You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast count Us Saturdays at one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion I Amy Morris. This week we bid farewell to the last of the liberal fiscal conservatives. We also learn how standard legacy manufacturers can live in harmony with new technology like AI, and we take a look at how the fight against climate change has shifted and why the traditional climate champions are shifting their focus. But we begin with what some might call an inventory recession.
Evercore chairman At Hyman tells Bloomberg News that the Fed should consider slowing down the interest rate hikes.
At this point, the one more is baked in the cake. I think anything from now is a mistake. They're just creating a for a recession, or the more likelihood of a recession.
But recession may be here for one industry already. It looks more and more like the materials and industrial world is either in or headed for some kind of slow down. And we welcome Bloomberg Opinion columnist Chris Bryant, he covers industrial companies in Europe. Chris, always a pleasure. Thank you for taking the time with us. The CEO of a chemical maker in Germany called the decline in sales volumes leman too, wow, what is going on?
Well?
I mean, Amy, I thought this was too irresistible to ignore. When these comments came a couple of weeks ago, it really sent a bit of a shop market around, a shock around the stock market because frankly, you know, comparisons to two thousand and eight really have people on edge. And you know, chemic pals is a very significant industry, is not one people like to think about very often because the products are quite complicated in the use k are so diverse. But that's exactly why it's an important
indicator to keep an eye on. So when you have a chemical maker saying that the outlook you know, sales is like, you know, the worst he has seen since two thousand and eight, then really we need to sit up and listen. And what the ceover of Lanxes was basically saying is, yes, volumes are now declining at such a rapid pace and the prolonged nature of these sales declined as well. It's really stucking to worry him. And the SECTIM board.
Never dawned on me before that this could be kind of a canary in the coal mine situation when it comes to watching the sales of chemicals. How does that chemical industry then help provide that signal for what is to come? Why monitor chemicals? Let's get deeper into that.
Chemicals, of course, are very high up in value change. You know, basic peture chemical products that then get put into other products and before you know that product reaches the consumer, and therefore they're exposed to a very high number of markets, anything from say the construction industry through
to consumer products. And therefore, you know, when chemical makers start to sound alarm about demand, that can be an indicator that you know, overall global demand is poor, but there's a particular thing that's going on in chemicals, and it also reflects on broader the broader economy, and it's this These chemical makers are talking a lot about de stocking, and this, of course is a result of the pandemic
that we had. These supply chain difficulties and it forced a lot of businesses to order huge amounts of stock because they worried they were worried they wouldn't get any and so that what that's led to is businesses around the world are sitting on a lot of inventory.
Therefore, when they start to worry that the economy is flowing.
Naturally, the first thing they will do is say, well, we're not going to order any more just yet, because we've already got a lot and what we'd rather do is just run down those inventories and then we'll see later in the year whether we needed to order some more. And that's a normal thing in the economy. You get restocking phases and de stocking phases. What's strange, though, is that this de stocking phase has been going on for
a while now. Chemical makers started talking about de stocking, you know, late last year, and they're still talking about it now, and they're saying it's going to continue for the rest of the year, which to me suggests that actually, really the problem is that the you know, underlying demand is not very good, and in fact we're seeing now you know, if you look at the manufacturing data, services remain very strong, but manufacturing is essentially already in session.
Does this mean then that this particular faction would be different from just your plane old, run of the mill, everyday recession.
You know, you can slice up the global economy in different ways, and clearly right now consumers are continuing to spand on services. They want to travel, they want to go through events, they want to socialize.
What they're not doing as much, though, is buying stuff.
Everybody ordered everything they wanted during the early part of the pandemic. Homes are full now of all the things everybody ever dreamed of having. And of course, therefore you're seeing this slowdown down in the in the manufacturing part
of the economy. And so while you know, the employment levels remain very good and people are spending, they're not spending on the kind of stuff that chemical products go into, and all they spending on the kind of things that you know, manufacturers are producing.
And therefore you do have this kind of two speed.
Economy at the moment where you know, if you look at the data purchasing managers, data manufacturing is a prolonged slump.
Services remain to be buoyant. So you can have these two things going on at the same time.
I guess the question is whether you know one is going to pull down the other eventually, And my feeling is that, yes, when the chemical makers are saying the things are as bad as they were in two thousand and eight, and it probably does mean some kind of recession is on the way.
