Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amrie Hordern. Join us each day for insight from the best in markets, economics, and geopolitics from our global headquarters in New York City. We are live on Bloomberg Television weekday mornings from six to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen, and as always on the Bloomberg
Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. Krishna Gouer of Evercore writing, we think any effort to remove Pale would lead to a surge in stagflation, trades, further curve steepning dollar sharply lower, and a much larger increase in the risk premium on us set. So please to say that Krishner is bank with us on a program for more Christian Welcome back to the program, sir, and good morning. You wrote about
it going into the weekend last week. You said that if you love the trade of the back of the trade tobacco, then you'll love the fed independence trade the loss of fed independence. Can you talk to us about that, Krishna, did we get a flavor for it in yesterday's session?
So I think we did get a little foretaste yesterday of what kind of a train wreck it would be in markets if the presidents ever decided to actually try to fire FED chair Pal. Now, to be very clear,
I continue to think that it is not likely. It's not fifty percent or higher probability that Trump will actually try to terminate Pal, but it's clearly a non trivial risk, a serious risk, and when it's put before markets, you get the verdict that you got yesterday, yield higher dollar, lower stocks, lower, fundamentally reduced attractiveness of US assets across the board. That is I think a cautionary message, and
I hope pits being heard in the right places. Remember that up to this point, what we've seen in markets is a clear sign of erosion of confidence in US administration economic policy making. But we have not seen a loss of confidence in the FED. We can prove that because up to this point the inflation break evens have stayed very well behaved. The market is not priced in stagflation trades. But if you ever got to the point where FED independence was actually being broken or an attempt
to break it in real time. I think what you'd see is a shift towards stagflation trades, as well as a broader intensification of across the board market weakness and US assets.
So, Christian, let's talk about what we've seen so far. We have seen and rebalancing away from dollar denominated assets. We've seen that over the last several weeks. How much toothpaste do you think is out of the tube? How much damage is done? Parable?
Is that damage?
Well?
I think right now we're in an intermediate spot between business as usual ups and downs in markets and the kind of fundamental tectonic regime shift that one of your earlier guests was quoted discussing just before this segment began. What we've been seeing in the last few weeks is absolutely not business as usual. We've seen substantial upward pressure on real yields and the real term premium that investors demands a hold US government debt despite a deteriorating economic outlook.
We've also seen the dollar go down on days when the yields have been going up. That's the sort of thing that you normally see in emerging markets and is a sign that capital is being reallocated out of the US at the margin. But I think it's still premature to talk about a fundamental regime shift. We're not there yet. You know, the dollar was overvalued coming in on many measures,
so some dollar retracement is not perhaps extraordinary. The world was over allocated to the US, So again, reallocation out of the US at the margin not in itself the sign that the old regime is breaking. But there are
lots of warning signs here. And of course the subtlety here is that if there is even a significant risk that we could be looking at an economic regime change, and that is going to affect asset prices today well in advance of whether when we discover whether the regime is actually shifting or not.
Okay, so christ, let's game out what it would look like if, to use your phrase, we did see a real Liz Trust type moment in the United States, with a real loss of confidence both in fin independence as well as policy certainty going forward in the United States. What would that look like in terms of asset prices going forward?
Well, so, what I wanted to sort of point to here is to begin with that the starting position is very different. Right, The US is not the UK. The US is the core holding in every global investors portfolios, the core holding in every official sector portfolio, the dollar dominant currency. So it takes a lot more to generate the type of liz Trust dynamics in the US than it did in the UK. And we're definitely not there yet.
But what would that pathway look like. That pathway would essentially involve morphing from a tariff crisis to a fiscal crisis, and the mechanism by which that would happen is a global buyers strike in the treasury market at the time when the deficit blew out on an economic downturn, lack of serious physical consolidation in tax legislation, and potentially even some doubling down on unfunded tax cuts down the lines try to pull the US out of that recession. To
be really clear, that's not my forecast. It's not even my main risk case. My main risk case is a garden variety recession. But it is more than a tail risk at this point already, And if the FED chair were to be fired, I think the risk of that morphing from a tariff crisis to a fiscal crisis would move up a lot.
