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. I'm very pleased to say the chaff the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Stephen Mara and MS the Chairman, Welcome to the program. Sarah Warm, Welcome to Bloomberg Surveillance. I've got to ask you the number one question on the lips of a lot of people on Wall Street at the moment. Is this a negotiation or the new rules of the game? How would you frame things for people this morning?
Good morning, and thanks for having me. How I frame things is that it could be either. You know, I think the president is female for his negotiating skills. The president is renowned for pulling deals out of a hat when nobody thought it was even possible. I remind everyone that the Phase one China deal in twenty eighteen, sorry in twenty nineteen, was a fantastic deal for the United States.
That the President created.
It covered intellectual property, it covered market access, it covered purchases of agricultural commodities, it covered currenting manipulation, that covered all sorts of things.
And it was a fantastic deal.
And unfortunately the Biden administration walked away from it and refused to enforce it, and that was a.
Big loss for America.
So the president is famous for being able to create deals when nobody thinks he can. And so that's what it can turn into if other countries come and offer the right things that persuade the presidents.
Well, let's talk about the right thing.
So, as far as we know, Viennam came to the table and an offer to drop their taffs to zero. That was rejected. The EU offered to drop taffs on industrial goods. That's been rejected. What would be the right kind of offer? Are they aware of what the right kind of offer would be?
Right?
So I think that a narrow focus on terror, on teriff rates is insufficient because the truth is that the non tariff barriers pose enormous, enormous barriers to trade balancing. Over the long run, countries have to open their markets to US exports. And I don't know exactly what combination of what combination of details they have to make in an offer, but all I can say is that negotiating is better than not negotiating.
Even the difficulty at the moment, and you're aware of this, I'm sure is that they're unclear whether it's about barriers to entry or just the deficit, because they are two different things.
Which one is it?
Of course there are two different things, but they're they're you know, deeply related, and you know, inextricably related. If you reduce your barriers to entry, you open your market to US exports, of course, the trade deficit will responded to that.
I think that there's no question about that.
When you talked about yesterday, I know you gave a speech, you talked about this way of burden sharing and some other measures partners could take to potentially get to a deal, things like even writing checks to the treasury.
How exactly would that work? Well, I think there's a variety of ways that could work. You know.
For one thing, they could just, you know, sort of simply say, hey, you know, America is providing us with, you know, with a defense umbrella, which creates prosperity, which creates peace, which allows us to prosper economically. They could say, hey, America is creating global trading system, backed by backed by this defense umbrella, which which again allows us to trade, which creates our prosperity, and we're going to help share the We're gonna help share the cost of those things.
We're gonna, you know, we're gonna we're gonna send some money to the United States to help it provide those things.
I think that would be a fruitful outcome.
But of course, but again, of course, you know, it depends on what the President decides. The President will negotiate the deals that he thinks are best for America, best for Americans, and you know, I can't get ahead of him on those issues.
We also talked about how partners can invest in and install factories in America or trading partners. Could China do that?
Uh?
You know, I think I think they could, but you know, it remains to be seen whether they be willing to. I think China's policy has been to try and you know, sort of steal all the all the manufacturing market share for themselves, not only for the United States, but for many of our trading partners as well. And you know, it seems to me unlikely that China would be willing to make that concession upfront. However, you know I would welcome it.
So China said yesterday they will withdraw the Trump said yesterday, excuse me that if China does not withdraw the retaliatory tariffs, the US will oppose an additional fifty percent less than twenty four hours starting tomorrow. Do you expect those additional fifty percent tarishs to come into play?
I think that depends on the Chinese. And you know, my advice to them would be that they have a lot more to lose than America does. That America holds a leverage and everybody knows that, and therefore they should seek a detant and they should offer concessions which would persuade the presidents to relent.
Uncertainty might be a good negotiating tactic, but it's really bad for business. That's been the message from a lot of corporate executives. And what you're seeing certainly in markets. Are you worried that US companies are going to stop investing that that could style me some of the progress that you're hoping to engineer.
Yeah, the President has been very clear that you know that that that what he's engaging in is is a long term improvement in the economic welfare of the United States and a long term improvement in putting American workers on fair ground viasa of either the rest of the world. Some temporary uncertainty will come along with the transition and with the imposition of those policies. That that's that's without a question. However, I think it's important to understand that
uncertainty doesn't really cause recessions. You know, I don't think that there's been a recession that was caused by people wondering, you know, what's you know, what's going to happen tomorrow. Uncertainty can delay decisions, for sure, as you're saying, you know, there could be some some transfer of investment decisions, some transfer of hiring decisions.
