Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and am Marie 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 want to
bringing Stephanie Roth of Wolf Research into the conversation. Stephanie in morning, Good morning, your reaction to this one please?
It was a strong one, Gren.
We had some you know, down revisions to the prior month, but the net trend is pretty strong. The challenge is looking forward. There's a pretty big cliff from an economic perspective in heading into the next couple of months, and if we don't get a significant downward shift in the tariff rate from China, then things like the strength and transportation and warehousing is going to very much shut off.
If I were a pessimist, not that I am. But if I were a pessimist, if I wanted to look at the negative side of this, I would say it gives a FED no excuse to even come close to cutting rates, and that potentially they have no reason to signal that they are concerned about a true weakening in the economy that is politically fraught as well as not
represented in the data. How much does that increase the backside of the year and the potential weakness that you could see down the line if the FED is disinclined to really make any movement, I think that's right.
There's no reason for the FED to be cutting or signaling that they're going to be cutting anytime soon. At this point, the economy is fine. They have to be reacting to the unemployment rate, which is kind of steady as the four to two, and they're concerned about the inflation backdrop, but for now they just have to sit and wait. They have to wait until they see an actual rise in the unemployment rate before they can make
notable changes. And at this point the economy is okay and consumption has been okay up until this point, so it's just wait and see for the FED.
On the flip side, to Muhammed's point, and this is the reason why this is such a mentally twisting kind of moment. You could say, well, the economy has a lot of momentum. We're coming into this very strong. We might get something of a hip, but it might be a disinflationary shock of anything, which might help out the FED, and then we end up back in the soft landing type of narrative. How much does this give you confidence that we still have that potential even amid all of the uncertainty.
So base case at this point is the economy Ken Averter session, although barely if policymakers actually start to change their tune a little bit, which we are starting to see out of Washington to Stoma extent and the headlines around potentially some of the conversations with China certainly helps. So base cases that they'll change their tune a little bit. If we end up with ten percent across the board tariffs and tariffs on China fifty percent maybe forty percent,
then the economy can be okay. This year you just have a one percent or so shock on the economy, But having this solid momentum heading into this certainly does help.
How much do you how much time do they have to change their tune, as you say, to avoid the most difficult damage.
We have a couple of weeks, weeks, not months.
We have weeks, not months. I was just talking to the guests from the Port of la just just just before this, and they were discussing the you know, the amount of time, especially smaller retailers have. They don't have these big warehouses.
They have a couple of weeks.
Take a bike shop, for example, they have just a couple of weeks worth of inventory and they wait for the next shipment, and if the shipments aren't coming in, it's going to become a problem. They're going to have to just shut down because they'll have one or two bikes left for sale.
These are the empty shams that people worry about if you are just joining us. Seven minutes ago, we just got the payrolls report. It came in at one seventy seven. The media estimate our survey was one thirty eight. The unemployment rate expected to hold at four point two percent, and it did four point two percent. They're the two headline numbers we often think about, my McKey, you look beyond the headlines. Some up for us if you just missed it, what did you miss? Well?
Right now, what I'm seeing is some impacts. It looks like in the tariff areas or two be tearifft areas. Computers lost four construction lost four thousand jobs, se my conductors lost.
Eleven one hundred.
Primary metal jobs were down by one hundred, apparel jobs down by three hundred, and government workers down by nine thousand. Leave out the postal service, but they got some dodge cuts too, and you have eight and a half thousand, so you are seeing some impacts from the administration's moves already in terms of the unemployment rate, the unemployment rate actually rises by a few basis points. The three digits is four point one eighty seven from four point one
five to two. So we came very close to getting a four point three handle, but it didn't move. And as you're talking about, unless the fancies the unemployment rate moving, they're not moving.
The equity bills get and everything they won this morning, Lisa, I better jobs put the potential for talks between the US and China, and potentially a ninth consecutive to have gains on the SMP.
I guess I'm trying to understand, if you flip this of its head and you talk about real strength in the economy and you talk about the potential for a deal, are we underestimating the inflationary pressure? Are we underestimating just how much growth there is that potentially is not being accounted for by the Fed or by the rest of the universe.
I don't know.
I'm just wondering.
Maybe people were saying there's a difference between the bond market and the stock market, and the bond market's so smart and it's always right. Maybe the stock market was right and all of a sudden you need to repose things on the other end.
