Should the Fed Cut Rates... and Should You Cut Meat?

shaking the integrity of India investment. We also hear from the University of Georgia Stephen mim about the curious history of meat alternatives. First though, to Chief Rates Correspondent now

Garfield Renalds and the markets topsy turvy week. Here's fed Jerry J. Powell at the Economic Tub of Washington, d C. The message we were sending at the fon C meeting last Wednesday was really that the disinflationary process, the process of getting inflation down, has begun, and it's begun in the goods sector, which is about a order of our economy. But it has a long way to go. These are

the very early stages of disinflation. So the services sector really except for housing services, pardon me, is not really showing any any disinflation. So Garfield Powell had another opportunity this week to speak to the markets, and it felt like he didn't take any opportunity to correct the market or maybe deflect the market. He just said exactly what he has been saying. He's not making any effort anymore.

Is he to talk down the market? Well, I think he is very conscious of the idea that he's got a very narrow path forward towards the situation where he gets inflation there without crashing the economy, and so he doesn't want to skip people too much as the way it comes across, and he's sort of willing to, as it were, talked, pass markets and just stick with this is what I see we need to do. How many times can he say he's determined to bring inflation down

and then he doesn't want to repeat the mistakes. He said that that's part of the furniture, and he's also I mean, the method this week has been to let the other fair officials be the ones who really seeing the Hawkish chorus. It's amazing, and his deputies do all of that work these days, and not him so much. Well, I mean it's that we get part of FED speak, and that also the market is paying a lot of attention to it. The other fact that here is that you are have to all effort and see that is

a committee. There is a range of views, and so quite possibly how themselves is somewhat less purekfish, somewhat more optimistic about potential to get a soft landing, you know, than some of his colleagues who are for whatever particular reasons where it comes to background, whether it comes to their particular reason that they're looking at their far more concerned about just making absolutely sure that inflation is brought in the check. They're far more willing to take the

punch bowl away. Well, as we speak to and your yield at three sixty five and change the two years at four or forty eight. So we have repriced a certain amount, but there's no wholesale repricing going on. Still, Why is that? Do you think? While there's a couple of issues going on, a mere one is as were mentioned, pow E's aiming very determinedly for a soft landing, and so a soft landing is seen as allowing for interstrections not yet too high, to come down soon around than

later if they need to. But the other issue is there's such an enormous advertise US treasuries. Now some of that demand has come from tensions who define benefit. Tensions in the US have got about a trillion dollars to play with the circlus and so that they don't need to do anything other than just an income on it, so they're happy to buy treasuries. We saw a very very strong the amount of the ten year options this week. There is that undercurrent of demand for treasuries at these

yields for long term buyers. At the same time, that's very short and we have people betting on the potential that defend takes the interest rate to six percent, and certainly the terminal rate pricing the general consensus that moved up as well. So you're seeing a market that is saying we're going to hedge against the potential of defend goes harder. In the longer term. We're confident that a three and a half percent to four percent yield on a ten year treasury is too good to miss out.

You don't see that over the long term yields are going to move significantly higher and stay significantly higher for any long stretch of time. Yeah, I mean it's phenomenal. It's very hard to believe that that will actually happen when you see what the market is doing these days, but I guess it has to happen at some point now you mentioned it there, there has been lots of chatter and lots of options market movement pricing it will

be great of six percent or even hired. Should we be seeing these types of tail risks priced in elsewhere though, Well, I mean definitely, because the concern has to be if you look a little bit further away from just the Treasury from itself, what impact if the Fed goes to five and a half or six percent or beyond on the wider world outside treasuries? What happens to tech stocks that have been very, very strong and a particular evaluations

to earning spaces. What happens to the credit complex where corporate spreads have come in markedly and have continued to march in even as what's really gone on with government yields is they've sort of stabilized in their current range. So if the FED goes to five point two five, five point five, five point seven five in the longer term, somebody who bought a ten year yield at this level might well decide that they're going to be okay. They just need to write out the short term pain. But

those other markets, they don't have that luxury. And I haven't even mentioned what would go on with junk bonds. Yeah, it's phenomenal when you think about it. I mean, what should be happening now in order to prepare for a world that's like that? Or do all of these other markets assume one of two options that everything is smooth and fine and hunky dorry and this plenty of demand for all of the products made by these tech companies,