From one month to another.
That's absolutely possible, but there's limits to that because eventually a firm is going to decide, hey, I really need to add this capacity, or hey, I really need to make a decision about what's going on, and at some point waiting becomes not worth it. So is there a chance that the uncertainty causes you know, sort of distortions in the in the month to month or quarter to quarter macroeconomic data that make one quarter look weaker and
another quarter look stronger. Absolutely, that's likely, right, If it's not only possible, it's quite likely. But companies can delay decisions forever. Eventually they got to pull the trigger and they got to invest based on their evaluation of the most likely policy landscape in the future. And the President has been very clear about what that policy is.
In fairness, so a lot of people, in particular Wall Street economists have come out and so that actually uncertainty can cause a recession, and we have heard that from a number of different Wall Street firms for a number of different companies, and frankly, the Small Business consumer survey came out this morning and so the steepest plunge that we've seen going back years. There is a question here about yes, they have to ultimately make decisions, but when do they start laying people off?
At what point are you worried.
About execution risk at a time where some of the structural changes take a lot longer than some of these policies are taking to implement.
Yeah, well, look, there isn't really any material sign of layoffs in the macroeconomic data, So that's not something that I'm that's not something that I'm seeing right now at all. And I I would say is again to remind people that there are three legs to the stool.
One is trade renegotiation.
The other two are deregulation and tax reform, and those are still in the pipeline. We're waiting on Congress to extend the President's historic tax cuts from twenty seventeen will which will sort of preserve low marginal rates in American workers and firms. But on top of that, you know, what we experienced in Liberation Day was a roughly thirteen percentage point rise in the effective terror freight on all imports.
And that's going to create enormous amounts of revenue, hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue that can be used to provide additional tax relief for Americans. And the President has been pretty clear laying out certain forms of the tax relief, and I think that their scope to go even further than that, I would you know, I personally would like to. However, you know, it depends on what Congress works out and negotiates with the President on that.
You know, I don't always get you know, I'm not the president, right the president is the one who will decide in collaboration with Congress. But I think that using that revenue for additional tax relief would be a fantastic outcome. I think that regulation is underway, and the combination of making America more competitive via tariffs with making it easier to build and invest in higher here is a is
a fantastic outcome. And when you look ahead to the future, when you look ahead to the future, there's going to be in America that's the best place in the world to do business because the tariffs make a competitive, regulation deregulation makes it easy, and tax reform makes it efficient. And tax reform keeps more money in people's pockets, makes it easier hire, easier to invest, and those are all great things, and the markets will look forward to that if it should be forward looking, Yeah.
You're talking about the entire policy proposal. Markets are forward looking. They're already pricing in just that the extension of TCGA. What more can be done on the tax side. Do you think we will get no tax on tip, no tax on Social Security?
Yeah, I think we'll. I think we'll see I think we'll see that. And you know, I can't get ahead of Congress. I can't get ahead of the president. But the President's been clear and calling for those things, and I'm optimistic that we'll get them. And I'm also optimistic if it we'll get some form of further tax relief. Beyond that, what format takes, you know, will be up
to Congress and the President. But I think that I think that it would be a fantastic outcome for American workers if we took money raised by tariffs levied from foreigners and use that to lower taxes on Americans. That would create a more efficient, dynamic, competitive economy.
That would that would transition into the present's new Golden.
Age, Steven, how can it be both? How can it be both a source of revenue to provide tax relief and an option for negotiations.
Well, tariffs raise revenue, and then I've got that revenue.
Yeah, yeah, sure, but you said you can negotiate this.
Oh oh, because the negotiation Okay, so yes, so I.
Understand what you're saying. So so, presumably if the negotiations.
Lead to materially better trade terms for American firms, then you create a booming economy because there's much more demand for our exports.
And then we tie the tax relief back, well, then you don't have this additional revenue to pay for that tax relief.
But nevertheless, Congress and the President are determined to extend the original tax the original tax cuts, and provide the additional relief at the president I've spoken about. So it's a question how much further beyond that can you go.
We'll keep struggling to make sense of it.
We appreciate you how This morning, Steven Maron there the White House Council of Economic Advisor's share. We begin this sound with stocks pushing KaiA as markets look for signs of policy clarity. Julian and Manuel of ever Core cutting his year end price target on the S and P to fifty six hundred from sixty eight. Right in the following, prolonged uncertainty has raised asset volatility, damage confidence, and increase
the odds. Soft data eventually infects the hard causing stagflation or outright recession.