Pretzels, is that what we're making this smilet. Let me put it this way. Whether this number is weak or strong, the risk was always that we extrapolated it out. The policy shock that we've had in the last month is so large that the distortions you'll see in the data not just this month, the month after that, the month after that. Just to go back to Gen Soroka again at the Port of la he's telling you, he's basically telling you what things look like now and how long
it'll take to get things back to normal. Even if you strike a deal tomorrow, which is.
The reason why if you take a look at the two year yield, it's almost completely retraced back to where it was before this print. Because people are looking through this, they're saying, this is not what we're going to experience in the upcoming months.
Jeff Rosenberg of Black Rock jumps into the conversation. Now, Jeff, welcome to the program. We want your thoughts on where things are, how we're set up going into the opening bow fifty minutes away.
Yeah, you know, first point here, just agree with Muhammad's take that this is about where is the economy coming into the shock, and this is a good report, and that's important. You've got more resilience when you're coming to a shock from a place of strength. You know, you look through the report, across payrolls, across earnings, hourly hours worked, it's all strong.
Now, that's that's the first point.
The second point is, unfortunately, it's really less relevant to the go forward because this is kind of you know, yes, it's our first hard data, but it's really pre the tariff shock. And as we're discussing that tariff shock and the size and the scope and the amount of exemptions, that's evolving, but none of this data really reflects the impact of the shock, and we'll have to see that
data show up. And that's the third point here, is that the FED and they're going to have to wait, and they're going to have to wait until they see any kind of impact in terms of arise in the unemployment rate. And until you see that, you're not going to really see any kind of expectations of FED intervention.
And as the other guest was saying.
It's very hard for them to be preemptive and to go to forecast dependence. This is data dependence, and this is lagging data, and so that will be, you know, really one of the last things to show up as we talk about that in months ahead.
Traffic And if I may push you a little bit on what you just said, So how you're navigating all these serious puzzles soft data versus hot data. What about the sequencing You hear some people say, yeah, we're going to slow down, but don't worry, there's deregulation, there's tax cuts coming, We're going to bounce right up. There's so many issues right there that people are debating in a very genuine manner. When you put it all together when
you look at the growth aight for the US. The IMF last week took it down from two point seven to one point eight for this year. A lot of people thought they would go further down. They will go more towards one percent. Where's blackrok right now in terms of how all this nets out in terms of growth for the US this year.
You know, we have a very broad diversified group of investors, so Blackrock as a totality has a lot of different investors with a lot of different points of view. I'll tell you my point of view on this is that we've had a shock.
Is the shock going.
To be as big as you know the immediate market reaction in the post Liberation Day announcements. No, you see the walk back from that, But the shock has affected outcomes and the uncertainty.
About how big that will be.
Yes, we've probably cut off the tail because the administration's response, the concern about financial markets and the negative reception, the concern from the real economy participants, and the real effects that these very very initial tariff policies we're having.
We're seeing that walked back.
However, you still have the damage to be seen and that means likely some degree of slowdown. And even if the tariff rates are much reduced from the initial proposal, you're still talking about this kind of uncertainty. You know, the FED brought back into the language a transitory effect on inflation from the one time tariff increase. The big question will be in an environment that is much more
used to price increases. You know, what are the second order effects on inflation and inflation expectations as you see that, you know, what should be a one time effect, is it really a one time effect? And those will be you know, the big focus I think you know in our outlook, the vulnerability here is is the markets have kind of repriced very quickly any kind of risk premium.
You see it in the round trip inequities. You see it in the round trip and high yield spreads.
So there's not a lot of margin for safety with respect to market pricing.
So for us, that's meant.
A little bit more of taking the opportunity is the market has kind of moved to very quickly price in more optimistic take to take a little more defensive positioning in our portfolio.
Jeff, what does defensive positioning actually look like? What does that mean in today's market, Yeah, for us.
You know, we run a liquid alternative fund that is positioned as an alternative diversifier. So when we're thinking about like our upside downside, we're going to be much more sensitive to downside protection. And so defensiveness means up in quality.
For example, in our credit space, it means reducing some of the more equity sensitive areas within the portfolio that have the highest kind of beta, highest market reaction to economic sensitivity to the potential that tariffs actually end up leading to a much more adverse outcome for the economy.
