily Podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern. Listen on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app, or watch us live on YouTube.
David Gura in for Tim Steneviek, who's on assignment with Carol Masser here on Bloomberg Business Week, and we got news yesterday from the White House that Presdon Trump has decided to extend that ninety day pause yet again on those heightened tariffs on China. China very much in focus here in the US, of course, as we wait to see sort of what happens with those trade talks, but also playing an incredibly important.
Role around the world.
We saw the Brazilian President Lula de Silva speaking with the Chinese leader, exchanging their views on international affairs. President she calling for coordinated efforts against unilateralism and protectionism. News today also that India and China set to resume direct flight connections as soon as next month. And we're seeing oil playing a critical role here as the contours of this trade war continue to come into Folks, it does feel like, in a way, many parts of the world
are moving on and increasingly away from the US. Let's get to a roundtable now to understand China's goals here, what they're thinking in terms of the role they're playing in the world. US very clear of course about wanting a higher tariff world for those looking to sell into
the US. Shouldadkazi joints as Chief Operating Officer Managment Director at the China BAIG book here with us in the studio and from our bureau in Buenos Aires, Aminasuniga with US geoeconomic analysts for Latin America at Bloomberg Economics and shouldsod Let me start with you and maybe just give us your sense of how China is thinking about all this. We've had a series of three meetings now Geneva, London, Stockholm.
The pause continues here as we get perilously close. I think to the Christmas holiday when people are going to be buying a lot of gifts and are going to be very worried if a lot of these tariffs come to pass. How is China thinking about the kind of trajectory of these negotiations with the US.
You know, when the year began, we would have thought that their primary objective was to bring the tariff levels down and negotiate just about trade. But what we've learned is that they are much more concerned about US exp controls because that is ultimately what hurts them far more
than even tariffs do. Because they have ways to get around the tariffs, and so what they've done is they've used their chokehold on rare it's minerals and magnets, and forced compelled really the administration to relent and roll back US export controls while also bringing down the tariffs. So two wins for Shujinping in the last several months.
But what kind of relationship do you think he wants with the United States going forward?
Well, he'd love nothing more than to be able to sell as much as possible and be able to import the things they care about, the most advanced technology, not just ships, but across the board. Right, that's in an ideal world. Now, that's probably not what he's getting right away, but he's getting pretty close to it. I don't think
he feels a pressure to do anything more. I don't think he feels a pressure today to say I'm going to pledge like Japan and Europe did you know five hundred billion dollars worth of investment, or I'm going to pledge to buy all this US agricultural output the way I did in the past. I think they've demonstrated she specifically, we've got a lot of leverage and we don't need to play ball. If you don't feel like I do.
Think it's interesting that they want all the high tech, and yet Beijing is urging what local companies to avoid using in Vidia's H twenty processors, particularly for government related purposes. So yes, but there's always caveat Hamena com on in on this because in the meantime, Latin America is watching very closely, I'm sure, and remind us of the relationship that already exists with China across Latin America and maybe what they hope to even solidify even further.
Thank you, Carol. Yes, you know, g and Lula just talked and they said the relationship is as strong as ever. But so far the support from China to Brazil seems to have been largely rhetorical.
Right.
They have said they have shared views on multilajournalism and unilateralism on behalf of the US, condemning that, and China has been very keen on jumping on this collective criticism
of the US. But even though Trump's tarifsts may be giving bricks the blog that Brazil and China have, along with India, Russia and other smaller partners, even though Trump tariffs seemed to be giving it some mortar, it's still far from operating as a block and it's not really coordinating a response, a collective response to the Trump tariffs.
Him man on that note, do you anticipate that's likely to happen? I remember that moment a few months ago when there was a meeting of the bricks countries. There was this tacit threat that they were going to work more closely together in opposition to what the United States was doing. President Trump, clearly irritated agitated by that threatned even more punitive sanctions, more tariffs on those bricks countries.
As a result of that. What would the catalyst be that would get them to do more than, as you say, talk about presenting a more united front against the United States.
I think there are two main issues that are blocking
a more integrated response, more coordinating response. One is the very diverse membership of the group in general, and also with respect to the Trump tariffs, they're facing slightly different issues, although they are becoming increasingly closer in the sense that, for example, now Brazil and India are similarly targeted, but for example, Russia has so far not been targeted with tariffs, although they have other issues with the US, of course, but the key thing is that China doesn't really need
the blogs as much as the other members of the blog need China or would benefit from a coordinating response with China. As Jas just said, China has a lot of leverage, has demonstrated has a lot of leverage to push back without offering any dramatic concessions as other countries have done. Uh and the US has back down. So China does not really need to have the collective weight and have took the bricks block to stand up to Trump.