This is an indication not just that there is a slowdown in the careical industry, but because of that, it may hint that there is a slowdown in manufacturing as a whole. Fewer things are being made because there's less of a demand for those things. What kind of things, well, I.
Think we're talking about, you know, durable goods essentially, so anything from a sort of watery machine in your home to you know, a barbecue for your for your deck outside, and those kind of consumer products we're talking about on that side. But you know, we're you know, this is a bit broader than just chemicals, of course. And you know, if you look at that site that the number of these examples and the piece of people have been talking for example, about a.
Freight recession now for many months.
And what that means is if you look at, you know, the volumes that the trucking companies are carrying, or the volume of containers imported into the United States, those numbers have been falling up the cliff and you know, trucking companies have been sound in the alarm about the recession for Wana, and the container company, the container shipping companies, you know, the rates that they're able to are really
starting to slump. And I think that's the issue here too, is that for a long time, you know, a lot of these chemical makers and other companies, they were suffering weak volumes, but they were able to you know, sort of cover up for that with high pricing. Of course, we've seen companies across the economy being able to raise prices and that's supported corporate profits and indeed, some people
are saying, you know, corporate profits are driving inflation. The problem is that if you start to get these very big volume declients, then the pricing patterns of these companies had is going to go away. And that's what we've seen now some of the chemical makerss you know, talking
also about pricing pressure coming in. It's just something new, of course, because until now, you know, when we had the supply chain crisis, you know, they were not only able to book really strong orders because people were just trying to order whatever they could, they were also able to do so at very high prices.
Is this yet another quirk from the pandemic. You mentioned the pandemic and the supply chain issue and how that sort of fell off a cliffs edge. I'm wondering how long this particular u faction has been coming.
I think it has been coming while. And of course it's a staggered effect across the economy. So the first companies to warn about this the stock you phenomenon with you know, the big box retailers in the United States last year were forced to say, yeah that, well, now we've got too much stuff. People don't want to buy it anymore. But you know, there to be some notes out from analysts recently pointing to the fact that raised inventory.
So we're talking about the supplies that stops are a problem sort of across many sectors in the economy, and so you could get that effect start to happen in other sectors going forward. And and why because you know, obviously, you know companies at the moment they are looking very carefully at their cash flow and they're seeing interest rates start to rise, perhaps their death costs go up, and
therefore they need to save every penny they can. And one way you can do that, of course, is to optimize your working capital, which means you know, essentially but sit on less inventory because of course that you know, the more stock you're holding, the more cash is tied up in that in that stock. As you start to run down those paths, and of course you know that does put you know, pressure on the economy and it will tend.
To show up in the g defeat.
GDP figures that people report inventories are a key point of that. Who my expectation in the coming months is that would be negative.
But for growth, where's the rebound?
Then normally you would say that, you know, this is a natural cycle in the economy. You get you know, as I said, de stocking phases, restocking phases, and I hope is that as soon as eventually a company will simply run out of stock, need to order some more, and off you I'll go to the races again.
As I said.
The issue I think here is that this is becoming quite a prolonged thing, and of course there's no real what's the you know, what's going to be the driver of that new restocking phase. And you know, many of the companies are warned on profits. And I'm talking here not just about Europe and the United States to you know, talked about China.
There was this hope that China was.
Going to drive the rebound, and unfortunately that's not been the case normally in previous you know, down phases. You know, China has you know, sort of applied some kind of massive stimulus and not we've gone again and you know, had a decade or more an hour of China, the Chinese real estate boom and massive you know flows into that sector, and of course that's now all come to a bit of a holt and well, you know, China
has rebounded as it's reopened its economy. You know, it's been very disappointing compared to what I think the global manufacturing sector had hoped. And while that you know, remains absolently, I think it's very difficult to see what the catalyst might be because clearly, you know, it's difficult to know what's going to provide that that turnaround that lifts the manufacturing sector out of the recession.
It clearly seems to be in.
Thank you so much, Chris Bryan, a Bloomberg opinion columnist who covers industrial companies in Europe, and coming up a farewell to Dick Ravitch. A New York legend who passed away last week at the age of eighty nine. He's known for saving both New York City and the Metro Transportation Authority from financial ruined back in the nineteen seventies. We're going to learn all about him. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch hast Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. There was a time when the UK was a climate champion, setting the pace for tackling the climate change crisis. Prime Minister Rishi Sudnak made a pledge to the twenty twenty two United Nations Climate Change Conference just last fall.