Julian joins us.
Now for more, Julian, good Mornic, Why so bullish even with the price target cut based on what we're seeing over the last few days.
Where does the bullishness come from?
The bullishes comes from an expectation that if we look at the last couple of weeks, we have arrived at the point of maximum uncertainty.
Okay.
And it's like, whether you think about it in terms of market volatility, uncertainty measures, you know, frankly, tariff rates, which is the crux of where the uncertainty is from. All these things really aren't sustainable in the long term because what ends up happening is you get the recession scenario. And I think as an investor, you have to believe
a couple of things here. You really have to believe that uncertainty is arriving at peak, and you have to believe in and we do that Washington has no desire to precipitate a recession because frankly, precipitating a recession has a lot of other knock on unintended consequences.
None of us can get into the mind at the president.
I've got no idea what he's thinking this morning, going ahead to the tarish that will kick in overnight. Can we touch on valuations? What's the forward multiple on the S and P right now?
It's well over.
Twenty still beak to maximum and certainty it does not, okay, but we have maintained this for two years now and it's certainly worked reasonably well over.
The last two years.
Is that valuation alone doesn't end a market cycle, okay. What ends a market cycle is an oncoming recession, an uncooperative FED, or bond yields moving higher. And if we think about the last couple of weeks, look, there have been two significant wins here. Number One, oil prices are a lot lower than I think any one of us would have expected, given the fact that Russia and Ukraine is still in escalation mode and the Middle East is still in escalation mode for the most part.
And bond yields things.
And I was just thinking tick FED showing no woodingness to step in yesterday, bond yields will higher.
What's the circuit brank?
So you have to differentiate between a FED FED willing to step in and a FED who's going to say inflation, which now in our view is in the mid threes for twenty twenty five. I don't think he's going to remove the word transitory because and our research shows that essentially the real threat is less inflation. It's the one time hit from wherever we go. And our operating view is that tariffs will actually settle in around fifteen to sixteen percent on a global weighted basis, call it by
the end of the third quarter. That's how investors can live with it going forward, but that the real threat is the new tariff regime slowing growth perhaps even more, is it.
Overly complacent to view this as just business as usual to not really consider a structural change that, frankly is the goal of this administration that could potentially reorder trade and potentially cause a decoupling between the US and China.
Oh again, in eighty days, you're trying to remake a global trading system that took eighty years to build. So to call it business as usual, you would be someone who perhaps didn't take defensive measures to his or her portfolio.
In the last number of weeks.
And the question is is are we going to get And I think Secretary Bessant was right and proper in making the point that there needs to be more singing from the same hymn sheet and an openness to cut deals.
One of the big concerns yesterday was what happened in the bond market, and we were talking about it. A lot of people called me. They said, what are you hearing about this? People didn't have an understanding, but it spooked people. So the biggest sell off in thirty year bonds going back to the pandemic and why, I don't know, maybe because of disruption, maybe because of basis trades, maybe because.
Of foreign selling.
At what point point does that type of disruption fundamentally spook you and frankly your bullish call for gains by the end of the year.
Well, actually, at this level, yields perfectly reasonable. And now again remember part of what we're saying is that asset price volatility all over the place is much larger. So if we're ranging between three ninety and four thirty or four forty or so in the ten year yield, that's okay, we deal with live with the volatility. But you know, on balance, that is a rate for you know, forward discounting of share price multiples that we can live with.
It's you know, the question is what was behind yesterday's selling. We don't buy into the fact that it was international investors dumping bonds.
We buy into the fact.
That logically, if you think about it, given the moves that we've had in the last several weeks, it's asset allocation.
But to me, the idea that one headline could drive two and a half trillion dollars of value destruction and creation over again just a blip.
That's emerging market like trading.
That is not the deepest, most liquid market in the country, in the world. That is not what we're used to, and that is not the reason why people go to the United States on a risk adjust a basis. That completely undermines the whole premise of the US market. Why does that not shake your confidence that there can be the same kind of dynamic going forward of some sort of American market exceptionalist.
No, you're absolutely right about that, Lisa.
And that drives home the point that we have to have I wouldn't necessarily call it off ramps. We have to understand what the path forward could look like to be able to deal with and make assumptions and make capital allocation decisions, whether you're an investor or a corporate, And that's why the emerging policy has to have a direction of travel to where we've maxed out on uncertainty, we've maxed out on potential tariffs, and we are going
to get in the art of the deal mode. That's why, again, given this incredible volatility that we've seen in asset markets, which does undermine confidence, the month of April is as important.