If it did, however, it could really expand its geopolitical cloud, and it would mean the bricks would function more as a block. But so far, I think China is very focused on its national interest and as long as as it can stand up to Trump on its own, and it has the leveraged to do it, it is unlikely to compromise its national interest to expand the bricks theft.
We're talking with him in a Suniga geoeconomic analyst for Latin America out there in our Buenos Aires Bureau, and also with US Shazad Kazi, chief Operating Officer, Managing Director China Basebook and Studio. All right, so let's shift a little bit to China and India, which I think is kind of interesting and you know, just a little headline.
As David mentioned, that looks like Indian China set to resume direct flight connections as soon as next month, according to those familiar, as they look to kind of reset their political ties as the US and India, after years and years of working on improving that relationship, seem to have taken some steps back. China and India. What's China's goal there?
Well, I think, you know, they have an incredibly complex relationship because whereas they trade, it is absolutely not They have very serious national security concerns about each other, more specifically India with regards to China, and of course are constantly having these bottles battles rather than skirmishes at the border, long running problems there. So you know, I think I think the traders.
Is any of this real or is it just for show?
I think it's real to the extent that they want to do business with each other, but it's not it doesn't go towards, you know, anything beyond that. I mean India. So let's be clear, India does not want to be seen as a country that's going to counterbalance China and all the rest on behalf of the US. It wants to be seen as a power in its own merit, on its own right. But by that token though, still, they also don't want to blow up their business relationship
with China. This is far more complex than I think traditional models of geopolitics would suggest.
You know, we were talking about sort of the the gap that might be left if the training relationship has ruined between the United States and China. How confident is China that it could get, yes, the rare earths, the critical minerals exported to other countries if the US isn't able to buy them. I guess what I'm saying is how sure they are in their ability to pivot to other markets if the US is no longer what it has been.
So they demonstrated, I think that everybody is desperate for Chinese rare arts. And if you remember what they did was briefly they said export controls on more or less everyone, so that they could prevent us from transshipping those rare ets right into the US the way. You know, obviously
China takes advantage of transshipment. So I think I don't know if that's really the big concern, because there's such desperation given the chokehold that they have as a sole supplier really of most of these things, including some really critical things like samarium, which you need for weapons development, and how dependent we are on that and by the way, they are not letting that out human.
I also wonder, you know, if some great deal happens between the US and China after, you know, if the delays are done, you know, we'll Latin America as a whole or specific countries be like, okay, missed opportunity. You know, we're out because we understand the importance of that US China relationship, and especially if they if China gets better terms in terms of tariffs. Finally, what do you mean we're out?
Sorry, Well, meaning that they won't necessarily have such an open door perhaps or the conversation lines, you know, between China and Latin America might go away if ultimately the US trade deal and tariff deal that they come together with China is not as onerous as maybe has been put out before that ultimately US and China come to terms that are good for both sides.
So does that China kind of back off again from Latin America.
Yeah, in a way, I think that China is very present in Latin America if you think of it outside Mexico, who exports eighty percent of its schoods towards the US. China is the main markets or most of the are bigger, biggest economies, including Brazil, Argentina and tile Peru. And so I don't think that Latin America can choose between the
US and China. For Latin America, the best would be not to have to choose, and for a while it cultivated positive pragmatic relationships with both with both markets that are important not only in terms of trade, but also in terms of financing and in terms of tourism. Both both markets are critical to region in different respects depending on the country. If having to choose, a lot of countries would not we try to push back a lot
not to be not to have to choose. They would continue to trade with China, they would continue to have financial ties, and they would like try to push back on this on this on the US, because China is now almost as important or more important for many of these countries as the US is.
Any last thoughts just real quickly, well, look, China's going to be a big player, which is why I think when Secretary Rubio took over. His big focus initially was supposed to be to push back on China right here in the Western Hemisphere. That feels like years ago at this point, but it's an important objective, I think.
All right, So appreciate both of you. Shazad Kazi, chief Operating Officer Maaging Director of China bagbook right here in studio and then out there at our Buenos Aires bureau for Bloomberg News, him and a Suniga geoeconomic analyst for Latin America.
