Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Jonathan Ferrow, along with Lisa Bromwitz and Amerie 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.
The New York Fed President.
John Williams pushing back against hawkish commentary from the FMC and Wall Street now pricing in better than fifty percent odds the federal cut race in December. FED Governor Stephen Moram was the loan to cent for a fifty basis point raid cup at last month FMC meeting, and Governor Myron joins us now from more Governor Maron, good morning, come for once again, thanks for.
Being here, Thanks for having me back.
We've got to start with the labor market, your reflections and what we saw. Yes, does it lean one way or the other?
Yeah, I mean I think the implications of yesterday were obviously dubvish, and if anyone was on the fence, I would hope that this would move them in the direction of cutting. I mean, you saw the unemployment rate edged up a bit. You know, you saw some other indicators like an increase in permanent layoffs. You know, those are indications that the labor market has been affected by restrictive
FED policy. And given the outlook for inflation, there's not really much of a need to be as restrictive as we are.
And yet on the committee we have pushed back.
Almost immediately after that, FED Governor Michael ba had this to say, I'm concerned that we're seeing inflation still around three percent. Inflation is closer to three than it is to two. What do you make of that argument? How percuisive is it.
It's not persuasive to me.
And I'll tell you why.
All of the inflation access, sorry, almost all of the inflation access is a mirage. It's not indicative of supply demand imbalances. And so, for example, if you look at the housing market right market, rents have been running at about one percent for a couple of years. Measured inflation in the index is actually much higher than that because it takes a really long time for the index to converge to where market rents are. That's a statistical artifact, right,
That's an artifact of the statistical measurement process. It's indicative of a supplied demand in balance that was there in twenty twenty two, twenty twenty three. Montre policy works with lags. It has to be set now for twenty twenty seven. So when you look at the housing data, right you see market rents running about one percent for a couple
of years. There's no supply demand in balance there. We should not be setting policy for twenty twenty seven based on a supply demand in balance that existed in twenty twenty two or twenty twenty three.
That doesn't make any sense.
There's other things too, like portfolio management services which confuse quantities for prices. This stuff is all well known. If you look at market based measures of inflation, they're much closer too than the ARC to three. So I think that the excess, the overage is a mirage, and it's a mistake to ask people to lose their jobs because of the corks of the statistical measurement.
Process, and you've got to put out new foecasts on December tenth as well, which is going to be complicated by the fact we've had limited data more recently, How relevant do you think the canidaentially is, because I'll i'llfer you the perspective on more straight At the moment, it goes something like this, the meeting's on the tenth, you don't get the dates until the sixteenth. The FED kind of constrained by that, they can't do kind of thing. What's your perspective on that?
Yeah, So, as I said a moment ago, Monte policy works with lags. It would be much easier if it hit the economy immediately, but it doesn't. It works with lags, so you have to set policy based on the forecast. So the data matter insofar as they affect your forecast. It doesn't make sense to be setting policy for where the economy was three.
Or six months ago.
We should be setting policy based for where the economy is going to be twelve to eighteen months from now.
And so if we have data, it gives us the ability to update our forecast.
But the lack of data doesn't mean that we don't have a forecast.
We did have a forecast.
It all gives us as opportunities to falsify our forecast. And there hasn't been anything in the data in the news, in media stories, in private sector data, alternative data that's available to us that would make us think that the forecast is somehow nullified. And there's been a big shock to it. So, if anything, all the information that we've gotten the interim since September FMC has inclined to the
other side. You know, we got weaker inflation than people expected, and we got a higher unemployment rate than folks were expecting, so all of that information to push one in the dubvish direction.
But they are still fed officials that are looking for more data, and they have said they're data dependent. They want that insurance that they're cutting right now and it's the right time. Potentially the unemployment rate might be moving up to four point five percent on December sixteenth. Would you be in favor of just moving the meeting if it meant others felt more reassured to cut interest rates in December.
So you know, I haven't really thought about that, and it's not a conversation that It's not a conversation that I've been part of I mean, I agree the meeting dates, see the meeting dates seem kind of arbitrary, But at the same time, a lot of there's a lot of stuff that gets done as a result of those meeting dates. And you know, people have investments and contracts and other decisions that are tied to the timing of the meeting date. And I don't know to what extent moving those dates
would be disruptive for all that. So it's something that I'm not sure about. But this ultimately comes down to the question of data dependence. Is what you do when you don't have a forecast or when you don't have any confidence in your forecast. Right, we should be forecast, not data dependent. Being excessively data dependent is to be too backward looking. And if you're too backward looking, you necessarily are going to have the wrong policies.
Yil daughter rights and he says, the only question that matters for you is will you descend for fifty if you believe it means not being able to push through a twenty five basis point cut.
Yeah, so absolutely not.
I would absolutely vote for for a twenty five basis one cut if my vote were the marginal vote. There's no question about that. I you know, to do otherwise would be to cause real harm to the economy for purposes of vanity, and that's not who I am.
Going into next year talking about the forecast of what's going to happen. A lot of economists to come on the show expect a reacceleration on the backs of the tax refunds and some of the other stimulative measures that could come early next year. How do you factor that into your forecast for ongoing weakness in the labor market and the consumer.
Yeah, so I think that, you know, I have not been a what I would think of as excessively pessimistic on the economy. I do think policy is restrictive, and I do think that it's too restrictive, and we don't need to be. And the longer we remain restrictive, the greater the chances that we are the source of an
economic downturn, which we should not seek to be. I think that many of the many of the factors that will be kicking in over the next twelve months that might be supportive of GDP growth are things that necessarily don't have hawk s implications for montary policy because they affect the supply side. And when you think about things like relaxing regulations, and I think that that has been
going on at actually impressive pace. These are things that push out the supply side of the economy and therefore don't necessarily create a demand excess of supply, right Monterey, policy should be tight if demand is too much an excess of supply, and if you push out the supply side of the economy, then that's not something you worry about.
There's a duration mismatch here though, the idea that if you reduce regulations and you allow people to build apply that it takes a longer time than say, if you give people two thousand dollars checks right up front that they can spend immediately, or if they get a rebate that's a lot bigger from their tax from their tax filings.
How do you factor in that timing mismatch? Would you look through.
Any bump up in inflation next year from both stimulative measures as well as the price increases that we're we're hearing from a lot of retailers that they're going to pass along.
So you know, I wouldn't look through I wouldn't look through bumps from checks like that, right, you know, I don't think that.
I don't think they'd be able to.
However, a policy like that has been hasn't been formalized, that hasn't been introduced. We don't know the parameters of it. It's too early to sort of think about basing a forecast on something like that.
What we do know is that is that the labor.
Market data have been coming in not as strong as we'd like them to be in that policy is too restrictive, Governor.
If we can stay on inflation? Do you know when we're going to get some inflation data? When are we going to get that? Because we've heard about the payroll schedule. I haven't really heard anything about the EPI schedule. You've got any indication whatsoever when it's coming.
Yeah, the BLS put it out on its website this week. I think that we're not going to get the November CPI data until after the next FMC.
So we've got to wait for that too. We've got it, we've got to waste that. Do you see that, Lisa?
Yes? I did.
I saw that we have to wait and it's not clear exactly when we're going to get it. But there's a real question going forward about when we might.
Get We don't have the day ship, but we don't have the deal the date the data are on the website.
Yeah, the BLS has a has a has a list of the release dates on.
The payrolls one. But I've missed the CPI one.
Which doesn't that just make it an even stronger case just to wait and have this meeting when we've got all this data.
Why is it that we have to wait so much long before a governor.
Wait for the data?
Yes, well, because the government shutdown introduced a whole number of snags into the data collection process, and so that those snags mean extra time to collect the data, extra time to process the data.
People have a logjam of work to get back to.
I mean we just you know, sort of spent several years talking about talking talking about bull whips from supply chains, right and you know, it's gets pulled in at once. And when you have a government shut down, all the government employees aren't working and they come back to work and they've got a ton of work to do all at once. And so you know, we have those bullwhips in government data right now. And you know, if that were a market, you'd see some inflation in the price of data.
But it's not a market.
So give me for coming down with the hawkish hits. But we got another one in the last twenty four hours two and it came from Beth hammock laring interest rights to support the labor market risk prolonging this period of elevated inflation, and it could also encourage risk tanking and financial markets. Can we finish on that last point, risk taking and financial markets? How excessive is it and should it be on the ritar of the f WEBC Sure?
So, first of all, as I said before, the excess of inflation is a quirk of the statistical process, and it is a mistake to ask people to lose their jobs as a result of a quirk of the statistical process on financial markets. You know, Look, I think that lots of things affect financial markets. Tax policy does, regulation does, technology like artificial intelligence does. It's a mistake to conflate the stance of the status of financial markets with the
status of monetary policy. Right, and when you look at us something as a financial markets as deeply connected to monitor policy like interest rates. We've lived through periods of conundrums, right, we're passing through of the Fed funds rate into longer term interest rates was confusing to people. So it's just a mistake to do a one for one mapping of
these things. And I think that when you look at financial conditions, the financial condition that matters most for the real economy is and remain, has been and remains housing, right, And this is an area where financial conditions are not tight, so are not loose. This is an area where financial conditions are are still quite tight going out getting a mortgage. You know, this is this is not something that's not a financial condition that I would consider to be excessively easy.
And so I think it's I think it's a mistake. And I think it's also a mistake, as I said before, to ask people to experience job losses because you think the stock market is too high. I don't know what
the right level for the stock market is. And I think that it's it's a very challenging question to be able to answer credibly, and to say that we need to create job losses in order to sort of restore the stock market to some level that we think is more reflective of fair value is just not a policy view that I hold.
A lot of people have come on this show and said that right now the FED is stuck between a conundrum of the K shaped economy where you have people at the upper end who are doing just fine and are supporting consumption, and people on the lower end who are experiencing lack of wage gains and they're experiencing those job losses more significantly.
How concerned are you about sort of your dual.
Roles of trying to help prop up and prevent some of those job losses from really escalating, while at the same time, potentially cutting rates would exacerbate that case shape, and you only exacerbate what you're seeing with respect to the wealth divide.
So Congress didn't task us with addressing all social problems in the world, in equality one of them.
They tasked us with.
Tackling aggregate maximum employment and stable prices. And so therefore the right policy to take is to stabilize employment and prices, and that's the policy. That's the policy that I support. I do think though, while discussing the subject of inequality, it would be much worse for the people at the lower end of the income distribution if the unemployment rate continued to go up as a result of our policies.
That's not something that they would be that they would welcome, and it's not something that I would welcome either.
Governor arts with the President this week and you have an office and I asked him about the FED interviews. It says lots of names, we may go the standard way quote, it's nice every once in a while to go politically correct. Out of the names that we know that are being interviewed, who is politically correct?
You know, I don't really know the answere we worked.
For the presidents. You understand how his mind works. Do you think it means someone that is currently on the board, like a Governor Waller or someone that's very close to him in your former colleague Kevin has it.
Yeah, So I mean it should be pretty clear that I just always say what's on my mind, and therefore I don't even know what politically correct is. So I don't even know how to begin addressing that, you know, But look, I don't.
Make care seeing too politically correct right now?
Actually am I I've.
Never been accused of that before, so hey, you know, I'm happy to have it first.
Going a very diplomatic it's going to see you. Thanks to drop them by.
Stay with us more Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this, Gil Lauria of DA Davidson remaining bullish on in Vidia, reiterating his by rating and price target of two fifty on the stock. Gill joined us now for more get welcome. I think we've still got to reflect on what happened yesterday. How is this name suddenly looking so French out.
Well, I think for the last couple of years, in video has driven the market, and yesterday something happened around ten forty five Eastern and the market started driving in video, something that really has nothing to do with then video.
The results were very, very good, and more importantly, back to the conversation you've been having so far this hour, Microsoft, Amazon, in Google and Video's main customers have all the customers, They have all the business customers through open Ai and Thenthropic, they have most of the consumer customers as well. And what they told us a couple of years, a couple of weeks ago, is that they're seeing an acceleration in demand, so they're able to build out these compute infrastructure for
contract that are already committed. So their customers, which again is pretty much every other company, and most consumers are booking demand in advance and willing to pay for it. So to be precise, here, Amazon, Microsoft and Google are generating very good returns on their investment in terms of the build out of the data center. It's their customers that are not yet generating returns but are booking so much demand in advance that it looks like they feel
they believe that they will generate those returns. So the results from Nvidia reflected that acceleration and demand. They were very good. That's why the stock opened up. Something else happened yesterday at ten four forty five Eastern.
I imagine we'll find out.
Something like some liquidation of a fund, somebody selling the AI portfolio as a whole.
It had little to do if nothing, within video.
That's aid Gil, and I hear you about sort of the technical selling or this question about whether there were some weekends.
That were flushed out yesterday.
There is this broader fear about in video, and you've seen it in the stock performance even leading into the earnings.
That the earnings were not able.
To assuage that, yes, people are willing to buy all these chips, but whether they're able to without borrowing a lot of money is another question. You talk about how there is this expectation of the profits to follow some of the spending, but you see the likes of Open Eye, as you yourself said yesterday, is the classic example of fake it until you make it. Why do the accounts
receivables not concern you? The idea that this is a huge bill and the cost of it is leaving some looking elsewhere to try to raise the money.
Yeah, so that's it's a good important question to start asking ourselves what's healthy and real and what's unhealthy and not real.
So I talked about the healthy part. Amazon, Microsoft, Google. They're buying all the.
Nvidio chips they can get, by the way, that does include Google. While Google is using its TPUs extensively, and by the way, the TPU is really the only competitive product in the market to nvideo, they're using it extensively. They're still buying as many nvidio chips as they can to help provide those to their customers.
That's all healthy behavior.
The unhealthy behavior you're mentioning has to do with startups borrowing money at very high rates, making promises they can't keep. That's the poster childs for that are open AI and core Weave that really and in amongst each other, making these big promises, borrowing a lot of money to build data centers, that part of the demand isn't real. Now importantly, it's not even necessary. If those two didn't exist, Microsoft, Amazon, Google would still be buying the same amount of chips.
If not more. But we do have to keep pointing.
To the bad behavior to Nvidia giving a dollar to Core core Weave, borrowing nine dollars and using eight of the ten to buy in Nvidia chips, then having to pay a dollar of interest rate and only getting fifty cents of profit.
That's unhealthy. That needs to stop.
You mentioned in video's receivable as in inventory that has come up yesterday. But if you look historically, we are still at These numbers are just so big that if you look at them as a ratio, so the account sociable is a ratio of revenue is actually within the historical range. Inventories is a percent of cost, and good sold within the historical range. So there's not a specific concern about those numbers for Nvidia, it's more concern about
are we letting bad behavior enter the system? Which the main indicator of that is how much debt is fueling the data center build out. As long as it's cash on hand from the big players and their cash flow, that's healthy behavior that they're putting behind real demand. If we start lending to upstarts to build data centers, that's the risk.
Yeah, we just have about thirty seconds here. What do you think the blow up of some of the unhealthy players is going to look like.
For the healthy ecosystem?
So the shareholders and debt holders of those companies are going to get wiped out. But the big companies that I keep going back to Microsoft, Amazon, Google, they'll end up buying assets at pennies on the dollars, So they're going to win anyway.
Stay with US. Multilemberg surveillance coming up after this. The Fense December Interest Right decision very much in down a growing number of policymakers expressing concerns of additional rancounts. Cluarly Assum of New Century Advisors, writing the employment report for September didn't sensor any arguments of the FED, and that boss is the FED against action. Claudia joins us now for more. Claudia, welcome to the program. Let's talk about
that job's report. What was your impression of it? Was that a strong report or a week one?
It was a mixed report.
I mean, you definitely saw the themes of job creation has been very slow. Payroll numbers were encouraging, but not encouraging enough. And frankly, you know, a real warning sign in the report was that the unemployment rate moved up again. This is the third consecutive monthly increase that we've seen, and that really does reinforce that the weakness in demand is outstripping whatever is slowing down in labor supply that we've seen this year.
That argument is the argument of Governor Waller and others. Claudia, I've heard that argument that we're close to store speed and we should probably get in front of it. How compelling is that argument going to be on December tenth to the rest of the committee.
Frankly, I don't think there's a compelling argument on either side right now. You know, we just don't have a real clear picture of what's happening in the economy. This was data on September, right this is months past now, and you can and what they're arguing about rightly, So it's about the risks they're facing the economy. I mean, my base case is still that we muddle through this, we don't have a recession, inflation comes back down. But I am very concerned, as is Governor Waller, about the
downside risk to employment. I can see the case also for the risk of inflation getting stuck above target.
Right.
So that's what they're arguing about, are these risks, and it's very hard to make a compelling case with the data that we have, So they're going to go down to the wire on this one.
Claudia, what's the difference if they cut in December if they cut in January.
Well, so monetary policy takes time to work its way through the economy. So if what we're seeing are signs of a labor market that is slowing down to a point that it really goes over the edge, well you would want to be doing those cuts as soon as possible. You know, if you wait until you have clarity, If the Fed waits until it sees clear signs of deterioration in the labor market, they have waited too long.
That's the big risk.
Claudia, they have seen signs of true deterioration, but it's in the lower income cohorts and we're seeing that pretty consistently. And it rais a sort of deeper question about the FED. Is it the Fed's job to try to close.
The ke shaped gap that we have in the economy.
So the Fed's mandate is for the economy overall, Right, they don't pick and choose demographic groups parts of the country, Like, that's just not their mandate, right, And they don't have tools that are that finely tuned to think.
About specific groups.
Now, what I will say is the FED can look at groups that are typically marginalized, say on the labor market, that can often be a signal of a broader weakness that's starting to build, right, Like, you know, not everybody gets hit first, right, And so I think that is where they pay a lot of attention to where things are happening on the margins. But it's not that they can use that as a justification or kind of target their policy quaudia.
Since the FED is going to meet and then six days later we get more employment reports, what do they need to be looking at that potentially settle the argument? It's at the FED before December tenth.
Right, so there is still information that the FED will get before they go into their December tenth meeting. They'll get the Jeweled statu so they'll have another read on the hiring rate the layoff.
Rate for October. On the first day of their meeting, we're going to get the Beige Book.
I think the Beige Book could be really important for trying to get a sense of this argument about how resilient is demand. It's qualitative, but it is designed to be comprehensive, right, And I think that's one where we don't have the GDP statistics, and so we don't have these comprehensive measures of the demand. That's going to be very important. I mean, they're going to keep gathering every
piece of evidence they can. What is unfortunate is the piece of data that could settle the debate at the FED is that November unemployment rate. And they're not going to have it when they vote.
Clodia, why can't they? Why why don't we just reschedule the meeting? Is that difficult today?
I think they would see that as being very disruptive, And you know, I think to Governor Waller's point, you know it is a data driven FED, but it's not like it must have a data point right like you do have to take what you have, form an outlook, think about the risk, make the case. I think what's just hard right now is they're missing because of the government shut down, because of you know, these delays that
are just an unfortunate reality we have right now. They're missing some of these data points that would settle debates. So they're just going to have to work through this and come to the best decision they can. But I think anything that'd be as abrupt as you know, moving the media, they're not going to want to go.
Down that path.
Stay with US multil Iomberg Surveillance coming up after this stocks saying to end a roller coaster week on a positive note that seeming ubs Global Wealth Management releasing their outlook for next year writing continued strong capex and growing evidence of AI monetization will fuel further gains for AI links stocks in twenty six. We expect the S and P five hundred to reach seventy seven high hundred by
the end of next year. Or Rika halfrom Machali ups joined this now for more or Ricakamonic Good say let's get to that price target, what's the road towards AK So what we believe.
Is that the macro headwinds that we were facing in twenty twenty five are actually turning into tailwinds in twenty twenty six.
We have that dual engine of both.
Fiscal and monetary policy stimulus, in particular in the first half of next year. We have, of course, on the one hand, now the rate cuts typically hitting with two to three quarters of transmission. Then we have the refunds from one big beautiful bill, and we also have more investments into infrastructure and defense, so that's a very supportive physical environment. And then we think inflation is also going to be rather contained. We have three disinflationary forces in
our mind that we are seeing. One, we are going to anniversary the tariffs in April, and then we have what we think is going to be slower wage growth because of the slack in the labor market, and then also finally shelter inflation coming down.
So with that a benign backdrop to inflation.
We also think there may be one more rate cut in the box for December, but again, if not December, then January, and ultimately, as you said, if the terminal rate that matters and not necessarily a one month delay.
You just offered us the ingredients for year round melter, but it's not materializing. How would you describe what's developing before our eyes right now in the last few days, the last few weeks.
Yeah, I think the key question right now is really about AI, and in our mind, the AI story has significantly changed. It's no longer about compute, it's about cash flows. And at the latest in the third quarter Microsoft earnings, we learned that some of the big private companies that are offering intelligence services are actually still heavy loss making, and the question is will they generate enough cash flows
to pay for all these commitments to infrastructure. And at the same time, what we're seeing is that the benefits of AI are going to actually be eccruped by companies that are us using AI, and I think that warrants a new playbook on AI investing.
So does this really marked the shift?
I mean, is this the turning point that you see a new playbook as coming into play for lack of a better word, as people look to who's taking on this new technology and deploying it in a way to increase their efficiency.
Yes, if we look just at the last three years, we're almost getting close to the three year anniversary of chet SPT. We have seen that those AI seven, those enablers and videos, the broadcoms A and DAMS, microns, and then also the hyperscale is that they have lovely gained about ten trillion in market value over three years. Yet
the AI users haven't really appreciated as much. And so for us, this is now the opportunity to pivot and invest in those companies that use AI for advertising, for coding, for automation of business processes, and we particularly think that the healthcare sector is a really interesting.
Way to actually play AI.
So does this mean that you're going to see that rotation out of some of these big, big cap, large cap tech companies and into things like healthcare, things like financial sector, things like Walmart as we saw yesterday as they renamed themselves as a tech company. Or do you see this as potentially everything goes up or the index goes.
Down, but you see some winners in the bunch.
At the minimum, we think or we suggest that you diversify that AI monetization risk of it. The math can work. Of course, there's some path to that math working.
But at the same time.
There is a lot of uncertainty all these private companies really going to make it. And I think for us, this is an opportunity just broaden out our exposure to AI and rethinking how we want to invest in this. We don't think AI is a bubble. The technology is not a bubble. Technology is real. The OROI is tangible. But we want to now again expand our investment universe of how to capitalize on this new technology.
When you look at capitalizing on it and you look at the adopters you're interested in, say healthcare other industries, does that mean job losses Not necessarily.
I think it could also be of just doing more of what we're doing, or doing it faster and more cost efficient. You know, in healthcare in particular, the cost of bringing a drug to market has arisen exponentially over the last few years and decades, and so AI can bring down that cost curve from clinical trial or drug discovery all the way to clinical trials, and I think this is a big opportunity for that sector to drive better operating efficiencies.
We've had a few of these conversations now and we often spend about ten minutes with a guest, and I would say about eighty percent of it is on the stuff we just discussed, and hardly any of it's on federal reserve and interest rates. Now we've just in the market with a big turnaround this morning, at least at least's pointed out how viciously things have changed in terms
of expectations. It makes me want to just how relevant you and the team think monetary policy might be to the outlook and how relevant it is for stocks going forward.
No, we think it's relevant, and we actually use three perspectives in our equity framework, which is macrovi fed of course plays a big role in We use also the bottom up fundamentals, so valuation right, that's a big part of our process, but also these structural trends like AI, electrification and longevity, which for us determine asset prices.
So for us, all three perspectives do matter.
Sometimes the market decides to focus on certain areas of these three lenses, and I think as an investor used to have to stay attuned to where the market is currently focus and pivot, but all three are very relevant. Of course, over the last three years, it's been all about AI and then particularly about AI enable US.
It has been toightly dominant, that's for sure, which is the.
Reason why it's hard to understand whether that hurts or helps the Fed's case to cut rates, because ultimately what people are saying is if the FED cuts rates more significantly, that helps evaluation story, proposition, the multiple story for AI stocks. But if they don't, then what does that do for
the rest of the economy. I mean, there's so many questions here, which is the reason why you see the existential angst for a lot of these FOMC members about igniting a bubble in financial markets in order to help cater to the weakness that they're seeing in the labor market. This is a conundrum that they're going to have to grapple with.
But they only have a door man date.
You've got twenty five penciled in for December another rate cut.
We have too more rates cut cancel in And really the reason, as you've had is the week labor market and all the alternative data that we have been seeing.
We now because they.
Have to wait until December sixteenths to know more about the labor market. But the data suggests that the labor market is still weak, and we think.
We have two more cuts.
It just seems ridiculous.
It doesn't need to be this right.
Read to the day.
This is the Bloomberg Sevenans podcast, bringing you the best in markets, economics, antient 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.