Our part the UK, which was the first major economy in the world to legislate for that zero, will fulfill our ambitious commitment to reduce emissions by at least sixty eight percent by twenty thirty.
But now they seem to be falling behind, putting Britain's global standing at risk as other nations move ahead with bold new climate policies. Bloomberg opinion columnist Laura Williams covers climate change and she joins me now to talk about this. How has the UK helped drive change?
Yeah? So, you know, there are plenty of past successes to be proud of. The Climate Change Acts. In two thousand and eight was the first time a leadlely binding mistigations target had been set by a country, and in twenty nineteen we were the first country to you know, enshrine and net a zero emissions to moment in law as well. And you know, we've really kind of led the pack and inspired other countries to make these kinds
of commitments. But unfortunately those you know, that kind of period of climate leadership seems to be over.
So what happened? Why is the UK lagging behind other countries?
Now?
I would say that it comes down to, you know, a chape. We've had several changes in leadership and the current leadership is not for saying that climate change as a priority.
When you refer to leadership, are you talking about the Prime Minister? Because it seemed to be a priority last fall when he was talking to cop twenty seven, or also known as the UN Climate Change Conference. Has something changed since last fall?
Well, I suppose the cost of living crisis has you know made a big difference. We've got lots of other things to pay for in the Ukraine War as well, might have you know, sort of shifted priorities. But other countries have really used the war as a way to
kind of spark bold commitments on climate. We have the Inflation Reduction Act in the US, and the EU also has you know, bid bold you know, agenda setting plans to make you know, climate change the heart of the economy, and the UK just hasn't really done that.
Why is it important to be the leader on the surface? Would it matter as long as everybody does their part. Who is out front?
Well, you know, of course, any reductions anywhere is a reduction in carbon emissions, and that's great, But the UK is, you know, we it's just it's sad that we've lost our place in the world and you know, we were a global leader and we're gonna miss out on opportunities if we're not getting in now, if we're if we're not you know, pushing ourselves out, there is a good place to invest we're going to lose that investment and we'll will fall behind and we'll lose you know, global influence.
Oh, let's talk about that, the investment opportunities and how that could be lost if if they are no longer out in front or at least near the front of the pack on this give me it.
For instance, you know, other countries are you know leading the pack on. So take for instance, the US and
carbon removal. The US is pushing a lot of money into helping drive you know, these new technologies which will be important in you know, removing those last stubborn bits of you know CO two emissions from industries like aviation and industry, agriculture, things like that, And so the US is really making it lucrative to invest, is really helping startups develop and become trustworthy, reliable, you know sources of carbon removal. The UK is good on the you know,
the science side. We have a lot of research and development. But you know, as same stand is not a good place to start a company like a carbon removal company, and you know, the America and the EU are kind of leading there.
If it's not the UK, then Lara, who is it who's taking the lead now and tackling climate change, well.
I think you know, the European Union and the US of you know, bold climate policies aimed at spur and green investment. I would say those they're the kind of leaders right now.
We haven't really expressed what it means to be a leader, like how do you quantify that? What's the unit of measure that you use to say, Oh, these guys are out in front on this versus somebody who may be lagging behind or completely off the chart.
So I'm thinking about and I think the you know, the Climate Change Committee, who published a report recently which said, you know, the UK was lagging behind, would look at policy implementation and so they're kind of moving forward with really interesting and bold commitments and policies where the UK isn't. For instance, you know, a place where the UK could lead but is choosing not to, is on the demand side.
So that's kind of things that make up individuals, trab and footprints, you know, switching to from a gashob to an induction hob, find an electric car, installing a heat pump, and we're really really behind on all of these things. And part of the reason for that is that electricity has these green taxes which make them makes electricity as expensive,
if not a little bit more expensive than gas. That to be easily ractified by just taking off those green taxes and putting them on gas to mate electricity cheaper. And so that would make it really really easy for people to mate these individual easy choices to you know, be more eco friendly in their daily lives. And that doesn't get us all the way to net zero, but it makes the job easier as we move forward, and that you know hasn't been on the agenda necessarily for the UK.
