Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. Catch us live weekdays at seven am Eastern on Apple CarPlay or Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I will not mince words.
This is a required read for anybody inside the Beltway this morning.
It is a book from a time ago.
Paul, you walked around because you were cool, because Douglas had a book with a sailboat on the cover as a lightful book that was against the tide, and it was absolutely definitive. I read every word of it, and we're thrilled that Professor Irwin could join us from Dartmouth today. Let me just get out of the way. Dougarr won a cup of coffee with a president this morning as he prepares the State of the Union. What would be your counsel to President Trump.
I don't think you'd want to hear anything i'd have to say. I'd say the Supreme Court gave him hit him a favor by trying to put these tariffs on pause. But of course President has just reimposed these similar tariffs using different authority, so it had It was a very important decision. It was a very historic one, but just shunted the president to using different statutory authorities to levy tariffs, and he's going.
To move forward with them.
Will we see a legal battle of these new tariffs, Claudia Sum, it's away from her remit, which is monetary economics. But Professor Irwin, do you just assume further legal battles about ten percent or fifteen percent, one twenty whatever, two thirty this.
Yeah, a lot of numbers are being thrown around in terms of the statutes. Yeah, so the new tariffs, which are ten percent, he's promised fifteen percent, but they haven't issued the executive order on that quite yet. Those will
probably be subject to legal challenge. And that's because the statute allows for the president to impose tariffs in the cases of a balance of payments, deficit or disequilibrium, and it's not clear that in an era of floating exchange grades, whether it's actually a thing exists anymore.
Now.
The other side is that the terroffs can only be in effect for one hundred and fifty days and then it require congressional approval. So there's a lot of uncertainty about how this is going to play out over the next.
Couple of months.
Professor I guess most of our viewing and listening to audience what they know about teriffs they've learned over the last six, seven, eight years, which is just massive tariffs on all types of countries, all types of products across the board. But typically, how are tariffs historically used and how can they be most useful?
Well, that's really why this administration marks such a sharp break from what we've seen in terms of historical experience. You know, you've probably mentioned smooth Holly on the air over the past couple of years. Before that actually smoothly itself. Congress determined tariffs. It's part of the legislative power of tax It's in Article one, section eight of the Constant. It was basically Congress's decision.
What to do.
Then powers began, delegate began being delegated to the president, and we entered the era after World War Two of the president negotiating trade rooms to reduce terifts and the tariffs have been sort of on a one way path down since World War Two. And that's when entered Trump and also when they start and that same authority starts being used to increase terrans once again across different products, across different countries in all manner of way.
Worldwide and across the nation.
This morning, Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth College, he is our definitive expert on trade only standing with him as Barry Ke and Green of Berkeley, we'll get professor I can agree on in a bid out with his new book, Paul Sweeney with Professor Irwin.
Professor, we had the New York Fed come out with a report, I guess a week or so ago that said, you know, ninety percent issue of the tariffs have been born by the American economy, either importers, companies, and even consumers. Obviously the White House pushing back on that. Who pays Who pays really at the end of the day for tariffs.
Well, the importer in the US actually writes the check, but then they pass it on to whoever they're selling the products to, and it sort of goes a lot of the value chain. That Federal Reserve, that FED study, it's been sort of erupted that finding that ninety percent of the terrorists get passed through to domestic purchasers. Either final consumers or businesses along the way. That's been confirmed by you know, at least half a dozen other studies.
So study after study has sort of consistently shown that both for the Trump first term tariffs as well as these most recent lines.
Medlon Marshall has a fabulous video out at the Wall Street Journal. I put it out about a week ago, folks. I'll redo that with the academic input of Douglas Irwin. Doug Your's three hours of trade policy, revenue restriction, reciprocity. We're not going to acquisit the end of the interview, but professor, and they're very chronological, and what I find interesting is the restriction using high tariffs to restrict the
imports of McKinley in post Civil War America. I mean, they were all shown the door in the voting in eighteen ninety. The Republicans, including McKinley, basically lost their jobs. Do you anticipate that in November a McKinley eighteen ninety kind of vote by America.