And it means on the duration side, on the interest rates side, because the flip side of the tariff piece for growth is as I was just talking about the kind of inflation and inflation uncertainty, and that leads to a very different kind of bond market reaction where you could have a twist steepening where you know, if the FED preferences growth over inflation in a stagflationary shock, you may have the back end longer maturity.
Rates not doing what you expect them to do.
And so that means kind of shortening our what we call key rate duration. Where are we getting our exposures for the diversification looking much more to the front end of the curve than historically you would have thought, Hey, the back end is really the best place. In today's environment, I think the back end is much more vulnerable and a stagflationary kind of outcome really changes how you think about defensive positioning and fixed income portfolio.
You were talking to priamsra earlier JP Morgan Asset Management. She said that thirty year treasuries were the risk asset right now and doesn't really want to go there.
Do you feel the.
Same, Yeah, it's a similar it's a similar viewpoint.
Now.
You got to be careful because there are a lot of cross currents.
There's a lot of potential for policy intervention and some other changes, and you have to also be careful that market positioning is preas talking about, it's a very popular, kind of crowded viewpoint that the back end is vulnerable. That being said, I think the base case is and we've seen it here. We saw it in the post tariff announcement, a big curve steepening that you do have
the potential here. You know, it used to be in the zero interest rate environment post GFC flight to quality was a curve flattener you wanted to own the thirty year. In an earlier era, long before the GFC, we used to think flight to quality was a curve steepener, and I think we're back into that kind of environment. It makes it a little bit challenging for investors who are kind of cash limited because you don't get the same
kind of return for a dollar investment. It means you need a little bit more flexibility in your portfolio toolkit to use things like futures and leverage to equate your diversification irrespective of where you are on the yield curve, And a little bit more flexibility in the toolkit allows investors like ourselves to be able to do that.
Jeff, thanks for jopping buying Jeff rosenbook of black Rock. On the Latest in this Market, The Latest on the Jobs Market one hundred and seventy seven k An upside surprise on the jobs report with an industry breakdown. My mckageo on this now with more Mike, what do you go well.
John, Looking at some of the areas where you would think the tariffs would have an impact, at least they might some point, they haven't yet Today retailers lost one point eight thousand jobs. But building materials, this is the time of year when people would hire more for building materials and garden centers. They were up by two point seven by two thousand, seven hundred, and as I mentioned,
construction workers were up. Healthcare and social workers this is the category that would include some of the workers that would be laid off in terms of contractors or some of the aid programs that the administration is slashed. But they were up by seven point six thousand, seven six hundred. So we're still seeing people getting hired into areas in which you'd think there would be job cuts or that they may be coming at some point, but we haven't
gotten there yet. Only two thousand people listed as job losers this past month. So right now it looks like the economy is still the labor market at least is still pretty strong.
Mamma Kay, thank you. Breaking down the lap of market for us this morning. Breaking down the commentary from the White House, Amrie, the President with a few things to say, a few.
Things to say, so about gasoline. He's saying it just broke a dollar ninety eight. I'm actually looking at what the national average is just above three dollars. He's talking about energy down, employment strong, and get to the punchline. Of course, he's saying this is a perfect moment for the Fed chair j Powell to lower interest rates. The job boning, Jonathan.
Continues, Stephanie is at the perfect time for Japowe to lower interest rates.
It is not the perfect time.
It's the opposite. The economy is running okay right now. They don't want to get ahead of this. They're going to have to just wait and see what the impact is from an employment perspective, and then an inflation perspective. By the way, inflation could be running.
Up towards four percent at most.
Joins us now of Raymond James, and welcome to the program. I want to get your thoughts on some of the fiscal risk down in Washington, DC and how you think things are stacking up.
Yeah, John, So, I think the number one goal of this budget today is to get all of us to repeat the point that it cuts or proposed to cut one hundred and sixty three billion dollars. When I look at the Hill and they're working on this reconciliation bill, if they do what they want to do, the final tab of this bill is going to be somewhere between
five and seven trillion dollars. Were going to have some cuts and that may bring it down to three to five trillion dollars, but let's be clear, that's going to be the single most expensive bill in the history of
the United States. And so if I'm the president of the United States and I'm asking Republicans to do that, I probably want to create a narrative through doze, through this budget, through tariffs, through the Treasury Secretary that we're trying to cut government spending, that we're trying to get a new revenue store, and with the Treasury Secretary telling everyone they're concerned about the bond market. So this is a political document as much as a budget. Today they'd like.