You keep saying we're not in a fundamental regime shift. Yet we're not at this Liz Trust moment yet. So the catalyst for you might be something on the fiscal front. Well, what happens when the tax negotiations become the new main driver and the president is pushing for more than just TCJA.
So I think the area that we all need to be focused on and thinking about is the interaction between the trade policy, the tariffs more broadly pulling back from international economic insecurity engagement on the part of the US, and the fiscal front, where the US is already running a large structural deficit, and as you point out, you know, this tax legislation moving through that looks at this stage unlikely to tackle serious fiscal consolidation, with pressures to add
more tax cuts, you know, to what is already in the hopper. So as every you know, as every economist NERD will tell you, a trade deficit is simply a capital surplus. And so when you start to to, you know, to pull away from international economic engagement on the trade side, it almost inevitably is going to have consequences on the capital account side as well. And that's where we've got to be careful because a good part of that capital is funding the US deficit.
Christna looking forward to continuing the conversation with you, sir. Brilliant as always, Krista go with that of Emma Coore. Robert Starkna City marking down growth expectations, writing quote, we see global growth falling from just down to three percent last year to two point one percent in twenty twenty five, as our forecasts have been marked down for a broad group of economies, including the United States. Rob Joint just now for more rop good morning, good morning, two point
one percent. That's global recession territory, isn't it.
It's starting to get into that territory.
It would be a distinctly weak year, much weaker than we saw over the last few years when we grew just a bit below global trend, but still probably would skirt that definition of global recession. But that being said, I think the risk to the forecasts are skewed strongly to the downside, especially because within that forecast we still have China growing at a decent rate despite this trade war going on between the US and China, and we don't have a US recession.
In the forecast, we have low growth but no recession.
If those two downside risk materialize, you can easily get into global recession.
Just sit on China for a bait. What's driving that growth?
Well, it's interesting if you go back not too long ago, we were actually marking up growth in China. We were marketingmp growth in Europe. These narratives were getting more positive in China. We were starting to see signs that private sector demand was picking up. You had the positive AI story that was developing in the investments around that. But this trade war is kind of reversed that narrative and the.
Headwinds are going to be substantial.
We do see the government coming out with more stimulus to try and offset some of that, which is why that forecast is not even lower on the year. But you know, it's going to be a big challenge of this trade war pers that persists.
How much can.
There be a huge divergence between the rest of the world and the United States or the rest of the world actually takes off and it starts expanding at a faster rate, Especially based in the fact that rates can keep going lower, you might get disinflationary forces in certain places, and you have the potential for stimulus at the same time that money is flowing into their economies and away
from the United States. And it's a pretty potentially rosy scenario for outside of the United States to diverge.
Yeah.
Absolutely, And if you look at the contours of our forecast, you get a lot of softness in the US, you get softness elsewhere. And it depends on how these tariff negotiations and tariff uncertainty evolves. But other parts of the world hold up relatively well outside of China. Most of the EMS, we've been marking some of them down slowly, but most of them still have pretty solid growth forecasts.
But I do think that the policy uncertainty and the tariffs that are emitting from the US is going to weigh on a lot of economies.
I mean, for Europe it's a good example.
We had one percent growth over the next four quarters prior to these tariff stresses. Now we have close to zero growth or just above that. So I think for the rest of the world, it's going to be hard to grow or at a solid rate, given that these tariffs are still looming large and trade uncertainty is still looming large.
How much would you have to see to get more constructive on the global outlook where suddenly a week or dollar actually helps support US companies. You end up with a little bit more in terms of certainty with.
Trade deals, and suddenly all of this sort.
Of negativity versus course the hard data has been solid and things are looking a little bit more like they were maybe three months ago.
Yeah.