Well, that's a very interesting historical observation, and you're right it does have some residents for today. So I mentioned the new statutory authority that the President's levied these tariffs. After one hundred and fifty days, he might have to ask Congress to re up those tariffs. Does Congress want to vote for higher tariffs in the summer before midterm elections, when Republicans are already divided over trade policy? I don't
think so. So it leads into the affordability AGCA in prices, and so I think tariffs could be toxic come this fall.
What should China do? There's a lot of the press today about how China responds. I guess the president is going to Maybe Doug Irwin's going to carry the President's luggage to China.
Could do that.
I can see it.
He could stay in Hong Kong and Shanghai rather at the Piece hotel where Henry Kissinger state yep, I mean it could do that. Professor Irwin, if you were to go to China with the president, how do you discuss this with Beijing and how do they respond?
Well?
I think what Beijing is looking for is stability in the bilateral relationship, and that's exactly what we don't have at the moment.
Now.
We do have special tariffs on China under a different provision of trade law, and those can be subject to negotiation, but we're sort of in this uneasy truce with Beijing about they're not going to restrict rare earths and we're not going to impose further tariffs. How we move out of that remains to be seen, and it really depends
on what the administration has in mind. And then Beijing, I think is holding its cards close to his chest and probably won't do much until it sees what the administration wants.
Professor. One of the I guess.
The results of the Supreme Court decision last week is maybe some companies, some individuals may want to get some rebates of the tariffs that they've incurred in. Just today, FedEx sues the United States to get full refund of emergency tarriffs after Supreme Court ruling.
Do we have any idea how that process would work.
We have no idea at the moment. So the administration has promised that there will be rebates, but they could be slow walked, and that's why I think we'll see lawsuits to try to accelerate the process. It could take
months or even years. Doesn't necessarily have to take that long, but it's clear the administration is reluctant to give up that revenue, and no processes identified, at least as far as I know about what the process will be to adjudicate all those claims for the revenue that is amounting to tens of billions of dollars to going back to American businesses that imported foreign goods.
Come on, Blache Flower is gonna say, dougg Ruin, David Armth, just print more debt. I mean, do we need that revenue? I mean, I haven't seen a clear case that we must, must, must have the revenue. The first of your.
Three rs, Well, you're right that the Trump administration has used all three of those ours, and revenue has been an important one. And they certainly made the case on for the tariffs on the revenue grounds. But they're legally obligated I think to turn it back. But the question is it's not a matter of government have the money, but can they go back through the records and isolate those who those firms that actually paid the tariffs in the first place.
The continuum of your against the tide, folks, I can't emphasize enough. It was like Daniel Jurgen's surprise. Even if you didn't read it, you walked around with it because it was cool.
You had to be cool. So Dougrans against the tides.
The absolute foundation of your book is Robert Solo.
Technology.
Technology comes to the rescue is America expands and that do you just assume our international trade tensions, Doug Irwin will get fixed by further technology leadership in America.
I think the two are interrelated. I think that the US leadership in technology and other matters gets disrupted with all these trade frictions across countries and the tariffs that are going up and down and can change on a whim. So, you know, trade disrupts that process of spreading technology around
the world. It inhibits our ability to export to other countries because there's implicit retaliation against the US, and it disrupts all the business relationships that are needed to provide the funds for more R and D. So it's not good for our technological development. But at the same time, technology does march to its own drama to some extent and will continue to move forward regardless of what is happening on the trade front.
Professors, is it reasonable to assume that this Supreme Court decision may embold in Congress to try to reassert some of it's already over tariff policy.
Well, it certainly was a wake up call, and some of the justices really did call out Congress and not so many words, saying you have to step up. It's really your responsibility under the Constitution to adjudicate an oversee trade policy. Question is whether they'll do it under this administration. I think Congress would act with act with great trepidation in trying to pull back some of the powers it's
delegated to the president. But I think there is a medium term agenda for future Congresses and future administrations to write rethink US trade law and ensure that we don't go through the mess in the model that we've gone through over the past year.