To create a narrative, ed, but does that narrative become reality?
Well, everything in politics, everything in life is compared to what and so this is where they're also kind of, you know, kind of laying this out amory where they're saying, you have a choice as a congressional Republican, which one do you want to vote for the largest tax increase in the United States history or the largest tax cut in the United States history, and if you vote for kind of the largest tax cut, you are supporting the president.
And for Republicans, it's increasingly difficult to be opposed to this president. And so yes, they're creating that narrative, and they're creating a juxtaposition that most Republicans are going to take.
And I totally understand the first level of narrative. But there's a second level of narrative, and that has to do with the composition of the budget and in particular the different impact of a significant spending cut and a tax cut. They operate differently, and there is a second narrative that says, you know what, this budget in the short term will tip us closer to a recession. What do you make of that?
Yeah, Mohammed, I think what the narrative I get out of that is that this is administration who is very clearly focused on cuts on the domestic side of things, and yes, there are fiscal impacts of that, but they're also trying to send the message that they want to increase defense spending. This budget will be the first trillion dollar proposal for annual spending on the defense budget. In the reconciliation build. They want to add another one hundred
and fifty billion dollars to front and load that. I think what we're seeing is historically in DC there's a bit of a balance and discretionary spending between defense in non defense, and this is a president who's saying, let's skew this more towards defense versus non defense. How that
impacts the ultimate economy to be determined. But I think what Republicans would say is when you add up the kind of domestic R and D tax credit, bonus appreciation, no tax on tips, no tax on social security, they would say that's fiscal stimulus and could offset on the kind of private sector what the government might be cutting from this budget.
Appreciate the updates, sir, as always, thanks for jumping on at MOS. There of Raymond James. Joining us now is Stephen Meyer and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Stephen Welcome back to the program, sir, thanks for making some time for us this morning. Let's just take a
little assessment of where things are right now. So through the week, GDP first contraction since twenty twenty two, consumer confidence the week is since May twenty twenty, manufacturing shrinking on the m report, and then we just have this very solid payrolls report. What's your assessment, Stephen of where things are at the moment.
Good morning, Thanks for having me, And let me just say that I know that surveillance usually ends at nine, So I look forward to you guys benefiting from the President's forthcoming no tax in overtime. So thanks for staying a few extra minutes. But no, Look, you know, I think, you know, I think there's been an ongoing disconnect between the hard data and the soft data. And the hard
data continue to perform very well. One hundred and seventy seven thousand jobs last month, a beat of forty thousand jobs. That's the President's second jobs they beat in a row. And on top of that, you've got eleven thousand construction jobs, you know, expanding and expanding construction construction sector in spite of the President's cut crack down on the border, disproving critics again. And the hard data continued to be okay.
And I think it's worth emphasizing that these data represent the period after the president's historic actions with tariffs in April second.
So Steve and we need to get into that because there are some people that we've spoken to that worry about the next report. They think that this could show up in the May report, and I've heard the words downside risks repeatedly. Are you confident that some of that's avoidable?
So you know, look, you know, given given the historic scope and speed with which the President acted to put American workers in firms first for the first time in decades, you know, it shouldn't be surprising if there's if there's some company volatility, and that extends to financial markets that we've seen, and it could extend to economic data also, as companies sort of substitute activity from one month to another.
But you know that that remains to be seen. But so far in the hard data, we're not seeing any real evidence of that to be the case. And as you pointed out, you know there are various soft data sentiment indices that look not as good, but those tend to be influenced by financial markets, and there's been enormous volatility there lately, as you guys are aware, and they tend to be influenced a lot by a lot by politics.
But historically the correlation between those in activity has been weaker in the last few years than it would have been say, ten years ago.
We are seeing it show up in some hard data, and that's trade volumes. We just caught up with the Port of LA director Jane Soroka, Stephen, I wonder if you've been in touch with them and how you see this plank out. They're telling us now the trade volumes are about to fall, that what they're about to see through their port could drop by something like a third thirty percent, and then from there this could ripple through the US economy. What's the sequencing of things from your standpoint?