As it is to sort of subdue.
The feeling in markets, and to the good we would say, if you look at it, the bearest sentiment is as intense as I've ever seen it, going back to the financial crisis in two thousand and eight. You look at the share of volumes the last two days off the charts, record share of volumes that tends to happen closer to trend changes than trend continuations. So you know, it's almost getting to a point where it's so negative that at least there's a ray of sunlight.
You offered up a timeline the end of the third quarter, you think terrifies who come down anywhere between ten to sixteen percent. So basically for back to school what about all the damage that could be done between different administration officials singing from different hymn sheets between now and the end of September.
Well, that's the critical issue.
And again that's why I think, you know, Treasury Secretary Vesant is trying to get people to sort of come together on this, and to the extent that it does or it doesn't, it really will be reflected in asset prices. But you know, the shock that we've had to the system over the last month and in particular the last week and a half is such that you're in the zone where the sentiment data could materially infect the hard data.
And to your point, you know, in home selling season, which we're in the peak of right now, and then back to school, et cetera, you know, that's where the economic risk lies.
Allow me things held Eric Shaska yesterday at the Economic Club in New York that the CEOs that he speaks to think we're already in a recession. I just wonder what we're hear from the CEOs on Wall straight on Friday when the onies come out.
What do you think the're gonna sund us?
I would think that Jamie Dimon will will warn the way he has about her policy implementation and uncertainty. And look, this is going to be an earning season where you know, it's sort of similar to the unemployment report on Friday. It doesn't matter what the numbers are, It absolutely doesn't matter. What matters is the level of expressed you know, uncertainty, and you know, will companies pull their guidance and I'm sure there are a few that will.
Yeah, Jian, it's going to see it. Thank you, sir, thanks for dropping by Gilian A man. Well, they're a Bellico Skotta Montgomery, Countick of Barclay's writing. Dollar negativity is now consensus and our sentiment index is a maximum parish territory. Historically, this has been a fairly reliable reversal sign Skyla, Johnnapamore, Skyla historically. I just wonder how different this time might be.
Yeah, I mean it's interesting because I think the reaction to tariffs was unexpected for the dollar.
All Lsequell.
We know that US tariff should boost the dollar, but I do think there's a logical explanation here in that you know, our import substitution model shows that dollar strengths does occur on US tariffs but it also shows dollar weakness if all tariff countries responding kind, because in that situation a larger share of US exports would be tariff than say Europe, which only has new tariffs on exports
to the US. So this tells us that within FX, we'll reliant on how the economies respond to US tariffs. The second point has to do with growth and confidence. I think there's this growing concern over US policy. From an economic perspective. Tariffs are not wrong if there's an existing distortion, but sweeping tariffs with very little nuance are
clearly suboptimal and they raise recession ods. US growth was already slowing with confidence under pressure, and the one clear conclusion from Paris is that they are US growth negative. Whether they stay in place the board, are renegotiated in some places, are not. On the other side, that means if you know, there is also likely still some hope that there are deals, and we don't know where those deals would be yet. So I think that reflects of
why you have this dollar downside. But I think it's very hard to maintain an environment of slowing global growth.
Scarlet One thing we've discussed on this program repeatedly is not just the shock to the cycle, but the potential shock to the system. We'll catch up with Stephen Myron later, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advices to the White House in about an half from now. And one thing he said, particularly in the last twenty four hours is that the security umbrella that the United States is off of the world, together with the reserve assets that
facilitate trade. He's making the point that that's distorted the US dollar. There seems to be a pushback against the system. And is that something that we can fully internalize now? I don't think so. But in coming weeks and months, coming years, how are you thinking about those changes?
Yeah?
I think because we have these great worries of a US policy, they have brought in question the role of the US and it's brought into question the role of the dollar in the global system. In this market narrative around a broad reallocation away from US assets and that in turn putting pressure on the dollar.
We think it's too early.
They didn't make that called minimum. I think for money to move to foreign markets, you need some kind of improved asset returns in these markets, which seems like a very high bar with global growth stelling. So, for example, in China, margins are mid to high single digits terris on the scale the US is imposing pretty much completely wipe that out. Even if you pass a significant portion of that onto the consumer for bonds, U s els are still relatively attractive, while there still isn't a large
liquid alternative market. This is also not the first time that the market has falsely gotten excited about this narrative and it wasn't sustainable. You know, we've had more than a decade of policy that's very much favored the US,
and it's very hard to undo that. So maybe just finish off by saying that, you know, even if it is the start of a massive rotation, that's something that will take a decade or more to play out, So there's still time to position for it, and you don't need to take on the early signal in case it's false.