I wonder if there is a psychological risk among countries when you see a leader like the UK start to sort of slip and fall behind. Does it have a residual effect? Is there a risk of their being sort of a domino effect? Where are the other countries, instead of stepping up and taking the lead, say oh, you know, maybe maybe we can just take a minute, you know, and not have to worry about this as much, and everyone starts to fall behind and become more laco daisical
when it comes to this topic. Is that a risk?
I think that's definitely a risk. And you know, once the UK was inspiring it was inspiring other countries, you know, to follow its lead, and it's looking increasingly and tredible. You know, when the UK is saying, oh, you should try and ditch coal, but then it opens, you know, decides to open a new coal mine in its own country, then you know we're not going to be taken seriously on the world stage. And it sends a message that you know, climate action isn't as important necessarily.
As it once was.
And to that end, we just got word this week that Monday, the third of July was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth. Now, I know that this is relatively new information, but you do cover climate and climate issues for bl Bloomberg. So how does that factor into any decisions that might be made on a local, state, or municipal or governmental level When you hear that sort of data that Monday was the hottest day ever recorded on Earth?
Yeah, it's I mean, it's really drives at home that the fact that climate change is here and action needs to be made now. And I think you know, when you readet events like this, it really brings it home to people, and you know people are starting to care. You know, last year when we had the UK reached four ced degrees celsius and that has never been seen before and I think that was really a way up
pool for people. And you know, people are now really quite concerned about climate change and they would like to see climate action and that's becoming important to them. And so the more we see these record breaking days, the more staid that you know, the general public are going to be quite rightfully so, because it is quite scary, and you know, the more that seeing the leaders tate time action will be important to them.
Laura Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers climate change and coming up how legacy manufacturers can keep up in a world that seems dominated by new technology, especially AI, can old school industry survive? Don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast Contest Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
This is Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Legacy manufacturers have been trying to rebrand themselves as technology companies for twenty years or more, but even their own investors don't see it that way. They associate them more instead with chunks of metal whose sales are dictated by economic twists and turns. Bloomberg opinion columnists Brooks Sutherland covers deals and industrial companies, and she's going to help clear this up for us, she joins us. Now, brook always a pleasure, Thank you
for taking the time with us. Right now, there is this big boom in artificial intelligence. First things first, is this a bubble?
Well, I will weave bet to the people who cover the technology companies very closely, but I do think you know what's interesting, Like you were saying that, we do see industrial companies tend to sort of attach themselves to whatever the technology trend of the moment is, and that is happening yet again with AI. But in this case, I think it actually does work because we're not trying to reposition these companies as sort of the next coming of AI, which is what we've seen in the past.
She used to say that it could be a top ten sellar of software. It didn't exactly work out that way, but the reality is to make AI work, you need graphics processing units, which require significantly more power than the central processing unit that we use today, mostly in data centers. And when you have you know, chips that require a lot more power, you need to have more electrical equipment
to make all of that work. And then when they require a lot more power, they also get hotter, and so you need air conditioners and other types of cooling equipment to keep them cool. And so this is really industrial companies Bread and Butter is selling electrical equipment and air conditioning equipment, and so I do think there's an
opportunity here to sort of tap into that growth. And these companies have already been benefiting from the expansion of data centers, and this just gives another leg to that story.
AI is often seen as a threat, but you're saying this could be more of an opportunity and less of a threat if these legacy manufacturers can maybe pivot. Is pivot too strong award?
I don't even think they need to pivot, And I think that's what's interesting here is it's sort of a guaranteed continued relevancy for electrical equipment and different types of cooling technologies. Which to your point, is not what you can say for every industry. There's a lot of concern about AI, you know, blowing up entire sectors that are backbones of the economy today. But the reality is is for these systems to work, you need things like electrical
equipment and air conditioners. And so I think that that continued relevancy is what's important here for the industrial company.
Is that something investors need to also keep in mind when it comes to industry and how it can dovetail with AI.
I think they already are. I mean, I think one of the things that was really interesting to me as I started looking into this is there's a company called Vertive Holdings which used to be part of Emerson and then was sold to private equity and then went public again, and it's stock on a percentage basis had climbed as
much as Navidia's since that company. The chip maker had its blockbuster earnings report where it laid out very ambitious growth forecast for its chips the power AI and sort of got the market very excited about this, and you could see investors saying, Okay, well, if you know, the opportunity is so great for Navidia. Then it might also be really great for these industrial companies whose equipment will be needed to make this whole thing work as well.