Absolutely, And I think we're in that ninety day pause, and if we start to get trade deals materializing over that period and there starts to be signs that the administration is backing off of its tougher stance on tariffs, not backing off entirely. We do think those trade deals are going to have probably a ten percent minimum tariff,
those sectoral tarifs will stay in place. But if you start to see us moving away from that very high level of uncertainty where we don't know what the tariff's going to look like in a week or two weeks, and you start to get those deals emerging, I think the global economy is still going to have a tough patch for the next few quarters, but I could see that forecast for the global economy that's at two point one moving up a bit if that uncertainty starts coming
off the boil. But right now, I think the risks again are still skewed to the downside, especially because more tariffs are probably likely to be announced in coming weeks and we don't know how these negotiates are going to go.
And these negotiations are for trading partners, not China, where America gets most of it's good good How long can you wait around and not have a trade deal with China?
Yeah, And I think that's the challenging situation, is that this trade war feels untenable from both sides. You're looking at tariffs on many goods that go across both borders of well over one hundred percent.
That trade is going to be uneconomical.
So if you keep those tariffs on, trading those categories is basically going to fall to zero over time. And we still get in a direct sense, that's not even including indirect trade throughout other countries, over thirteen percent of our imports from China, So it's a big headwind. I think we're probably going to see the temperature cool down there as well, but the longer that persists, the deeper the risks are. Especially one risk in that conversation is
what happens with global supply chains? Are we going to get shortages and stresses like we saw during the pandemic. Given that China is still deeply entwined in global supply chains, can.
China still grow if other countries put their walls up?
Well, that's going to be another tough conversation is if this trade war persists. Are other countries is going to put on tariffs on China to kind of gain favor with the US, and we're going to have the world kind of breaking up into spheres again. I hope we don't go down that route. But China, I think will be okay for you know, the near term because they have enough policy stimulus space, they have a lot of
connectivities with other economies. But if we're in a persistent deep trade war, it's going to wait significantly on their economy over the medium term.
From the perspective of price stability, the Europeans might have to if you say a chane of USCN y ufcm y has gone from seven forty to eight forty since the stand of February, they're going to have to eat a lot of Chinese exports isn't that the biggest threat to price stability on the continent right now?
It's a big challenge because these exports have to go somewhere, and again, thirteen percent of US imports, that's a lot of goods.
You know. Some of that we think is going to.
Be rerouted through other economies, as we were talking.
About that eventually go to the US.
But if the administration cracks down on that, that cuts off an important channel for those products, and a natural point for where those could.
Go is Europe.
But I think if that starts to happen, you again have a conversation, well, did the Europeans start to put on trade barriers of their own to kind of protect their own domestic industries.
So this could get even.
Messier quicker, really quick, which is saying a lot given how MESSI it's been over the last few weeks.
Just to sit on Europe, do you think they'll have to that economy at the moments that still speed. I know a lot of people are excited about a prospective fiscal stimulus, but we were already talking about zero percent growth on the continent. What's this going to do to them? Disinflationary price section at the time we have zero percent growth on the continent.
Yeah, exactly, and that's the real challenge. And I think in the near term they have other challenges to face as well, primarily also negotiating with the US, and I think that puts them in a very difficult spot, which is another that I think other countries are going to be putting pressure on the US and on China to kind of come to the table and make some sort of deal, because as you said, this is going to be another challenge for Europe that is going to be
difficult to handle. Actually in an environment where again, if you go back a few months ago, you were finally starting to get a positive narrative emerge out of Europe for the first time in several years. Unfortunately that's largely gone away with the current trade stresses. That could come back if these trade sesses move away, but I think again, at a minimum, they're going to be facing challenges from both sides.
From the USA and huge changes in the past few months. For rob it's going to say thank you, sir, Robert Suckerman of City Alex no Rastat at the Kaido Institute, Alex, welcome to the program. This is what you had to say on the fat if they were controlled by the president, rights would fold in flesh and with spiral growth wood Snack Knight a disaster. Ultimately, that seems unlikely, but we should all be vigilant to that possibility. Alex, Why do you think it remains somewhat unlikely?