Thanks, So, as I mentioned a moment ago, there can be some volatility in the economic data, and I think it's worth emphasizing that. You know, there are some firms that want to see the outcome of trade negotiations which will be coming soon, and they want to see the tax bill pass, which again will be coming soon, and as a result, they may substitute activity from one month to another, from one quarter to another, but it all gets averaged out over time. These are not the types
of activities for which activity would get canceled permanently. And as you mentioned at the start, the GDP report contained a five point drag from import activity, so We're just coming off of a quarter with an enormous amount of imports that by the way, there was a data anomaly in the GDP data that I'm sure you know most of your audience is aware of by now. But after such a huge import drag on the economy in the first quarter, it wouldn't be surprising if there were a
little but less important subsequently. I mean, but this stuff all averages out over time, and that's why it's important to look at measures of underlying GDP growth, underlying economic activity, and those were quite strong.
As you know, the market is very focused on trade talks right now, and that's why we've seen equities recover to the extent they have over the past week.
DA.
When the US says China wants to talk, China's going around saying the US wants to talk. I don't think the market really cares about that. The market just wants to see talks. What's the timeline for actual talks.
So the President has repeatedly said in recent weeks, and he's been very clear that he thinks that we will do a deal with China. I think the President is right, and as I keep pointing out, the President has one of the best track records on making deals in the entire history of the country. He is able to pull deals that have ave had that nobody thinks if possible. He pulled the Phase one deal with China Ada have had in twenty eighteen twenty nineteen, in spite of all
the in spite of all the doubters. Many people didn't think that was possible, but he achieved it. And so I think the President is right that we will have a deal with China. I can tell you. I can tell you that I have good reason for that optimism. I think that it's in the interest of both economies to lower the temperature, to create breathing space, to continue talking, to figure out how we can get to a new stable equilibrium on trade. And I think that a little
bit of de escalation will be quite helpful. So I would be surprised if tariff rates are where they are now, you know, within you know, within within a few weeks from now, a few weeks.
So you're saying within a few weeks the one hundred and forty five percent tariff rate on China is bound to come down and to where Stephen.
Well, I can't get ahead of negotiations. I can't make commitments. I'm not part of the trade negotiating team. I'm not a trade negotiator. But what I can tell you is the President has been very clear that he thinks that there will be a deal with China, and I think the President is right, and I think that both I think it's in the interest of both sides to come to a de escalation that lowers the temperature and creates breathing space.
Well, China this morning put out a statement the Commerce Ministry, so this is official saying China is currently evaluating this. Do you have a sense when the President is going to get on the phone with Shijipang.
I don't. I don't, And again you know, I'm not a trade negotiator. I'm an economic advisor. That's the scope of my role, giving you as my expectations. You know, I can't get ahead of the negotiations. I can't commit anyone.
Steve, and I wonder if you could give us some insight though, just to the approach, the approach with tanking at the moment. The Choicey Secretary mentioned just yesterday that maybe we could revisit the purchase agreements that we struck with China back in twenty twenty. Is that something we'd look to do with other nations as well?
You know, Look, I mean I think that there's a wide variety of terms that can be included in the different negotiations, And each country is different, each trading partner is different, and I suspect that each trading agreement that is reached will end up being different too. But things like that should definitely be on the table. And I think it's up to other countries to show America that they mean to make trade more fair, they mean to make trade more reciprocal, and they mean to create better
markets for US exports. The way that we accept their exports into our markets, and purchases like the type you're describing, you know, could work towards that ends well.
The Europeans are looking at increasing the purchases of US goods to fifty billion euros to address what they say is the problem in the trade really relationship. Is that enough to get a deal done between Washington and Brussels?
Again, I can't you know, I'm not a trade negotiator, I'm not making deals with people. I'm just an economic advisor, And you know, I can't say you know, I can't prejudge the outcomes of those deals. However, what I will say is that talking is better than not talking, and I do believe in the ability of the President to
create deals that nobody expects. And once you start on that process, I think that there will be fertile ground for countries to see eye to eye to make trade fairer, more symmetric, more durable, more resilient, and create a more long lasting, stable global trading system.