How do you get ahead of the idea that maybe China will allow the renminbeed to weaken disproportionately to offset some of the damage that we're seeing or potentially increase their export power.
Yeah, I mean, I think that's kind of our base case in terms of China, one of the places that rhetor referent trade has been very clear. Tariffs have gone into place, They're very large in scale, and they've only escalated since Trump has been in office. Authorities in China
have been artificially supporting the currency. So current terrif rates imply that dollar C and Y should be much much higher than current levels, and there is this view that they won't let the currency go because they're worried about capital flight, but capital flight will also leave if the growth out the deteriorates significantly, even if you keep the currency study. So when the economy deteriorates, they can either take the hit, moderate it via significant subsidies, or they
can let the currency go. And they've been unwilling to do large scale stimulus or enough at least to really prompt the consumer to spend again.
So we think it's more likely that.
They do let the currency go in part to support their export market, and so we do like being long dollar C in one and our target on that is around seven fifty Skyler.
There's this question about how Europe will respond, and we were talking about the haven SETUS of the US and just how fundamental it is to the overall system. In Europe, they are planning to do fiscal stimulus, there could potentially be other offsets regardless of whether there's a deal struck. How do you calculate the fiscal impulse into at what point the euro could potentially strengthen in a more material way.
Yeah, So I think the euro in the last week or so it's benefited from the fact that it's the liquid alternatives to the dollar. It's more trading off of US enter negativity more than it's trading off of Europe's positives. And now there's this tug of war between tarras and the piscal response. And by that I mean we do
expect you the European economy into recession. That's definitely what we've already seen urges scale fifth quantify that is, you can look at fiscal and around one percent of GDP and fiscal expansion is around thirty to thirty five basis points.
On the long end.
You can then take the beta between yields and effects to find what kind of policy response feeds into euro dollar. So for US, we're very much waiting on what the size of that stimulus is to have an idea of where we think your dollar fair value is, but you also need to consider there are other components, right and y weekends materially that will also put down a pressure on euro So you need quite a big fiscal stimulus.
I think to offset the tariffs that we've seen with one measure, saying that you know, the fiscal that we got from Germany already adds around forty basis points to European growth, but a five percent takes away forty basis points and we're at twenty percent.
Hie Kinley, We've got to leave it there. I appreciate your time. Scilla Montgomery counting there if Barclay's thank you. Nancy Lizarre of Pipers Sandler, seeing tarif related inflation as a one off and saying quote easy aggressively now would risk a sharp inflation reacceleration in twenty six. As of now, after the one off tariff inflation hits the economy in twenty five, inflation is likely to slow in twenty six. Nancy joined us now for more, Nancy, good morning, good morning.
Are you suggesting they just wait then?
I would prefer the Fed be more easier, very slowly, because again, what you don't want to do is repeat what we did in twenty twenty one, which was eased in a temporary shock and then create way too much liquidity and inflation indeed comes back. I didn't like the fact to use the word transitory. Again, not many people did.
Yeah, JP Morgan Asset Management Bob michael on the program with us on Sunday evening, as we waited for equity futures to open on the S and P five hundred, he said, maybe this FED couldn't wait until the next meeting. The next meeting is the first week of May. Can they wait that long?
Oh?
I would say, again, this is not an interest rate problem. In fact, the lag effects of a FED easing cycle are still going to help the economy once uncertainty can come down and these price shocks convade. So the FED doesn't already ease, let's not forget that, and as we move into the back half of the year, they could actually already help to support growth. So yes, later rather than sooner would be healthier for the long run.
Inslation Outlook, what's the historic analog to now where we can get some sense of how inflation has behaved with tariffs at a time where potentially you could also see some sort of demand shock.
So you can go back to twenty eighteen where you had two industries in particular that had big tariffs on them, both washing machines and furniture, and you saw an increase in price immediately, and then you had a decline in unit sales immediately, and then over the next year you started to see prices actually declined because of that weakness and also the substitution effect. So again it takes it would be it'd be best for the Fed to be patient as we go through this price shock, see a
dip in the economy, maybe one percent GDP growth. As we move into second and into the third quarter, and then by the back half fourth or into twenty twenty six, you can see an incremental improvement in the economy, and the Fed doesn't have to do much to get that.