Remains someone unlikely because the law is fairly clear on this. The ability of the president to remove and replace the share of the Federal Reserve at whim seems to be outside of his power. This hasn't been tested, of course, in the last one hundred and twelve years of the Federal Reserve system existing, but it seems fairly robust. So you know, this president surprises us all the time, right, But I think the law is probably on our side here.
So when it comes to ousting J. Powell, though, do you think the President is doing this to actually have a scapegoat if his tariff negotiations don't go as planned.
I think there's no downside for President Trump politically for challenging Chairman Powell.
If he doesn't get what.
He wants, he doesn't get a new FED chair, then he can always blame it on him.
If he does get what he wants.
Then he has control over the Central Bank of the United States, which can help help him politically, So there's really no downside. Of course, the major downside is on the US economy.
If he succeeds, if he succeeds.
In getting power with the Central Bank, ending central bank independence in the United States, then you'll have those negative economic consequences that I talked about, higher inflation, lower growth,
more political and economic uncertainty. But if he doesn't get control of the FED, but he just threatens it, then there's a chance that either Powell or future Chairman of the Federal Reserve will listen more to the threats of politicians like they did in the nineteen seventies when we had stagflation, and then we'll have this poor economic outcomes going forward.
Alex where is Congress in all of this, both when it comes to tariff and trying to wrankle back some of the control on tariff policy, and also when it comes to FED policy.
J Powell does have a boss.
It's Congress.
So I have been asking where Congress is for basically my entire career on almost every issue. I mean, the long term trend for Congress is to pull back its power and a grant more and more power to the president. So Congress is like a dead institution.
It's not a dying institution.
They make noises sometimes they introduced legislation to try to.
Reign in the president.
There is recently resolution introduced by Senator Powell to reduce his the president's power to set tariff rates. There are numerous challenges in the courts saying that no Congress has its power, but ultimately it's very difficult to make Congress exercise its power if it simply doesn't want to. And what we are seeing right now is a Congress not taking up its powers and responsibilities to either reign in the president or to govern. And they are focusing importantly
on the tax cuts bill. They're focusing importantly on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extending that, but outside of that, they are not considering major pieces of legislation or getting a wrangle or reigns on this president.
Will that change?
Will they become more vocal as we head into the midterm elections?
That's probably they probably will.
Now for Republicans who control, you know, the House, of course, be more vocal is dangerous because the head of their party of course is President Trump, and he is in charge, and sort of the cause of a lot of this economic uncertainty is his arbitrary wielding of power, so they face a dangerous.
They'll trade off there.
But modern Republicans, I think will definitely start to step up and try to distance themselves from the President if the economy gets worse and it looks like a terrible midterm election for them.
Democrats, of course, will always be.
Out there criticizing President Trump no matter how good things are or how bad things are, but they will probably be louder if things get worse. But they might be louder in the sense of if the Republicans saying, well, you know, this means that President Trump means more power. So that doesn't necessarily bode well if they start to be louder.
What a moment, Alex, Thank you, sir Alex Narrista of the Cato Institute. He has to take from the full of the your Fed, President buil Dumpley right in this Trump's pressure on the FED is counterproductive. Not only does it increase the motivation for the FED to weight, but it also makes households and businesses more concerned about the inflation consequences should the Fed's independence come to an end. Build joined just now for more, but welcome to the program.
So in good morning, I want to pick up on the first part of that second line. Not only does it increase the motivation for the FED to wait? Can you build on that a bit bill motivate to wait? Where does that motivation come from?
Well, Fed's credibility is really important.
And if the fedest scene is sort of caving to political pressure, that impairs the Fed's credibility. And if the FED credibility is impaired, that's going to lead to higher inflation expectations. So this is why the Trump pressure on the FED is counter productive. It's basically putting markets on edge. And we can basically see that just in the last twenty four hours, goal prices up dollar a weeker bodials up at the time that people are expecting rate cuts.