or there's going to be a massive recession. Yeah, yeah, and the and the I mean the question of the massive recession too is mostly down to what goes on with inflation and what goes on with the FED fight against the inflation. And if inflation continues to come down smoothly and at a barely rapid pace, then even if you don't get the FED rate cuts later on in the year that people are looking for, I think you'll

get a soft landing for the economy. You might get some pain for those people who bought ten year bonds at three and a half per cent, but that won't really hurt the wider world. The big risk is if you get inflation staying elevated, or if you get something in the way that inflation is coming down that still concerns the FED. The FED goes higher than people are expecting it and stays there the longer, that could cause

that recession that we're talking about. So the other part of this, and the FED chair mentioned it has mentioned a few times now, is this is inflation, and that's the stickier side of things, and it also accounts for, you know, more of the bokers than goods inflation. It's not coming down. How on earth could we possibly get

a rate cut by the end of the year. Game out the scenario where we do go one, Well, that's always been one of the conundrums because if you do get a you know, equities have been rallying on the idea that the Fed is soon started done with rates best we can tell. There are some other issues as well,

but that's certainly been paral the narrative. There will soon be done hiking, and it will be ready to cut at the first sign of trouble, the way that pal did before the pandemic teen when they raised rates and said that they were determined to keep raising them, but then once the economy wobbled while, they cut them again. So there's an expectation that would do that again. The difficulty is inflation is still way too high for the

Fair to countenance rate cuts. So if you're going to get rate cuts later this year, even from where we are now, if the Fair stop where it is now and then ends up cutting rates by the end of this year, that has to be a recession in order for them to do that, because the inflation rate is just too high. Yeah, I mean, Stephen Major has always had this idea of why would have fed overhike in

order to have to cut again. Why wouldn't it just hiken off and stay there for a while and then cut eventually sometime maybe, So, I'm not sure why that isn't more popular of a view. Well, I think the point there is a central banks do tend to overreact. They definitely overreacted to the pandemic, and also two previous episodes of recessions, so they take rate lower and do more than than might actually have been wise, and then you end up overcharging the economy as it comes back

up out of recession. And now there's the concern that they will overdo it in that way. In the opposite way, they will keep rates too high for too long because of their worries about inflation. Garfield, Where in the market are you looking for signs or clues or some kind of thinking as to what direction sentiment might be taking. I think the credit space is very much an area that is interest there. You know, that's a little bit slower twitch, so to speak, than than the equities market,

which can flip up and down far more readily. So what's going on there? If you do start to see signs that spreads widening back out, I think that would be a very concerning sign that would becoming an If spreads there can stay where they are again, that would also be potentially welcome. I also think that, you know, a major concern would be if we've got a sudden re steepening of the yield, we've got an inverted yield.

It's just lasted longer this current inversion than the two thousand era inversion, so the seven era inversion which presage the global financial crisis. So and it's very unusual to have an inversion this long doubt that would be a recession at the end. But the key concern usually is precisely when a yield curve re steep and rapidly to get back to zero. That's when you're about to get a recession, not when you know that one is coming,

but when it's actually here. So if we see it rapid repricing where ten year yields come up fast and two year yields don't, or two year yields come down and ten year yields don't, so we get at resteepening back towards zero, that's when you might actually get some brief rallies in equities and credits on hopes that we're getting an end of the fair hiking cycle. But that's actually usually when the recession is just going to hit. So that would be a very dangerous time and date.

Bloomberg Chief Rates correspondent to Garfield Reynolds. Next, Shulie Ran on the latest in India's Adanni crisis. This is Bloomberg opinion. You're listening to Bloomberg opinion. I'm Vonnie Quinn. Now to go to Madonni, one of India's biggest industrial time icons.

Since short seller Hindenburg Research published its report alleging market manipulation and fraud on the part of Adani Enterprises, market repercussions have been picking up speed with the flurry of support of activity from India's billionaires, less support of activity from bondholders, credit rating agencies and index providers, not much

of any support at all from India's government. In fact, parliament was suspended for five days after pandemonium broke out, the opposition wanting to debate the crisis, the legislature wanting not to. I got up with Bloomberg opinions. Shulely Wren on what comes next and what a Donni can do to stave off a wholesale crisis. So, Shuly, let's get the update on Adanni. We know that things deteriorated for several sessions. Are things stabilizing now a little bit? Especially