And in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal, you actually use those companies as an example.
Vertive Eton is another big provider of data center equipment, and you also have Envent and so these companies have been bullied by enthusiasm around this idea of the electrification of everything as well, and so this would be sort of another leg to that journey. But it's an important one to keep in mind. And they don't you know, they're investing in new technologies to adapt to the specific needs of AI, but this is really in their core wheelhouse.
This is what these companies do. They make electrical equipment, or you know, in the case of somebody like a train or a Johnson Controls, they make cooling equipment, cooling technologies. And so I think that's why this, you know, this technology narrative works better for industrial companies than some of
the ones that have come in the past. You know, one of the analysts who covers the sector remembered in the dot com days, all these companies trying to pitch themselves as tech companies because they had managed to create a website. And you know, we had the software boom of the twenty fifteen twenty sixteen timeframe when all these companies were trying to say they were software companies with
varying degrees of credibility. But you know, because this is what these companies do and have been doing for years and years and years, I think they're much better suited to adapt to the unique demands of AI. And the incumbents do have an advantage here.
We are talking with Bloomberg opinion columnist Brooks Sutherland about how legacy manufacturers are navigating the AI boom, and you were just saying, Brooke, about how for years, way before AI, but for the past twenty years or more, legacy manufacturers have tried to remain relevant by rebranding themselves as tech companies. Your point is you don't have to do that. You just need to show that you're relevant to the tech company because they're going to need what.
You've got right exactly. And I mean there's some question of, like, you know, does this mean that industrial companies are necessarily going to outperform the rest of the economy. Would they
necessarily benefit more from AI than other companies. I don't know if I'm willing to go that far, but like I said, I think just continuing to be relevant and that your equipment will be needed to empower this AI wave, whatever it ends up ultimately looking like, is not the same for every industry, and there's lots of industries that will no longer exist in a world of AI, and we will continue to need electrical equipment and air conditioning.
Did you find there's some skepticism about prospects for a type of spending extravaganza of sorts to support these data centers for AI?
Sure? I mean, I think there's a healthy amount of skepticism on all of these kind of mega trends that
industrial companies talk about. So it's not just AI spending, but also you know that electrification of everything, the reshoring trend, the extent to which that is or isn't happening, And we've seen companies dial back spending on data centers in the immediate term where they maybe got a little over extended, you know, specifically, uh Meta, the parent of Facebook, has talked about curbing its spending, but it's doing so because it wants to adjust how the design of its data
centers to adapt for the potential of AI. But there is a question of you know, do a identify aident data centers because they're designed to be more efficient and more capable, do they ultimately need you know, more electrical equipment relative to older versions of data centers. And I think that's the question that we don't necessarily have the answer to just yet.
Yeah.
In fact, just to play off of that for a moment, if I could, I was kind of looking down the road then, not months, not years, but decades from now, depending on how AI develops and how technology develops, will there be a time when the classic legacy industrial type things are going to have to find a way to pivot to keep up with that technology, or will there always be that need for the big chunks of metal that we've been depending upon for the past one hundred years.
Sure, I mean, I think there's a lot we still don't know about, you know, the ways that AI will change the world. But I do think you know that you still need you know, excavators to build buildings. I don't know if we can you know, train or there will be some sort of metal needed to do these things at some point in the time, can't just do it by brain power, Jesse. Yet I don't know the past in the car, So you know, there is, like I said, there's a continued relevance for a lot of
these companies. They will certainly have to adapt. There are always trends out there that these companies need to adapt to, and some do it better than others, and which is always interesting to watch.
Is there any risk that the manufacturers aren't going to be able to keep up with demand or the trends? Is there any risk that they're going to have to learn something new to be able to keep up with what's down the road.
Sure?
I mean, so you know, the electrical equipment companies already have very long backlogs they're chipping away with right now. So the idea is that this would be incremental to
that demand. Now, they're struggling to meet the demand that they already have, and so there are some supply chain issues to be worked out there now in terms of adapting, I do think, you know, one of the bigger questions is will there be sort of small upstart companies that will come out with specifically, you know, the cooling technologies
that are needed for AI enabling data centers. And I do think the incumbents do have an advantage here and they invest in technologies and will Typically this tends to be the company that the companies that like the large technology giants want to buy from. But there's always that possibility of an upstart coming in and the incombents will need to be, you know, on their toes and make sure they're investing in what they need to be for their technology to continue to stay relevant.