I mean, the market still expects the FED to cut interest rates this year by seventy five to one hundred basis points.
So we see the market responses. They don't like the fact that there's this uncertainty about the Fed's independence. This is so from Presidents Trump's perspective, this is really counterproductive.
Well, just to build on that, another way of saying that would be that when the independence of the FED is threatened, the threshold to move is higher, they dig in. Is that a fair way of putting good.
I don't think it's so much that they dig in to be stubborn.
I think the fact is, though, that if the Fed's independence's under threat, if they move, then people wonder what's the motivation. Is the FED moving because it's the right thing to do, or is the FED moving because they're under pressure? And the extent that people think that the Fed's moving because they're under pressure, that undermines the credibility of the FED, and so the FED has to take that on board in terms of their thinking.
So basically, what you're saying is they cannot move for a while now given Trump's higher because it'll look like they would be placating this White House.
Well, it depends on the economic news.
Obviously, if the unemployerent rate goes up significantly, then the Fed's going to cut rates because there's not be any question about whether it was a response to the President's Trump's pressure.
But if there is a question.
About why the FED is moving, then the FED has to take that on board in terms of their decision making.
What do you expect the FED to do this year? Do you think they'll are going to have a bias towards which part of their mandate inflation or growth concerns in the labor market.
Well, I think in the short term they're going to have to be patient because obviously there's a lot of concern about where we're going to actually land on trade policies and tariffs number two, the terrorist to the extent that they do go up significantly, which seems likely, is going to flow into the prices and we're so we're going to see some higher inflation data, and I think the Fed's worried about the fact that missing the inflation mandate for the fifth year in a row could cause
inflation expectations become unanchored, and if that were to happen, that'd be terrible. You know, one reason why things worked out so well over the last few years is that inflation expectations did stay well anchored, so the FED didn't have to push the unemployment rate up to get inflation back down relatively close to their target. Inflation expectations become
un anchored, the job becomes much more difficult. So the FED has to be very careful not to act too prematurely, because if inflation expectations go up, their job becomes much more difficult. They was.
Six years ago. You wrote a piece for Bloomberg Opinion. I'm sure you remember it well because it was controversial at the time. You said the Federal Reserve shouldn't enable President Donald Trump, that the Central Bank should refuse to play along with an economic disaster in the making. Does that apply this time around?
Well, if it shouldn't take politics into consideration in terms of their monetary policy decisions, they should do what they think is appropriate to achieve their dual mandate of a stable employment, full employment and price stability. And I think that's what they're going to do this time. I mean, I don't think the Fed's political all and I think that's completely appropriate.
But the FED has.
To be aware of the confidence that people have in the FED and the Fed's ability to be independent, and to the extent that confidences eroded, that weighs on the effectiveness of monetary policy.
Bill, just to bring that up again, do not stand by that piece anymore. But you work back way back into my night saying I.
Stand by it in the sense that the FED has to do what they think is appropriate to achieve their dual mandate objectives, and if the administration is doing things that are kind of productive to that, then the FED needs to take that on board. But the FED shouldn't be acting in a political manner. The FED needs to be completely independent of politics, and I think they are.
Do you think the FED is completely independent independent of politics? Given the fact that the FED chair has been outspoken about the.
Tariff regime, I think the FED chairman just talking what everyone can see. I mean, higher terrorists are bad for prices. They're going to drive up the inflation in the short term. To not say that would not be credible from the Fed's perspective.
Bill, I appreciate your time, sir, as always pot down to be that a former New York FED president and of course a columnists for Bloomberg Opinion. This is the Bloomberg Sevenans podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, antiopolitics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday mornings from s six am to nine am Eastern. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and, as always on the Bloomberg Terminal and the Bloomberg Business app. Mm hm