a Dani dollar abound. A Dannie group has just slightly shy of a billion dollar abound outstanding, And starting from late last week, what we saw was that credit hatch funds and distressed. The special situations funds were scooping in to buy on it. Now, why is ADONNI and the various bonds that they can buy associated with various companies attractive or distressed investors are not you know, regular dead

or equity investors. Well, they are so called them special situations funds in that they see those big corporate events and they try to progress on that. Well, a lot of credit hedge funds saw was that ADONNEI Group does have good assets, especially Adonne reports, and they feel that, you know, even if there are juderos at the headquarters at the holding company with this kind of subsidiaries, they are backed by good assets. That's why those quite offense

as buying. Also at this point these bums are yielding at the over ten percent. What kind of a signal does this send in terms of confidence? I think it's more a shift of hands in the investor base. I mean, before the whole Kingdomberg show so report, ADONNEI bonds and most of them will actually believe were not investment grade and they were. They were only offering like three to

five percent coupon rates. And with the short seller report out, all the allegations of corporate governors inside the trading a lot of bleach long ovatements were selling and instead those high ye more speculative, more with taking hatchments are coming. So I think it's a change in investor base for Adani at this point. Can we read anything about whether it means that there is more confidence in Adani's survival

or his thriving, let's say, or less confidence. I think rather than speaking of a confidence, it's it's more the kind of part of following that capital markets now demanding for Adani before because of it, it's green energy ambition, et cetera, and it's pushed to help India fast track into the next generation South Korea. Global friends were willing to lend money to Adani a very very cheap rate, and these days no longer they are treated more like

a high risk bat. Now oak Tree, Davidson, Kempernor or some names we know well have been buying up some debt. Explained to us why they're comfortable buying up a Dannie dead. They're very experienced. I mean, Auktree has been in both

fums have been in China. Everground groups and their China's other conglomerates such as unit groups before right, So they are compared to Blee Chips, Long Only, Credit, fung Way more experienced with the emerging markets conglomerates and their cross shareholdings and also served Shenanigans, so they feel very comfortable going to this. Do they tend to stay for the long hole? Or what happened when it came to China Everground Group. They can be in for the quite a

long hole, and they are quite tenacious. I mean Auctree famously gave a loan to China Everground Group and then when the developer he folded on that loan. They basically sees a big plot of land in in Hong Kong last year and they sold it and they're the Cubodian loan plus interest. So they can be quite a nation, hard nosed and demanding. Now you actually write that Adoni needs to take a leaf out of soft Bank and

Folsons playbooks, explain what you mean by that? Actually, so right now, I think there's a lot of market uncertainty around the Adonny's ability to tap on to the different financing channels. Like Adoni, it's just like Vision and soft Bank because they have very diversified funding channels with Adoni over came from global banks and another seven eight percent

coming from the dollar bond market. And I think what they need to do is trying to sell some assets, because they should change the narrative from a liquidit tea quench to credit analysts saying wait a minute, Adoni has very good assets, and they do. They have a lot of top tier ports in their for instance, right, So if they can show that their assets worth quite a lot of money in the marketplace, the credit analysts narratives

couldn't change. And another thing they could do, and that's being done with a lot of Asia's biggest conglomerates, is that they try to buy back some bonds, just like what people do with stox, right, just to boost the market confidence because once you buy by some bounds, the bond market will be open and there's a lot of money in that. Now a Dannie husband preparing some payments, right, what is he doing there? How is that working? So it is a sign that global banks are having cod feet.

I mean the so called pre payments really was basing margin courts from global banks like City Group, Torture Bank, JP Morgan, and they've been a little bit never So that's a big problem for Adonney because over fifteen cent of their total financing came from global banks. Local banks also financed. Obviously, you suggest that perhaps Adanni can convince local banks to lend more, maybe take the place of

some of those foreign banks. Well, that has to be the case if they want to continue growing at that page. I mean with their China's distress comoberates case, domest banks have coming like in the case of Fusion, for it's a huge private equity operator. And we'll have and was when the dollar bound sending channels were being closed, uh, domestic banks, they were giving out the syndicated loans to Fusion and that's that's what happened in their China space.

So what we want to see is if India's stair own banks are willing to step in place of global back, does a journey end up smaller after this? No matter what? Now, Oh, I think it has to. And I apologize for using this kind of extreme example. It's kind of like we work right, Um, it's kind of like fake it till you make it. And what happens is that assume as the Adanne and then they have said that Adanney Ports were instance, they're going to have their capital expenditure spending.