Professor, is the concept of free trade? Is that still relevant in today's global economy?
I think it.
Always remains relevant to some extent. Now, free trade doesn't mean absolutely no barriers and no interventions whatsoever, but I think we do have to distinguish and former Vice President Mike Pence has sort of made this clear that between you know, what he's called for is free trade with free nations, and we have to think about trade as part of our alliance system as a way of working with allies and then separating out those countries that are
adversaries and we don't want to treat them the same in terms of our trade policy, because that's an extension of our foreign policy.
Oh, this is a really good point here.
We're going to have to leave here in a big Professor Irwin, but off of your wonderful article and essay, I should say in the Economist here in the last couple of days, can you explain while we're going after Canada and not China. I mean, I know that I still call them. Governor Kearney from the Bank of England, Mark Kearney, good morning and everyone up in Ottawa, Doug Irwin. Why are we going after Canada when we have true adversaries that we're trading with.
That's a great question.
Unfortunately I'm giving a talk in Canada about two weeks, so I don't have to think this through for our Canadian friends up there.
Careful, you may lose your teeth.
Yes, high sticking off the cocktail the Dartmouth hockey team about how they prevent such things that from happening. But you know, I don't know whether it's a personal relationship that Donald Trump didn't forage with Justin Trudeau, whether there's some real estate deals that went bad in the past, whether some other aggrieved parties within the administration that speaking to the President ill of Canada.
But I agree with you.
In some sense, it just doesn't make sense that here we've had peaceful, cooperative relations with this great neighbor to the north of US for so many decades, and yet we're jeopardizing that with these trade wars.
One final question, I mentioned Davenport, Iowa, the first district of Iowa, where the congresswoman is fighting for her life. What is your counsel to Republican House of Representative types on the precipice of losing their seats, what should they do on trade?
Well, I think they really have to speak their constituents about how in certain ways they differ from the president. Once again, in the West farm states, they've been hammered with foreign retaliation against our agricultural exports. So American farmers are really suffering, and so they have to offer some sort of promise that there's a better days ahead in terms of the ability of the US farmers to export in other countries. And we're just not seeing it under this administration.
Where in God's name is the update to Against the Tide?
Yeah, exactly are you smashing off, Dougerwin?
When do we get the next three chapters of Against the Tide?
I'm not sure, but I've got another book called Free Trade under Fire. There's any time free trade has been under fire that one's due for a revision.
Very good, Douglas Irwin, Thank you so much, just wonderful, generous of your time.
This morning is a Dartmouth stay with us.
More from Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Catch us live weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern Listen on Alplcarclay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business up, or watch us live on YouTube.
This is a really good time to talk to Cam Dawson. I'm just going to cut to the chase. You're on the cover of Barons this weekend. They give you lots of play as they deservedly, as you deserve and they should. And the question is simply going to be there, is this the opportunity of a lifetime to reset in a beleaguered mag seven.
Well, I think that a lot of people have been considering it that because if you look at the flows into the software ETF, they've been a record relating that the dip buyers have been out in force. And I think that a lot of people are trying to catch that proverbial falling knife. I think the question is is or have you seen enough damage to some of these what were powerful uptrends to start forming into what could
be more distributional kinds of patterns. And I think at this point we wouldn't be stepping into some of the areas is like a software necessarily. I think the one key thing is that a lot of these areas have been a monolith on the way down. We don't think that there'll be a monolith on the way up. And this is where we're starting to sharpen our pencils to say who are those who will truly be disrupted and who are those who could actually benefit from this AI.
SMP equal weighted up five to six percent, SMP SPX actually flat for the year. We don't we rarely see that. I guess, so that broadening out trade seems to be a thing so far.
I think the way we would frame it is that this market has not been risk off, it's been risk swap. Effectively, we are swapping out of the areas of the market that we think are AI disrupted into areas that either benefit from the AI infrastructure or those that cannot be disrupted. HURT a really great new acronym called HALO from the Saxo podcast. It stands for high asset low obsolescence. So people are crowding into areas of the market that they
think cannot be disrupted by AI. The challenges those areas are higher, higher acid intensity, and lower return on Investigator.