This is the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Listen live each weekday starting at two pm Eastern up on Apple car Play and the Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa played Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Well, he holds one of the most important jobs in the Trump administration. Is off and out about talking about the president's policies. Another individual who hails from the world of financial markets before taking the job in Washington. We are talking about US Treasury Secretary Scott Besson, who is the subject of the latest issue of Bloomberg BusinessWeek. It's the cover story. It's on the Bloomberg Two, at Bloomberg
dot com, Slash BusinessWeek, and on newsstands. He talked, we're talking about mister Bessett, the two key members of our Bloomberg team about Tariff's deficits and President Trump's economic plan with us as Bloomberg News US Treasury Reporter Dan Flatley out there in our DC bureau and Bloomberg New Economy reporter editorial director and Bloomberg business Week Getthered at Large,
Eric Shaftsker, Eric here in our studio. Eric, I want to start with you deep dive, so much detailed, pretty incredible. Your first impression of actually sitting down and talking with the Treasury Secretary.
Oh boy, well, I've had the good fortune of seeing him a couple of times since he became the Treasury Secretary. I would say, more than anything else, And I'm curious to know if Dan feels the same way that he was.
Remarkably at ease.
This is someone and that it truly is a point worth making because this is somebody who came from a totally different background, who had no experience in Washington, who knew nothing about how to navigate political waters and yet only seven months into the job, he's sitting there at the Treasury Department feeling like or at least exuding an aura of calm and control in a way that wasn't
a foregone conclusion. If you had the background that he had, you ran a small, relatively small hedge fund, certainly not that many people at the most. Over the course of his career, he probably oversaw three hundred people at Soros Fund Management when he was the chief Investment Officer twenty eleven to twenty fifteen. Here he's got a department of one hundred thousand people, and as we explain in this story,
it is the department of everything. He is responsible not just for the things that Treasury is typically responsible for, but so many other things as well, including trade negotiations, acting IRS commissioner, shepherding the one big beautiful bill through Congress.
You name, it's on his plate.
Dan, I'm curious if you want to respond to that sort of how you found the treasuresector, But also I'm interested in how he sees his role, yes within the department, but in the administration as well, that the president has a varied economic team, folks from different backgrounds. He's taking advice from from all of them. What's the role of Treasury sectory Scott Besson in, Yes, advising the president, but setting his economic agenda as well.
Yeah, you know, it's it's a great question, and I agree with Eric. You know, he definitely seemed at ease when we were speaking with him. And one of the things that I noticed he goes on TV a lot, and he's very careful sometimes about what he says on TV. Occasionally he gets himself into some trouble with some of his public remarks, including on TV. But he was much
more at ease, much more relaxed. One of the things that I said to him was, you know, you must you must feel very well prepared for your role in terms of macroeconomic policy and and and that aspect of it, given your background. But what about the political dimension? And he sort of gestured over to this table that he had set up in his office with a white tablecloth that he said he brought from home where he brings in members of Congress to have lunch or breakfast with him.
And he said, that's one of the things that he's been trying to work on, is congressional relations. And that's something that came into play with Steve Mnusian when he was Treasury Secretary with the pandemic, where he really needed to rely on Democrats to get a lot of those sort of stimulus bills through. And Bessett hasn't had to do that yet because Republicans have control of both houses of Congress and there hasn't been a crisis of that
level certainly during his time in office. But he may need to rely on on some Democrats at some point in the future. And so he mentioned that he has members of both parties there with him at times, So I think that was interesting. And then you know how he sees his role. I think, you know, he told us he gives a president options and outcomes, and he also helps manage the narrative, which is I think one
of the things that's very interesting to observe. How he does go out a lot, a lot more than some other secretaries in the past and talks about what the president is.
Trying to do.
And I think markets seem to like that. Whether he can keep that up over the course of his tenure, we'll see, but that seems to be a big part of his role right now.
Well, you know, it's something that you made reference to about how comfortable he was, because it's something that David and I both kind of seized on, like in reading your story about when he's on air, Eric, it is very halting his speech, and you've got none of that no when you guys sat with him. So it makes me wonder, is he just being so careful because he knows the president's watching?
Well, he's being careful, I would say for a couple of reasons, yes, maybe three reasons. Yes, he knows the president's watching. Yes, he doesn't have a lot of time in which to make those remarks. We give him plenty of airtime, and others do as well, but it's not as much time as Dan and I had. It's not as free flowing a conversation. It tends to be a conversation that's much more responsive to or concerning news and something that may have happened ten minutes ago or where
the markets are trading right now. Dan and I had a relatively unique opportunity to talk to the present, to talk to excuse me, to the Treasury secretary without any of those pressures on his mind, and so he was able to express himself much more in a sense in his own words, the way he would express himself if he were having a conversation I hesitate to say, with a friend, but not under the glare of the television lights and a rat tat tat interview that you typically
get when you're certainly being questioned by multiple parties.