So as soon as you scale backing ambition, that also means that your stock valuation will not be as high as before, because before investors were buying into a groowth options, they were buying into a core option. And now people see that the court doesn't have much back so Downey stocks will be just treated like any normal port operator or you know, energy operator. We did see some credit ratings downgrades, but not on everything truly. Will there be

more coming? I think, I mean so far, like there is not much right, but they're quite rating agencies. They are very very careful and they must be watching this very carefully because there is reputation risk ethpeic for them as well, especially if Adoni Bounds are trading at the fifty cents on the dollar, and if you say, oh, you know, you're investment grades, that's not a good look for the ratings agencies. And I think Adanie has to be very very careful to keep its investment grade rating.

I mean when Adani reports, for instance, they said they're going to lower the leverage ratios, which ratings agencies like movies and essidently look at all of that doesn't actually address some of the other concerns, and the Hindenburger reports such as these entities based in Mauritius, for example, will any of that get addressed? On the some manipulations that it's very hard to prove definitively if Adani insiders are manif relating the stocks. I mean that Hindenberg, we caught

a lot of it constential right. For instance, if you have a two billion dollar so called India Opportunity rese funds and billion is invested in a few Adonny stocks, it is a little bit sketchy. I mean, are you saying that India has no other opportunities other than the few Adonne stocks. Having said that, how do you prove definitively that that money actually came from the Adamy time. I think it's going to be very hard to prove. Bloomberg Opinions Shuli Ren Stay tuned next on Bloomberg opinion.

It's one thing if you get to have access to protein and me and your alternative is no protein like the seventeen hundreds, and in that case, the Americans are better off. At this point, you'd be hard pressed argued consuming two hundred and sixty four pounds of meat per person per year is inherently a healthy thing. It's especially given the alternatives. The University of Georgia history professor and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Stephen men this is Bloomberg Opinion. You're

listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Vonnie Quinn. Alternative meats are now firmly out of fashion. Beyond meat is down seventy four percent year over year, even having had a thirty rally so far this year. Kellogg just announced it's pulling its plan to look at selling its plant based division, which includes the meat substitute incog Meato, and that thanks

to plummeting valuations. It turns out this happens once in a while, going all the way back to the colonial era, I spoke with the University of Georgia history professor and Bloomberg Opinion columnist Stephen mim So. Stephen, in the colonial era, according to your research, Americans ate what an average of two hundred pounds of meat a year, and now we're at two hundred sixty four pounds of meat a year

on average, which is quite surprising. But in the interim there has been a lot of variation, So just explained to us why on Earth, going back to the colonial era, Americans had that kind of meat and were able to eat as much as two hundred pounds of meat a year on average, right, well, at least after they got through the initial starvation your hit. Yes, it took a

little while, but absolutely so. The colonial era is pretty unusual, and that Americans living in these rural places on farms were astonishingly well fed relative to basically almost all the rest of the world, so that whenever Europeans would come, they were struck by the fact that they were eating meat three times a day, you know, by contrast at the time it's like two or three times a week

in Europe. At this point it was because they were living on farms and they were able to raise animals, But wouldn't that have been the case in Europe too. It was, But the one thing about the colonists is that the kind of fertility of the land and the productivity of it relative to Europe, which had been farmed for millennia, was much higher, and there was a lot more space to have grazing animals, so you could have a much easier time of it. Raising livestock, it turns

out eating livestock. So Americans were really kind of noteworthy and that very well fit I mean unusually so well. At some point, though, eating meat became associated with negative connotations.

What happened, Even though initially the vegetarian movement about two d years ago was pretty fringe e as we would say today, there were people who concluded and Sylvester Graham, the inventor of what is now called the Graham Cracker, was among these dietary kind of thinkers who came to the conclusion that eating meat was bad in part because they believed that it excited your passions and made you basically engage in illicit sexual behavior like an animal um.