Kiman Dawson with us here the equity markets, right Paul's talking, I'm using the Bloomberg to really look at the charts and the technology.
We'll get to that in a moment.
But the draw it out on Nasdaq futures Paul back to November is all of seven percent.
Yeah, I would have thought it was fifteen or twenty percent exactly. Can We're pretty much through most of the earnings so far here. This cycle pretty darn solid. I think, how do you think, how do you view earnings and what does the market need to see from this earnings going forward?
What's fascinating is that, yes, the earnings have been strung. You've been revising up estimates for four Q. They're coming in at thirteen percent versus the expected eight percent at the start of the quarter. If you look at twenty twenty six numbers, those have been revised higher. You're actually even revising higher twenty twenty seven numbers, if you can even believe so. People are expecting thirteen percent this year,
thirteen percent growth next year. But all of the pain has been coming from the multiple, from the valuation, because it does appear like this market is not as eager to extrapolate today's earnings power ever into the future.
Such An Adelegan out tweeting for Microsoft today he's in London on regulatory and that'll be their response to these real sensitivities of AI. Over at Mike Allen over at Axios, really writing up the tension in the State of the Union speechs at Washington about artificial intelligence? Can I go tech with Cam? Sure, Nerd, let's get practice. You're going to be in Phoenix with me next week?
Right?
Sure?
All nerds?
Phoenix From the CFA Society Kim Dawson and Tom kit Okay, the price of Microsoft is back to early twenty twenty four. I don't have a cell signal on weekly climate exponential moving averages. I don't have a violation of two monthly units of parabolic sort.
What this means is trends in place, but we really haven't broken down. Yeah, well that's simple.
Well, I think that that is the key point, which is that right now within the broader Software index, we are sitting at exactly the two hundred week moving average, not two hundred day two hundred week moving average. This has been such powerful support ever since the low's coming out of the Great Financial Crisis. Anytime there has been a whoopsie in markets, we've gotten to that week move that two hundred week moving average. The question is does it hold this time?
Alexis Christopher says, Tom lose the technical mamo jumbo.
They'll tip there.
Folks from the pro Cam Dawson is the big mistake is to only look at daily charts.
The pros look weekly.
Paul sweeing, So Cam's what's screening well for you these days?
Is it? Is it an industry? Is it a factor? What's screaming well well? For the last year or so?
My colleague Brian coined the term we have to shore up the sixty inequity market portfolios, and what that means is that we didn't want to be over concentrated in one factor, over concentrated in one style. So if you rode the growth wave up and you were way overweight growth, it was a great opportunity to add some more value into portfolios being a bit more balanced. There add international
into portfolios. Remember the international weight in the Global index, so that ACQUI index is about thirty percent, which meant that most of our clients were by definition underweight international, so there was room to move those allocations higher. So all that means is that diversification is now a really good friend. Over the course of effectively the last eighteen.
Months, quickly, do you think the tech companies will finally grow up and issue normal debt just going to go out like Google did and billions of dollars of debt?
I mean, I thought that there was a really interesting note in the ft from Moody's today talking about effectively how a lot of the tech companies are using some accounting gimmick it I mean, and you know, being able to not have things be on the balance sheet that's typically what we see in late cycles. Ops. You off, you skate some of the cash flows in order to make things look better. You do not play tricks with cash. If everything is awesome.
Thank you so much, and I'll go into detail, folks. And the wonderful work the f he did in the last twenty four is on this Kim Dawson, Cameron Dawson, New Edge.
Wealth, Manage It. Stay with us.
More from Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Catch US Live weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern. Listen on Applecarplay and Android Otto with the Bloomberg Business app, or watch US live on YouTube.
Joining us now from Washington.
The voice I want to speak to I went to the State of the Union ones, folks, and basically it's a lot of meat and glad ahead and all that, but underneath the substance. Nathan Dean, senior US policy analyst, Bloomberg Intelligence.
What's the substance tonight, Nathan?