Some people would argue, including the likes of big Wall Street firms, and a number of Wall Street firms have predicted a base case now of recession, including JP Morgan. Why should the Fed look through that? Given what the surveys are showing, and given the fact that companies may come out and give some guidance other than Levi's, but may give some guidance.
To that effect.
Well, they may not look through it, they may incrementally ease, but again the Fed has already eased. Our models were actually pretty optimistic for twenty twenty five seeing any healing in the economy as we move through the year because of the easing cycle that we saw last year, lower bond yields that we have started to see now oil prices are down. There are basic supports for the economy. This is a one time price shock, and to ease too aggressively again risk creating this inflation next year.
Let's talk about those risks of it not being a one time price shock. What are the sources of inflation that would concern you coming forward from here?
Well, wage inflation, Actually, it has been very sticky over the past year. Even average early earnings have basically stopped slowing even prior to the current current current environment, which told us that inflation was again sticky in twenty twenty four.
And I think the Fed should should heed that. And you've also seen it in some of the price measures again here in the first part of the year, where you've seen the ism price measures increase pretty much across the board within the regional FED measures, and.
No Dust has made a similar point from Renmack about the risk of second round effects. It talks about the anxiety of the consumers right now, and you see it in the reports in the surface. They're anxious about high unemployment in the future. And if that's the case, the idea that they're going to go around to bid up their wages anytime soon is difficult to get your head around.
Which is the reason why a lot of people aren't looking to that kind of inflation. Are you arguing that potentially a federate cut of even fifty basis points could engineer that confidence at a time where this stock isn't coming from elsewhere.
No, I don't think a FED rate cut. I think the next major issue for the markets are going to be one what inflation does in say April in May, you're going to get a price shock, a big price increase from the teriffs that are being put in place. We think CPI could accelerate to around a five percent quarter to quarter annualized run rate, and that's going to take consumer spending down. And we're watching our daily consumer confidence survey. So no, we think the Fed can ease.
They just can't ease aggressively, and they've already been in an easying cycle. They've pulled back on QT and so let's not get carried away, because there are longer term supports for the economy as we come out of this, which we hopefully is by the fourth quarter of this year.
A couple of weeks ago, people were talking about the sequencing of the policies coming out of this administration, that the difficult stuff came first, the tariffs, some of the negative growth shocks, and then the pro growth shocks come later on with respect to tax cuts and deregulation other aspects. How much are people overlooking that as a potential catalyst for some growth and frankly, potentially even inflation, and discounting how much of an upward stimulus that could be on the economy.
I think that is a very very significant point. I started in the summer of nineteen eighty one, and it was chaos in the summer of nineteen eighty one. Volker wasn't sure if he was going to be successful. Reagan did similarly, he was going to take some pain near term, allowing Volker to do what he wanted to do. He fired people. I'm not comparing Reagan to Trump. But I'm just suggesting it's not unusual for an administration to do that.
And the longer term positives are positives to have on shoring, which I've been focused on for fifteen years, is an incredible positive. There are people who want to work in factories, clarity on the tax reform, deregulation, a smaller government. So there are some longer term positives if we can potentially negotiate some with these tariffs. I'm also for free trade.
I'm also for fair trade, and if we come out of this current turmoil with some fairer trade, then yes, there are You can add that to the list of positives for twenty twenty five.
And I see.
I share that sentiment almost entirely. I'm pleased you said it. I think this has been a problem for a.
Long long time. It goes back decades.
I think this administration, led by this president, has done a tremendous job of articulating that problem. The President's done it going all the way back to the nineteen eighties. This is about whether this is the right policy executed in the right way to try and remedy this situation leads and I think they're two separate conversations. I think you've got to be able to acknowledge the former and
then have a debate about the latter. And that's the struggle that a lot of people are seeming to have at the moment over the past week or so.
I'm so glad that you framed it that way, because I think a lot of people do agree that there are some issues, some problems that are very correctly identified by the administration.
It's execution risk.
It's this question of the uncertainty itself that does have a prolonged period of time and how it is a key feature in the way that maybe these deals might be being negotiated or not, or maybe this is just simply simply policy.
Joan, Nancy is going to see you, yes dropping bye, Thank you. Nancy's out there, of Pipers Sandler. This is the Bloomberg Sevenants podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angiot politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV mornings from 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 out
M