It is going to be really interesting to watch how this all unfolds, and and the idea that there's room for both AI and the more traditional legacy manufacturers is comforting. Thank you Brookes so much for joining us. Thank you you're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. Dick Ravitch passed away last week at the age of eighty nine.
He is seen as the last of the liberal fiscal conservatives, a former Lieutenant governor of New York known for being the guy behind the scenes to build bridges to solve problems, and was influential on a national level as well. We learn more now from Alison Shreiger ay Bloomberg Opinion colonist, you say in your column on the Bloomberg terminal that his passing is the end of an era.
How so, Yeah, Well, I mean it used to be that maybe people were a little bit more to the center and on both sides and really believe that fiscal responsibility was a big part of good governance and that even if you wanted more progressive policies, you also needed sustainable ways to pay for them.
So he was a liberal but still didn't necessarily see tax the rich as the answer to fixing the debt.
Well, he definitely, i think, supported more progressive taxes, but he didn't think that was the all end all. And also, I mean it's worth noting that most of his work was on the state municipal level, and he definitely saw that if you tax the rich to high heaven, then eventually they might leave the state. So, you know, while there's definitely room for progressive taxes, I think he was wary the idea that this could solve all of our problems.
What was his legacy in New York? You describe him as being somebody who could work behind the scenes to help bridge those opposing sides.
Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, unless you were sort of really like in the know of these things. You didn't realize just quite how influential he was. I know, because we became friends in his last years because I'm incredibly passionate about public sector pension reform and he was too, because he saw this as another sort of unsustainable benefit.
But the thing is you have to understand is he understood how important those pensions were to people, like I think people confuse and this is why I think is unusual about him, and it is sort of a big loss. Is to be concerned about how things are financed doesn't mean you don't think they should exist. It just means that they need to have a sustainable way of being
financed so people can genuinely count on them. Because he was behind the scenes not only in New York state politics, but certainly in the Detroit bankruptcy, in the Puerto Rico bankruptcy, and he saw that when pensioners have their benefits cut, how financially devastating it is to them, and sort of fiscal proflicacy really puts you in that vulnerable position where that things can happen.
What were his concerns about the stimulus and the money that was blowing actually to people during the pandemic.
Well, I think he was very concerned that, you know, well states got all this sort of financial largest they also were spending more and eventually that money goes away, and then this could set them up to be very even more vulnerable in the future. I mean, we went into the pandemic, a lot of states and municipalities were in a very vulnerable position. They became flush with cash,
and you know, they weren't necessarily not all. I mean it's hard to make There's a lot of states and cities, and some are better than others, but some sort of use that opportunity to spend more rather than sort of create more rainy day fi and be responsible. So now we might be coming out of that with them even being even more vulnerable.
Did he have much of a nation wide influence In your column, you mentioned that he did have some influence nationally.
Yeah, for sure. I mean in the time I met him, he would put together all these meetings and you would meet people from all over the country who are passionate about state municipal finances. And as he said, he was very involved in Puerto Rico and Detroit, and you know, talking to people in California about states and cities there that were having problems. So I mean, really he was the go to guy for state municipal finances all over the country.
Is there anyone out there who shares this philosophy or who can follow in his footsteps?
I honestly, I mean I certainly met a lot of people through him, but certainly not who have the charisma. I mean, everything as well, is so politicized now. The fact that he was just a true and true progressive and a Democrat but also really passionate about fiscal responsibility meant he really could build bridges because Republicans somewhat concerned about that too, although less so you know, people could
really come together about these shared concerns. And now, I mean, it all seems like everything gets politicized on both sides, and it's hard to find people. As it said, it gets confused. If you get concerned about pensions or finance, people sort of just lump you and assuming that you don't want pensions at all. He had the credibility for both sides, and I honestly can't think of anyone who does today.
Bloomberg opinion columnist Alison Schraeger covers economics for Bloomberg and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We are produced by Eric mollow and you can find all of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal. We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us today's top stories and global business headlines just ahead. I'm Amy Morris, and this is Bloomberg.