So, I think there's three themes that we're telling our clients to watch out for. The first is geopolitics. And the reason why this is so important is for everything else. President Trump says tonight, there's a process, we can work the process, and there's time to respond. For geopolitics, that can change in an instance, So obviously keep an eye on what he says there.
The other is tariffs. He's going to double down on tariffs.
I don't think you're going to see any new information coming out from Tariff's but he's going to double down, and he's going to have to look the Supreme Court in the eye and say, why did you essentially reverse my AAEPA tariffs. But when it comes to affordability, you know, we're seeing a lot of headline risks and opportunities. We
don't anticipate a lot of new ideas. Potentially President Trump's talking about this idea of a new four oh one K for you know, Americans that don't have employer sponsored programs. But the thing about headline risk is that for anything that comes that President Trump says, like cutting credit card interest rate caps, you know in just at ten percent, requires an active legislation.
It's going to be very difficult to get through in an election year.
I have been saying, folks, really off the mic, to be honest, where is the military and the discussion of Iran. And there it is Nathan Deane those photographs and that cover the Washington Post, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, And the reporting is they're saying, slow down into this State of the Union tonight, how will the president address the military and preparations in the Middle East?
So it really comes down to the fact that, you know, are we going to see what Bloomberg News is reporting of this limited strike? Are we going to see negotiations take place on Thursday? I mean that's really I think the signal that we're looking for.
You know, we're we're you know, we're we're.
Seeing a lot of what Bloomberg Economics is putting out on the subject, and either they've just been saying that like look, you know, we've got a significant number of assets in the region and they can't stay there forever. So you know, we're going to look for words. It essentially says, you know, are we going to offer the olive branch?
Are we going to.
Try and drive this you know, more of a force, if you will, to bring people to the table. But again, you know, this idea of limited strike is really what's the idea that's floating around Washington at the moment.
Nathan, it is an election year. How to typically do presidents use this.
State of the Union address during an election year, particularly when President Trump's approval ratings are lower their Republicans in the ranks are a little bit concerned about some of those trends.
Great question.
You know, the State of the Union starting election years are always campaign speeches, and that's what people should be thinking of when they watch tonight.
You know, President Trump isn't going to move to the middle.
He's going to try and drive a little bit deeper in terms of bringing back you know, optimism, if you will, amongst the Republican Party, because if you look at the prediction markets, you know, the odds are favoring that the Democrats are going to take the House and they have a little bit stronger opportunity of taking the Senate. So I think you're going to see President Trump come back to Republican ideas to try and drive optimism amongst the party.
You're not going to see Democrats really, you know, stand up and clap for the president all that much. It's going to be very much a partisan speech, and that's something that we should take in mind when he says statements like I want to do this, can you get that through an election year? In a lot of cases, you know, presidents can't do that.
Is there pushback?
I guess the question is what level of pushbacks are in DC amongst the folks down there about this whole tariff policy. It doesn't seem to be polling particularly well. Yet the President is very adamant aout doubling down, tripling down.
So it's not really there's much pushback in the way of just the uneasiness. And the way that the Republicans are approaching this is they're essentially saying, look, I just would prefer to talk about something else, you know, because even though you have the Republicans who are signaling that they are at ease about tariffs, they're not going to push back on the President's certainly during an election year when they need his support in the primary season.
So you know, maybe after.
The primary seasons, think may you could see additional pushback, But right now the Republicans are just going to say hands off. And that's one of the reasons why I don't think a reconciliation bill can get forward. So when you hear senators say, I want to codify President Trump's tariffs.
It's just probably not going to happen.
Nathan, you are more qualified than anyone at Bloomberg to talk about this. When you go Norris from Harry's Chocolate Shop, it produe boiler.
Up, Nathan Deane, can you go up?
And you go across the width of Illinois and all all of a sudden, there's a river and there's Devenport. The President asks to speak tonight to Marionette Miller Meeks of the first District in Iowa. She's fighting for her life. What does President Trump have to say to Congresswoman Miller Meeks of Devenport.