You take us through his childhood in South Carolina, born of this family that's been there for a very long time, his centuries nicknamed by the Secret Services Swampbox after Francis Marion, the American General. I'm curious sort of if you could you tell us a bit more about his back in finance, because, as you both mentioned, Wall Street seems to have warmed him. They seem as kind of a bultwork against some of the president's worst impulses. Perhaps was how did he make
a name for himself on Wall Street? What's his specialty? Was it in currencies? Was it in macro? Beacro? How is he known on Wall Street?
For this?
It's important first of all to say that it's in macro. He was a macro fund manager, which means he translates his view of global economics into bets on bonds, currencies, commodities, equities, whatever the case, may be a lot of it relative value bets among different currencies, that kind of thing.
That's what he specialized in.
That's what he learned at the knee of both George Soros and Stan Ruckenmiller. Stan Druckenmiller, for all of the fame George Soros has earned, Stan Druckenmiller his chief investment officer at Quantum May and at Soros Fund Management, maybe the greatest investor in modern history is a man who, you know, whether he was managing other people's money or managing his own money, has never had a down year. That, as much as anything, is what made Scott Besson famous.
He was the understudy to the mentee of Stan Druckenmeller, and of course he ran two firms of his own, best in capital First he then went back to Soros Fund Management as the chief investment officer overseeing George Soros's twenty five billion dollar portfolio, and then in twenty late twenty fifteen early twenty sixteen he started Key Square Group, which is where he was until effectively he became the Treasury nominee. It's a peculiar place to have come from
in finance. It does prepare him in a unique way for the demands of the Treasury Secretary's job, because he thought about global markets and the interrelationship between policy and market response in a way that say, along short equity of fund manager never has to and so that is an important thing to recognize about his background. It would have been Stephen Minuchin, for example, came from a very
different tradition. He was a little bit more of an He was special in operations when he was at Golden Sachs, and then when he started his own investing operation, he was more of an opportunist, spent more of his time on credit, as you may remember, took over Indiemac, you know when that bank failed after the financial crisis, financed
Hollywood films, a very different kind of a mindset. He had his own views, of course about how to be the Treasury Secretary, but he didn't have the background and the immersion in global markets and world affairs that best and has had his entire career.
We're talking with Eric Shaftsker, editorial director for Bloomberg New Economy, also editor at large for Bloomberg BusinessWeek here and studio, and Dan Flatley out there in our Washington, DC bureau. Dan as US Treasury reporter for Bloomberg News. So it kind of begs, and you guys write this in the story that he was a private guy. So I'm curious, Dan, does he like the job, does he feel conflicted in terms of the president's policies or that's not his job.
It's just to maybe layout scenarios for the president.
Yeah.
No, it's a great question. I mean on the privacy point. You know, it's very interesting because he sort of mentioned to us this sort of old line about, you know, a gentleman should never should only have his name in the paper three times when he's born, when he gets married, and when he dies, and.
So he's such a southern old gentleman. But go ahead, go ahead.
Yeah, I mean, it's you know, but it was very interesting because it was very apparent, I think to us, and I think Eric would agree with me that that's sort of how he lived his life up to the point where he decided, Hey, I'm going to make a play for being Donald Trump's Treasury secretary. And it didn't happen overnight. You know, he told us that he got
interested in the Trump campaign in twenty sixteen. He thought about potentially raising his hand for a position in the first Trump administration, but was conflicted because he had just started his own hedge fund, Key Square Group, and he was very cautious about, you know, wanting to be seen as overly political, although he did give a million dollars to Trump's first inauguration, which he said he sort of smoothed over with the clients by saying it was the
people's inauguration. But over time he got more and more interested in politics, and he sort of took us through his journey, so to speak, and some of the things
that he saw that he was concerned about. Of course, he made mention of the Biden administration's policies, but he also talked about the idea that people don't trust either political party anymore and that he sees himself as playing a role, you know, smaller than the president's of course, but still a significant role in terms of trying to shore up the system, so to speak. And again, like I said before, it's an active experiment. Whether it works at the end of the day is an open question.
All right.
I wish we had another twenty minutes to go, but I highly recommend everybody check out the story. Eric Dan You guys rock Eric Schatzger and Dan Sally so appreciate. This is the cover of the new issue of Bloomberg Business Week. You can find it too on the Bloomberg and at Bloomberg dot com.
This is the Bloomberg BusinessWeek Daily podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live weekday afternoons from two to five pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot com, the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business App. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal.