Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene along with Paul Sweeney. Join us each day for insight from the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. You can also watch the show live on YouTube. Visit the Bloomberg Podcast channel on YouTube to see the show weekday mornings from seven to ten am Eastern from our global
headquarters in New York City. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and always I'm Bloomberg Radio, the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business App.
We are thrilled to Emily Rowland here with John Hancock of Boston. And I should also point out she's got the best call, which is just own America, own quality, screwing around. Do you stay with?
We do, Tom, And it's really all about following the earnings and following where the best fundamentals are, follow the cash flow.
And not only are.
We seeing us megacap tech companies. Yes they're overvalued, but they're doing the bulk of the heavy lifting right now as far as earnings growth goes.
It's a key reason that.
We've had a preference for US equities. We're also following where the money's going. We are spending like crazy in the United States right now, and not a political opinion, it's just happening. And it's really unusual that we're employing fiscal stimulus and increasing the size of the deficit at a time where the unemployment rate is less than four percent,
but it's being funneled into industrial production. There's a manufacturing renaissance taking place across the US Midwest right now, so we're playing that by emphasizing things like MidCap industrials and portfolios.
So we're pretty much eighty eighty five percent away through earning share What have you seen so far that's either giving you conviction in that call or maybe said, oh, we got some headwinds.
Yeah, I mean, earnings have been okay. You know, they remind me a little bit of my son's grades. He's in eighth grade. His report cards like not very good, but he's still on the lacrosse team right now.
Go marblehead.
So you know they've been fine, you know, but when you look at it, it's almost like I picture like a glacier, right, you know, how only the very top part of it is showing and it again, it's really those megacap tech names, Communications services, consumer discretionary.
Those sectors are up thirty forty.
Percent your over year, handily out pacing the S and P five hundred, which broadly is up only about two percent when you take those sectors out. So earnings has been fine, but again they're dominated by select groups of companies.
So how do you think about valuation?
Then? Do we?
I mean, two ways to look at it. When you just kind of look at the broad market, maybe we're a little bit rich. A lot of folks say, hey, pull out some of those magnificent however they are is and it's we're okay, How do you guys think about it?
Yeah, I mean it's really about a balance.
So we have evaluation an issue with those megacab tech names. In fact, right now the S and P five hundred growth Index is trading at a forty five percent premium to its twenty year average.
So we still like tech.
We're not downgrading it, but you've got to balance that with stuff that's actually trading.
Can sales JOHNY Hancock, with its venerable tradition, actually sticks to prospectus. Are your large cap portfolios forced to sell big tech because it's going up so much.
Well, it's now that's a big problem for active managers because it's hard to be overweight those stocks. So I think there's some limitations there as far as sector construction. What we're doing is we're balancing that with carefully.
Selected parts value.
Think of it as like quality at a reasonable price. Those are the types of stocks we want to own, ones with great balance.
Sheets such as these sectors. Come on.
Yeah, so we're overweight the information technology sector. We also like things like industrials, which we talked about, which have good earnings prospects, their high quality, great retire and on equity. We do like healthcare sometimes I don't love talking about it because it's been an area.
Healthcare try to go. I mean you and I were younger, Paul, when people started talking about this, Why won't healthcare pop?
I think you just need to see that rotation into more defensive parts of the market and think about what's
outperforming right now. You look at bitcoin, cryptomnor small cap equities, Chinese equities, it's like there's this massive momentum trade that's been spurred by this risk on sentiment, and it's really been just around the FED hinting last fall that that we were going to cut raids, and then kind of reiterating that message a bit last week when we heard that we're going to you know, kind of start reducing quantitative tightening and those other, you know, measures that are
more dubvish. So I think it's we've been thinking about this environment like a phase, and I've been thinking about I don't know if anybody's ever had teenagers in their house can go through these like phases, which can be weird and erratic and hard to un understand. And that's kind of what it feels like right now in markets, is you're having decelerating economic growth. The April data are not that great, but markets are rejoicing because it's reviving
hopes that the FED can start cutting. So we're in a phase that we're trying to get through and kind of ride out right now with those higher quality stocks.
How about on the fixed income side, do I sit in my two year treasury at four point eight four percent or do I take some credit risk out there.
I'm so glad you asked that Bloomberg is the place to talk about bonds, and I love that you know, it's pretty remarkable to see some of the volatility and rates.
I don't think it's been talked about much.
We just saw the ten year treasury yield fall by about twenty twenty five basis points in just over a week. We look at any backup in bond yields is really attractive.
Right now, you think about.
The aggregate bond indext yielding five point three percent, that's pretty awesome. I mean that's actually close to the twenty year high of about five point nine percent, and well above the twenty year average of three and a quarter.
We like income.
Now you're doing a lacrosse at Marblehead? Is that what is just right? Yeah? How many summer camps? Is a child going to? What a racket?
Yeah?
They got to walk diusy? Are they going to Dartmouth to the mountain dog?
We are looking at some lacrosse camp.
We're looking do you have a consultant?
I know, right, it's unbelievable. I need another job.
You do, yes, you do, trust me? Yeah, But you're looking at you know, three or four camps.
Yes, all the elite colleges of course, will take your children for a week of lacrosse instruction.
Doesn't even matter if they're good by.
Textbooks not included.
Exactly does this.
Marnsball does it? They all do it? Yeah, yeah, got to keep it.
I looked up Taber. I figure the track from marble Head down to Tabor in your cape. God, wouldn't be too much. They don't have a lex cap. They take your money in ice hockey.
Exactly, so Marblehead that it was only forty five minute drive hour drive to the Boston.
Well and on a Sunday morning it's about twenty minutes. But on a Monday morning it's a different story.
They got to agree. Folky coffeehouse up there, it's up there, like, yeah, exactly it gets warm about July exact.
For the sailing capital of the world.
Is that right?
Well, some people say Newport.
But mar it's like the real you know, Hankly and all that.
You know.
Do you have the picnic boat?
I mean that's like my dream boat. Picnic boat.
Yeah. Tom Purcelly when he took his job at Pigeon, he demands. He didn't demand, he asked, and they give. He takes a picnic boat down the Hudson.
River every morning, every day to the fisherman. Then so he can't have that.
Okay, well yeah, but for the picnic boat, I could see you when right, Yeah, you.
Know Augusto.
Broadcast.
Yes, yeah, Emily Rowland, Johnny Hancock road trip, thank you so much showing us now the former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve System with pimcoh and of course forever herder of cats at Columbia University within their Department of Economics. I've got it's going to be a four hour conversation and we're only doing it a short block this time with the Vice Chairman Clarita, but we'll make it a
much longer conversation next time. I want you to reaffirm, recapitulate your Economist article of seven eight, nine months ago where you shook the industry by saying, forget about two point zero zero percent, it's going to be some number higher. Revisit that right now.
Well, thank you, Tom, and always great to be on the show, especially in studio.
Yeah.
In that essay I highlighted that that I thought the pal FED and really global central banks we're really aiming to get inflation down to what I called two points something, and the idea was inflation was up to five six or seven at the peak, and the goal would be to get it in the zip code the inflation target, but in terms of dealing with the last mile, to let the economy sort of get to the last mile on its own without another leg up in rate hikes.
And that's what I think we're seeing in the US and really around the world.
Is the FED restrictive? Now? The polarity of market economists we speak to is there's a select group saying, you know what, they could go up further and then come down, and know those others saying stop it. They're way above the real rate, bring it down now. Which is it?
They think they're restrictive. I think they're restrictive. I think there can be a debate on how restrictive the Fed's thinking, which I think makes sense, Tom, is that the longer they keep rates here, and importantly, the longer they signal they're going to keep rates here, they will become more restrictive. And so yes, I'm certainly in the camp that they've done enough and the real question is how long do they have to keep rates at this level?
Richual, Tom and I will speak to people both in academia and in practice that says the FET should be cutting now. If you look at the real time data, inflation is maybe not whipped, but we're pretty darn close. We should be cutting rates now. How do you think about that?
If I were still in the building, I would not be in the camp to be cutting now. It certainly looked like that was feasible coming into the year, but you know, since the beginning of the year, the inflation numbers have been going in the wrong direction. And also I think that especially, I think what's relevant here is an element of risk management. So I think there is path dependence. The fact that the last three years inflation has been well above target. I think it makes it
a harder call to cut preemptively. So I do think, you know, sometimes central banks say they're data dependent, and they're not. I do think the Paler FED now is data dependent, and I think they're ready to cut if the inflation data starts to proceed as they expect.
How do you think this FED is looking at the labor market? I mean, Tom and I we kind of throughout this term it feels like we're at full employment. Everybody wants a jomp kind of has job. Wages are going on at a pretty reasonable pace. How do you think the FED looks at the labor market today.
I think they see a labor market that is robust by a variety of measures, not just the unemployment rate, but other indications, and that's a good thing. Indeed, I think one of the first speeches I gave is Vice chairs, I made the point, you know, the FED is not targeting wage inflation. It actually likes it when folks get a nice raise, but raises have to be consistent with the inflation target. And you know, we've gotten some good
news on productivity in the last year. Productivity growth is now around two percent, and two percent productivity growth with four percent wage increases have sustained gets some pretty close to where they want to be. So I don't think there's a lot of adjustment required in the labor market.
From here. You're joining us right now, Richard Clarida from a vice chairman of the FED, and of course with Columbia University, you're a certain kind of monetary economist. Of course with DSG, with DSGE, with GLLY, and I think of Megnum decigh Over at the London School of Economics coming from a totally different world. Megnan got Lord Desai got so upset about our fiction of equilibrium that he wrote a book about it two thousand and eight, two thousand and nine. In d SGE, there's a respect for
vulrus in some form of normal equilibrium. How can we measure equilibrium now if we don't have a clue what productivity is doing? I just don't buy it.
Well, I think we measure it with pretty big error, Tom, And you're absolutely right that not just productivity, but a lot of inputs into theoretical DSGE models are star term premium, equity, premium are all unobserved and measured with air. So I always thought, and I've said this on your show, and I've said this in the halls of the FED. You know, models are a place to start, but not to end the conversation. And in particular, you know folks would criticize
say DSGE that there are three equation models. Well, I think every economy needs to have at least three equations, but they're a lot more so, Tom. It's a starting point, but it's not a destination to get to the d the.
Two hundred and fifty PhDs, whatever it is. Fat they've all studied Clarida Gally Girtler and the rest of it. I get it. They've studied this stuff. Yeah, isn't germane right now? Our listeners say, you've got to be kidding me. After the shock of a pandemic, Yeah, a triple stimulus? Throw the equations out. Does Chairman Paul have equations now that are effective? Are that have some form of use?
My sense, obviously from public comments of not only the chair but the committee, is that they've understood Tom for some time that the shock was sufficiently unusual and substantial that they need they can, and they are relying less on models and more on the way the data evolves. You know, Tom, on one hand, you know, the models were telling them that to get inflation down from five and a half to two points something, they need to
have a big increase in the unemployment rate. And both Governor Waller, Sharp Pell and others said, look, the economy may be different this time. We don't have to assume a big cratering in the labor market. And that was actually a positive device.
I can't say enough, Paul, how I agree with this? And then this is Paul Powell's been hit like a pinata. Powell led saying do we really trust these equations? And Clarida who invented the equations in Colombia, you know, Stiglitz, they got their equations. Some of them are real simple like Stiglitz Engrossmen and others like Clara Edg's Greek to me. But the answer is do they matter right now? And Powell's let.
On this, I know, and Tom, one of the key issues for a lot of folks is the consumer here. I mean, you know, there's a tale of two cities, if not more out there with the US consumer.
A lot of folks are really struggling.
Particularly they don't own assets, whether it's real estate or you know, stocks or bonds and things like that. And how does the FED think about the consumer here? How did they gain how the consumer's dove? They look at the earnings from Walmart? I mean, what do they do well?
The FED staff has devotes a lot of resources to the consumer, not only at the aggregate level what is total consumption, but also increasingly during the time I was there, focusing on the on the distribution in both income and
consumption distribution across the population. And there are a lot of things that that can you can monitor, in particular, how many households are laid in their car payments or credit card payments, and so certainly, certainly the FED spends a lot of time on the bottom up analysis of the consumer.
So again, we came into the year, Richard, I mean the market was discounting six rate cuts. Now we're down the lesson to I mean, the market has no idea what's going on out there? Is the Fed? From your perspective, are they happy to say, Hey, we've done a lot of work here, We've raised rates, we had a major impact on this economy. Let's just wait and see how our work plays out. Is that kind of where we are?
Do you think that's exactly where they are?
In fact, that the chair got that quietest at the press conference, and I'm paraphrasing that his answer was along the lines of, we judge that policy is restrictive, and we judge that if we keep it here long enough, it will be sufficiently restrictive.
So that's definitely their mindset.
Their data dependent in terms of when the cut and how many cuts are going to happen, but they certainly judge that policy is restrictive here and they just have to keep it here.
Well, one of the great moments now in economics, Professor Clarita is your colleague and crime at Columbia, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prizer. He's out with a wonderful new book, very thought provoking, should be read by conservatives, The Road to Freedom, Economics and the Good Society. You two are both victims of the Midwest. One of the great great advantages here is Clarita and Stiglitz are like, what, everybody, calm down, There's a whole other country out there. Yeah, tell me
about policing. As Dean of Colombia, Joe Stiglitz, I can't fathom that is your day job. What was it like telling Joe Stiglitz you will teach this course?
Well, no, Joe is a treasure and I'm actually proud of the fact that when I was department chair back in two thousand and one, I recruited Joe to Columbia. It was one of my big, big accomplishments. I'm an enormous fan of his research. He's an incredible colleague, incredibly creative, and you know, I just wish we had fifty more Joe Stiglitz. Whether without the Nobel problem.
Why should conservatives read Stiglitz The Road to Freedom.
Well, I'm reading it now. I listened to a podcast the other day. Look it's It gives I think, an informed and nuanced assessment of the power that economics can have about thinking about the world if you're willing to step away from the oversimplifying assumptions. And much of Joe's career has been driven by a curiosity about the world and providing a structure to think about it.
How do you think about this US economy? A lot of we hear recently about the exceptionalism of the US economy vis a vis Europe. Let's think Germany or Asia, Let's think China. Is this something as unusual, this kind of decoupling, if you will, in terms of performance.
You know that term means different things to different people. What is clear, I think is through the rear view mirror last year many predictions of a recession. Not only did a recession not happen, but growth was a point above a trend, a very hot labor market. I think part of the exceptionalism theme relates to excitement about AI.
AI is a big deal.
It's not clear if it'll be a big deal in the next six months or six years, but it is a big deal, and obviously US companies in US innovation are poised to benefit from that. But there's another dimension I would argue in which the US is exceptional, exceptional but in a poor direction, which is that we have
an exceptionally irresponsible fiscal policy. And if you look at the CBO numbers, they are they are frightening, essentially deficits of five six seven percent of GDP as far as the I can see, so.
Exceptional in multiple directions. I would say.
One final question, Yeah, we have a presidential candidate, a former president who basically wants to take the independence of the FED away from your reading of our political economy. Can an individual Can a single president remove FED independence?
Certainly not, I think I think the legal standing of that issue is clear and decided, and I would coup points one. Jerome Powell will serve out his term, which goes through May of twenty six. Secondly, there are no vacancies on the federal reserve right now, so for the foreseeable future, there's there's no nothing for a future president to do on that account.
This is this has been fun.
Okay, yeah, you know quality c Yeah, yeah, gentlemanly see I'll take that.
Richard Claridath, thank you so much of Columbia University and of course the FED and with Pimco as well joining us right now Mandy Singh to straighten out fifteen iPads? Was this a plus day for Apple yesterday? I sort of get this Nascon feel even x Ai chat. This is going pretty well for Tim Cook, right or wrong?
Well, the China numbers I think that came out were a positive. Everyone was really thinking, oh, for worst case scenario, so that obviously is not the case. And in terms of their iPad launch, Look, I'm a software guy. I get excited when I see new apps that leverage.
Come on, you're so excited about three nanometers for chat? I am. I mean, it's what you and I talk about, We speak out on that.
Google has already shown that as well as they have incorporated a large ANGLID model that takes advantage of that three nanometer chip. Apple didn't do that, So that's the gap they got to plug in their developer conference.
Everyone knows, you know, the guy that tells me what to do, Mike Bloomberg. He's gonna get the new iPad. He's the best one, so will John Tucker because Mike gets one. So John Tucker is gonna have the fanciest iPad out there, and it's going to say, let's do AI. What is John Tucker going to do on his fancy new iPad with AI?
The first thing he will do is to engage with Siri, the one product that Apple has done something.
He doesn't know what that is.
So look, I think that's the biggest use case for AI. If this thing is real and you can, you know, engage with it in a productive way, it has to manifest in a voice assistant.
Let's be clear, Tucker doesn't engage with his next door neighbors.
How much less Siri?
So all right, man, deep, But I did not hear yesterday with the iPad was really anything AI. I'm banking on this June developer conference and I need to see something that says Apple is in the AI game.
Am I going to get that in June?
Do you think?
I think so?
And the pressure is on them to incorporate it in the next version of their operating system. Google has already done that in terms of integrating their smallest LM with their Android operating system. That's what developers want because then you can build new functionality on top of it, roll it out in apps, but if it's not there in the development kit that Apple has with their operating system, it's so hard.
Okay, So to Paul's perfect question about what happens in junior, the bottom line is, yesterday they brought out Logical leven, the music software, and it has three new things that are what I'm going to call ai ish. I still don't understand, you know how many iPhones are in my family seven with that bill, I don't understand what it's gonna do to various and sundry children's iPhone. Is it gonna have them spend less at the department store? Well it could.
I mean, look, the use cases of this are pervasive. That's what we are learning in terms of the companies trying to pilot new applications. How it's going to drive that seven. You know, people upgrade in your family. It's gonna be a function of can I run this operating system just on that latest iPhone or iPad, or can I run it on that all iPhone right now? All the operating system upgrades that Apple rolls out, I can
run it on my iPhone eleven or twelve. Why do I need to go to iPhone fifteen or sixteen because.
You come over for dinner?
Explain that to the troops?
All right, I need it.
When I'm talking Apple, if I'm a shareholder or prospective shareholder, I have to have a call on China. I don't have a call on China. I don't think this is a good story for Apple. It's twenty percent of their revenue. It's a big part to their supply chain.
I don't have a call there.
What's what do you think the call is on China for Apple?
I mean, there's no doubt it will be, you know, a decelerating business to the extent that right now it's twenty percent, it's going to be fifteen percent a year from now or two years from now. No it I mean think about it. Five percent of a four hundred billion dollar revenue base. That's a pretty sizable number. And where do you make up. Even if Apple is gaining share in India or in other markets, it can make
up for that five percent. So we're talking about big chunk of revenue leaving just because you know you don't have that market anymore.
So what do the bulls say about that? I mean, what's we had Dan ives in here, what would you say about I'm going to love that's twenty million revenue, twenty billion in revenue. That's just going poof.
Well, so the bulls would argue, you know, it's going to happen at a much lower pace and Apple.
Will continue to launch, you know.
New products where they will have higher sp growth is still the bullcase for Apple.
We got to go on this breaking news and we're thrilled to have men deep sing with this expert on this da da da D. Intel misses for the four thousandth time. Intel sees second quarter revenue below midpoint of blah blah blah, still sees fiscal year revenue to grow year over year. Is there a new Intel or is it the same train wreck you and I have covered for a decade.
I mean, we're talking about a company that is going through a transformation, and we know transformations are tough when it comes to technology.
Soci Republican Party, Come on, when do they need a new CEO to fix this thing next?
Now, I think he's pulling all strings in terms of trying to revive the company through different aspects foundry chip making. It's just when you are behind in the chip business, it's very hard to catch up. And that's what I really wrote on for the twenty five years they were at the pinnacle.
Is Joe Biden helping or hurting in Intel by his semiconductor expansion?
I mean, clearly the government is helping Intel here in every possible way in terms of the Chips Act, dispersements and just allowing them to, you know, do what they can in terms of catching up. Intel getting the ASML equipment that being the latest news. That's a huge deal because they missed on that.
Que's yeah, we were out of time. Yeah, Chris Miller chip war. Okay, ASML's over the Netherlands. They got to sell to everybody. How does Intel use ASML stuff versus our Taiwan's Semiconductor uses ASML stuff. There's got to be a difference.
I mean, ASML is coming up with a new and better machine every three months or every six months.
Who do they give those machines to?
Obviously they're going to sell it. If Intel gets a preference, that helps them narrow some of that lead that TSMC and other fab makers have. So clearly getting hold off that machine which is in hot demand.
Clearly makes a difference.
You impressed my questionnaire. I got it from John Tucker.
Nice saying thank you so much.
Mc moreroy joins us. Molroy joins us right now a senior fellow of the Middle East Institute and not an acquaintance with public service to the country, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East at Defense and also his effort with the Marines over many a year. Nick, thank you so much for joining again. I believe the way they do it in the Marines is they say
get out the map. I don't think enough Americans have gotten out the map of southern Gaza, three miles from Rafa up to a Mediterranean sea as a constraint in maybe nine miles south to the tip of Gaza into a desert in the middle of nowhere. If your world is there's the study of degrees of freedom? Where do those people move in Gaza?
So it is very good to be with you guys. As usual, It's very difficult, there's no doubt about it. The population that we're talking about inside Rapa over a million, so about one point three million are largely there because they've relocated from other areas of Gaza. Including all the way up to Gaza City Communis and now I think where they're looking is a coastal area, predominantly because Hamas isn't in the coastal areas because you can't dig tunnels there.
So they're trying to move this large population. I think around fifty thousand have already moved in the last two days to this area to get them out of the path of either a full scale or limited ground operation to basically address the last four battalions of Hamas terraces in that region.
You mentioned a million people, take away fifty thousand. Let McK molroy do the math. But the answer is in the next coming days, how do you move that many people. I can't visualize it, make help me.
So it will be difficult. I've seen some assessments that would take up to twelve days, but if you do your math, it doesn't seem to add up right now. But the other thing I'd point out is Israel doesn't
have to set an arbitrary timeline. Their timeline could be if they elect to do their off offensive, and there's certainly some serious opposition to this, but if they're going to go ahead, they could base it off of when civilians are out of harm's way, because it does look like they are voluntarily moving, and some quite frankly, really quickly.
So I hope that if they do go ahead, and that's obviously a choice that they're going to make, that they do allow all the civilians that they can get out to get out to a location where they can also receive humanitarian aid. It's obviously difficult to convince people to move to a place where there's no food, clean water, or the medicine they might need. So it is a very complicated situation point of your first question, but it needs to be done if this offensive is going to take place.
Nick after the October seven attacks, the Israeli government said their strategy was to basically eradicate Hamas or seven plus months into this, is that even possible? I mean, we asked that question seven months ago, is that possible? Seven months into it now, is that even possible?
So that is a good question.
You can never really eradicate a philosophy which means people
can join Hamas or whatever comes after it. I think they should have been more specific and certainly given the IDF more reasonable objectives, which is to the military destruction of Hamas, which means obviously taking out the military leadership, depleting basically their soldiers if you will, they're terrorists, but also just running the weapon systems that are so dangerous to Israel and these tunnels, which are a strategic problem that most militaries have not faced at this scale in
this type of operation. But if they could degrade those significantly, then I would think that would be a reasonable objective for the IDF. Destruction of a philosophy, a terrorist organization. We've seen it with our efforts in twenty years. We have not done that, so that is not likely to have it.
Make Peter Baker in the New York Times and among many many other headlines, including Bloomberg, the President of the United States puts arm shipment to Israel on hold. What does it actually mean?
So if you look at the growing I think concerned, but not just the White House, but even in the Pentagon, about how the war was being prosecuted. A lot of it has to do with the use of use of large diameter bombs in urban areas. So two thousand pounds
jade ams has a kill radius that is substantial. So even if you're targeting militants in one particular block, you could be taken out two or three blocks, and I think that has been some of the major concern Those are what the weapon systems I think that have been stopped from going to Israel right now because of this rough offens it. It may be in the future they condition it you can't use these weapons, but not in Gaza.
I don't know if we're there yet. The quickest way to do that is simply stop those weapons from being shipped to Israel right now, right before they're off with all.
Right, Mick, just strictly from a military perspective, how do you think this plays out? I mean, if your goal is to get every last Timas fighter, you can argue no end insight here. How do you think this plays out from a military perspective? Because he's really Defense fund they know what they're doing.
They do absolutely true.
But you're right, you're never going to get every Hamas fighter because every day there's new Hamas fighters, and as soon as you leave, they'll be new. So I think it is really to go after their capability to wage violence against Israel. So major weapon systems and every other weapon systems you can the leadership because leadership really matters. I mean, we can see that on October seven, unfortunately, and these tunnels, these tunnels do give them a capability
that is unlike most terrorist organizations. So I think if you can degrade that to a point and then you have to come up with a plan that is attainable and sustainable when it comes to ceasefire, because everybody's talking about it now as this is what Israel needs to do. But the question is, as soon as they signed the agreement, how long is it going to take for Hamas to then violate that agree because their purpose in life is to attack Israel.
MG, I gotta squeeze this in your effort. Is my star in the sky about children forced into soldiering in Africa? This is something you've really let on worldwide. Just quickly hear how big is this issue?
Well, thank you for bringing up It is a big and growing issue. In the last few years, it's doubled with the amount of children being forced to fight in the Middle East. The issue you're talking about is a documentary that me and my partner Eric hollerpeople all Rich did on the Lord's Resistance Army. It's being made into
a book. It is made into a book and it's kind of came out yesterday, so I really appreciate you bringing that up because a portion of the proceeds goes to our NGO in Child Soldiering, which really addresses issue not only to stop it, but to help rehabilitate those children that have been forced to fight, and that needs to stop immediately.
Mick, Thank you. Mick mulroy with us there on Gaza and what we see in Rulfia. Mark Sullivan's All the Glimmering Stars is the book.
This is a Bloomberg Surveillance podcast, bringing you the best in economics, finance, investment, and international relations. You can also watch the show live on YouTube. Visit the Bloomberg Podcast channel on YouTube to see the show weekday mornings from seven to ten am Eastern from our global headquarters in New York City. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen, and always on Bloomberg Radio, the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business app.