Well, the Japanese aren't talking, and I think this is something that you can offer some insight on, an assessment on what this could mean for financial markets of the economy, and we'd love to know the kind of advice you'd give. In the oval to the President of the United States, the Japanese finance minister was asked if Japan's holding of treasuries could be a negotiation tool, and the response was this, here's the quote. It does exist as a card. Whether
or not we use that cord is a different decision. Stephen, what's your reaction to that.
My reaction is that I'm not the Treasury secretary, and you should ask my neighbor. A couple of blocks down, do.
You have an assessment on what that would mean for markets in the economy, though.
I don't, but you know, for markets in the economy, I think that, you know, capital flows will ultimately in the long run follow economic growth and economic opportunity. And that's why the President is focused on creating the most dynamic, strongest, healthiest economy in US history. And we're talking a lot about trade, but there's two other elements to the package also, and those are tax really for Americans, no tax on tips,
no tax and overtime, no tax on social Security. And incentives for corporate investment, lower corporate rates on domestic manufacturing, you know, expensing things like that. And also deregulation, getting regulations out of the way so that American firms can produce in America without layers and layers of red tape that make financing difficults, that delay projects and just make
it unattractive to invest in the United States. And as we succeed in creating the economy we want by passing the tax bill, the big beautiful tax bill, by proceeding with a deregulatory effort and getting government out of the way and putting American workers on fair ground via trade renegotiation and tariffs, then we're going to create the economy
that will attract capital flows. So all of this stuff, in the short run, you know, it's a little bit noise, but in the long run, capital will follow economic opportunity, and this administration is focused single mindedly on creating economic opportunity for American firms and workers.
So, Steve, let's quickly talk about the big beautiful bill. What kind of revenue do you expect from the tariffs to offset the tax cuts the President wants to get across the line.
So when you talk about things like offsets, you know that's ultimately you know, usually people talk about that as part of the reconciliation process, which is basically, you know, as as your audience knows a legal artifact of how of how the sausage gets made in Washington and how bills, you know, and how bills come together and get signed into law, the tariff revenue is sort of a different bucket.
And you know, I'm not at a liberty to share our internal number, but what I would say is I would be surprised if we had tariff revenue, you know, that was less than hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and that's very substantial, you know. So when you think about when you think about the revenue that you can erase from tariffs ultimately paid for by foreigners, use that revenue to help finance preservation of the President's historic twenty
seventeen tax cuts. Use that revenue to help finance additional tax relief for American firms and workers. I think that's a winning combination, Steve.
Right now, the market is basically just only pricing in the fact that there's going to be an extension of current policy. How confident are you that you get some of those sweeteners like you just mentioned no tax on tips actually done in this package, given how slim the Republican majority is in the Senate and the House.
Oh, I'm very confident that we will get this package over the line. I'm extremely confident we'll get this package over line. The entire Republican Party is unified and committed to using tax incentives to create a vibrant, robust, healthy, and dynamic economy. And that was what created the first Trump economic boom, and it's what will help create the second Trumpet i'mic boom as.
Well, Steven.
Just a final word on the Federal Reserve, which we may. The President's been outspoken, as you know, he said we should reduce interest rates. The Treasury Secretary Scott Besson made the argument that look at whether front end of the yield curve is right now, the two year tried in below Fed funds, that's evidence that this market things were too tight and the Fed should cut rates. I just wander from your perspective, how you weigh in. Do you
think this complicates the optics for the Federal Reserve? Does it make it harder for them to ease over the next several months?
Sure?
So you know, I think everyone's entitled to an opinion on interest rates and where they should be. And the President actually has a pretty good track record of his opinions. He was right in twenty eighteen twenty nineteen that inflation wasn't an issue and that interest rates were too high, and eventually consensus came around.
To his view.
And again he was right in twenty twenty one that interest rates are too low and inflation was coming back big time, and again consensus came around to his view. So everyone's entitled to an opinion on these matters. I think the president has a great track record on them as the Secretary of Besson, who's a fabulous track record as an investor on these subjects. And everyone's entitled to their view, you know. As to whether it interferes with
the things you're talking about, I don't think so. I think the track record of the Federal Reserve speaks for itself.
Stephen. Can I just say I really wanted to catch up with you. I did this for free, no overtime, Okay, but I'll take the tax break. I will take the tax break, Stephen. Thank you, sir, Stephen, My tax break is coming. Thank you, sir. The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, angiot politics. You can watch the show live on Bloomberg TV weekday 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 app.