That was the jumping logic. They also pointed out by the way that the Garden of Eden there's no mention of Adam and E eating any meat, so that they started for the rib. No, that is true. I guess you didn't eat it. He just gave it to her. There was Yeah, I didn't eat it, just God used it. So that's right now. Was this purely ideological or did this Mr Graham also have sort of a secondary reason for this. He was the inventor of the Graham crack

after Roules. He did. So he had this belief that there were all sorts of foods that were bad for you, and he was kind of right in certain ways. He was like, refined carbohydrates are bad for you. Turns out it's like he was like the Atkins diet. So he had these ideas that it was not only you know, would excite your passions, it was also bad for you

to cause also health problem. I suppose there are those who would say that today, and that's why we did have this explosion once again fairly recently, of all of these meat substitutes. That's right, And so this has been a long recurrent theme trying to swear off meat, which is like the American tradition of consuming way too much of it, arguably, and then flirting with these ideas about abstaining from it, and then somehow or another falling off the wagon and getting back on the meat train and

whatever you want to call it. Kellogg was even involved in this, that's right. So he's even more influential. So Sylvester Graham's successor in the vegetarian movement was James Harvey Kellogg, who is the man behind corn flakes was devised as a meat alternative for breakfast, but he's not worthy and he's kind of cool, and that he went way farther and that he wasn't just counseling being a vegetarian, he

was counseling eating baked meats. That he's really the one who pioneers these new products, ones called nutos, which is made of like nuts. Protos also had not send a lot of grains, and they claimed to be indistinguishable from actual meat, which of course they weren't. But that's the same claims that have been made about meat substitutes from that point forward. I wonder if you had Protos today, if it would taste very different to something like the

Impossible Burger or be On burger. Absolutely, I kind of wondered.

That it is a man, Adam Shrinson, I believe was his name, who's written this history of vegetarianism, and he actually tried to recreate Protos based on the recipe, and he said it was okay, you know, but in a way that these meat substitutes are often okay, especially if they're kind of soaked in other flavorings, you know, and like the thing and that's sort of why they go out of fashion, and perhaps why they've gone out of fashion at the moment, right because there is a lot

of extra additives. Absolutely, and there's a question here in some cases whether is this actually a healthy alter put aside the ethical dimensions of the question, is it actually a healthy alternative? And sating organic grasp at beef and injury is sort of out on that, you know, in terms of their contents. It turns out that in fact, vegetarianism is still a very small portion of the population,

much smaller than you would think, you know. Even more important, the needle really hasn't moved on it much over the last twenty years. It's still at the very most ten percent of the population. And that's not as much even as I would have expected. Tell us how the meat packing industry went about it, because they're not known for their solved diplomacy, let's put it that way. No, they're not.

And every industry has its trade groups, and in the United States of the twentieth century, that trade group was the am I or American Meat Institute. I've even pamphlets for it's like meat recipes you're right home about, you know, issued by the American like, not chicken, just meat. It's

just meat. Uh. And yes, So in various period of twentieth century, you'd have scientists say, look, we think we can make a meat substitute from yeast or soy or what have you, and the meat Institute would come out of the woodwork, and you know, brandness as quackery and also appealing obviously in the United States to Americans long

standing tradition of eating meat and lots of it. Stephen, what happened for the conclusion that meets somehow excited passions for that emination to go away well and continued actually well into the twentieth century. Man named Bernard mc fadden, who was arguably like the one of the nation's first kind of fitness and health gurus, also believe this. He also believed that ketchup would have the same effect. Um, so maybe it does. Does anyone just move this exactly?

That's a very good point. I think this has never been subjected to sign to studies, so you don't know. But for these guys, you know, fake meat was like a culinary equivalent of a cult shower. You know, it's

a way of blunting your excessive passion that did. They fade away into the post war era, and when vegetarian resumed its popularity in the nineties seventies, it was wrapped around actually an interesting kind of consequence, which was a fear of overpopulation in what that would need for the ability to planet to feed itself, with vegetarians and meat substitutes all being the only answer. But that too, sputtered

and died out didn't help. Soil and Green, dystopian thriller released in the nineties seventies, depicted a world people subsisting on meat substitutes and the end of the film and people should plug their ears if they want to see it because about to spoil the ending. It turns out was made from human beings, and so that probably put

people off fake meats for another generation. It does see, though, that this arc of meat popularity, let's call it, had nothing really to do with supply and demand or wars intervening, or immigration or immigration or anything like that. That it is really a product of you know, big companies, that's right, or these kind of ideological movements. Conversely, the times where you see people consume less meat is oftentimes imposed by hardship and it's not a choice. It's like great depression comes,

meat consumption declines. But that's understandable. It's like nothing surprising. It's not a wholehearted, bullforded embrace of vegetarianism. Yeah, and now Americans eat two sixty four pounds per person per year on average. That's an all time high. I mean, I'm not quite sure what to say about that. Does health go along with this? Is this a healthier America or a less healthy America because of that, you know, like meat consumption, putting aside the ethical considerations that many

people understand we have. It's one thing if you get to have access to protein and meat and your alternative is no protein, right, you know, that's kind of like the seventeen hundreds, and in that case, the Americans are better off. But at this point you'd be hard pressed to argue that consuming two hundred and sixty four pounds of meat per person per year is inherently a healthy thing.

It's especially given the alternatives meat substitutes than otherwise. And I mean this includes all sorts of meats, even meats that people eat from takeouts. Correct fish managed to avoid this whole sickly, Yes, And I think fish is harder to replicate. I gather both inconsistency and flavor, although you do see artificial crabstick, for example, but that itself is actually made from some fish products, so it's not a

purely synthetic creation. That's Boomerg opinion and the University of George's Stephen min Well, if you're not among the dry January clue out there, you've got to listen to this next interview. Justin Fox had a look at the data and found people are spending more on alcohol even post pandemic. So,

Justin you wrote a very consoling recent column. Not consoling in the sense that it told us that the pandemic drinking binge just kept on going after the pandemic was ostensibly over, but very consoling for those of us who've had a couple of drinks in the last week or two.

Tell us what are the data saying, Well, I wrote, I guess a year and a half or so ago about how much alcohol sales and seemingly consumption increased over the course of the pandemic, And I just sort of checked in again with the highest frequency data we can look at, which is just the consumer spending that the Bureau of Economic Analysis puts out they actually give you in some detail how much has spent on beer, wine, and liquor at stores, and then how much has spent

in general on drinks at bars and restaurants. And it's just kept going up, even in inflation adjusted terms. And a little bit of that is maybe people are buying fancier stuff, but I think it's mostly overall Americans are drinking more. How much do we know about the internals of those data in the sense that I feel like many of the large companies put out things like X zero or X double. Oh. I don't want to give any bond names here, but are some of these zero

alcohol drinks considered alcohol in this note? They don't. They don't show they shouldn't show up in any of this day. It is possible to spend a lot of money on non alcoholic liquor, and I now do that weirdly enough,

but that should just show up as a non alcoholic beverage. Right. Well, there's been an explosion of those kinds of products within the brands, right And there's been definitely this increase in demand for I forget the term that the distilled spirits council uses hyper super duper premium spirits and and there's a lot more growth in the high end sales than

in the low end sales. So in terms of the actual volume of at least with liquor being consumed, and probably with beer and wine too, it's not completely reflected by those increases in sales. Some of that is just people paying more money, not drinking more volume. But there there are lots of signs that there's more problematic drinking going on, the main one being a big increase in alcohol related deaths. What's going on with alcohol related deaths?

Alcohol consumption in the US peaked in the nineteen seventies and had been on this long decline, partly because of less beer consumption but also less liquor consumption. Wine consumption kept going up, but not radically. Sometime in the last couple of decades, spirits consumption started rising again. And it's

pretty you know, the whole cocktail boom. This's been this explosion in the number of small distilleries all over the US, and it's kind of cool in general, but it means that per capita alcohol consumption has been rising now for more than a decade. And then it seems to have just taken a leap a couple of months into the pandemic. I guess I had thought that would have fallen back,

but it hasn't. Really. Another interesting thing is this increased drinking is not young people, oh, for like the eighteen to twenty four set, I think they're probably drinking less, but it's middle aged and older are the ones drinking more well. And also the ization of wheat and having weed dispensaries. New York City just has it when I sort of pushed it aside for a certain generation. I think also in the survey data, it's mostly women who

are drinking more, with men maybe more. Flat interesting alcohol related deaths, do we know how they're happening? I mean, this is very grim and gruesome, but you know you're good at looking at Glosom data, right, I mean, I think the c d C has this database and you can just click alcohol induce deaths, but it's some mix of cirrhosis to deliver. And I mean what the CDC says is that that's actually only a portion of deaths

that are somehow related to alcohol. Those are ones where it's basically you can very directly lay it down to alcohol use. There are lots of others in terms of accidents violence that are probably alcohol related but don't show up Bloomberg Opinions. Justin Fox. That does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. Don't forget. We're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. And as always, do send us your thoughts. Email me at v quinn

at bloomberg dot net. We love to get your opinions and suggestions. Were produced by Eric Mollow. I'm Vonnie Quinn. H