It has to be about affordability, and affordability and affordability. And this is one of the problems for the Republican Party at the moment, because you're gonna hear President Trump talk about significant number of ways to cut down costs for consumer goods, but in the same breath he's embracing tariffs, which we would argue has an inflationary impact as well.
And so this is really a muddled message.
But President Trump has to essentially tell the American people that he understands the costs are going up, and when his message is essentially said, we're bringing costs down and inflation is down, it's a difficult.
Message for a lot of people together.
Nathan, we have to go because I have to save time at the end of this block to point out to Purdue his number eight ranked in the nation and Duke is ranked number one.
So we got to move on to get to that. March madness. Nathan Dean in.
Charge of our boiler up operation in Washington and of course all of our policy.
Just wonderful to speak to him on this Stay with us.
More from Bloomberg Surveillance coming up after this.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Catch us Live weekday afternoons from seven to ten am Eastern Listen on Applecarplay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app, or watch us Live on YouTube.
This is going to be another interview of a spectacular foreign affairs article, but things have changed in the last twenty four hours.
On the front of the Washington Post.
On the front of the New York Times, a still photograph of the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff looking lonely separate in a part the reporting by different media is simple. The military pushing am back against Oval office thoughts of Iran. NaIO Shadlow joins US now a spectacular foreign affairs issue because sure Mabu Bani, among others. A great article in Germany Professor Shadlow writing why America must build a new operating system? How alone is the
President Nada looking at a new operating system? Is he looks to Tehran? The military seems to be saying slow down.
Well, he's not alone overall in that my article essentially was an argument about how the global approach to problem sets has not.
Worked and has.
Not solved problems, and in a sense Iran is a good example of that in that for some forty seven years we've seen the Iranian regime grow in strength, create regional chaos, kill thousands upon thousands of its own people, and grow its nuclear program right most importantly for the United States and for Israel to threaten Israel, our allies in the region, and potentially the United States that the Iranian regime has called the Great Satan for many.
Many years.
So it's actually a good example of how global institutions writ large have not been that successful by their own measure. In solving some of these key problems. These are difficult problems. You're not going to necessarily solve all of them. But even in managing them, the President is now in a position where he sees that this may be the best chance ever of finally degrading the Iranian nuclear program right. For years and years, for decades, other approaches have not worked.
Iran is at its weakest in many, many years, largely also because of the June strikes, Operation Midnight Hammer.
But you know now, yeah, he's considering a course.
Of action which he thinks will put the United States, Israel, and our allies in a better position. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is right to point out the risks of military action. There are always risks of military action. It certainly would not be easy. In US history, all of the wars that we've been involved with have had to deal with the political ramifications of war, the need to stabilize the country, the need to create better political
outcomes than when you went in. So it's not going to be easy if the President chooses to go.
In Nadia again.
The President and the US has assembled quite the armada in that.
Part of the world.
We have two carrier strike groups there.
It's a show of force that we've not seen there in a very, very long time. What do you think the views of the Iranians here when they look at that amount of the force that's been assembled.
I think the Iranian regime says, you know, President Trump is serious, right, They see the potential for destruction, great destruction in their country. I think they're taking it seriously. And I think the President did the right thing by assembling this this huge strength of military force, the largest in the region since the two thousand and three, since the two since two thousand and three.
So I think it's the right course.
You want to show you off your military power to deter to potentially get the Iranians to come to an agreement. So far they haven't come an agreement. In some ways, it's in their hands, right. I mean, the President clearly wants a negotiated settlement. He wants a settlement that will degrade, get rid of Iran's nuclear program, degrade its ballistic missiles, all of those things.
He said, what is the distinction, folks.
Natty's Shadlow with us from the Hudson Institute senior fellow brilliant article in foreign affairs. What is this distinction that Nadia between the globalist delusion of Nadia's Shadlow and Ian Bremer's every nation for itself.
I'm not arguing, you know, I didn't, I didn't need I need to read Ian's article, but I'm not I mean, maybe we're not. My argument points out that by its own measures, the United Nations, for instance, and other global institutions have not achieved what they said they have wanted to achieve. Climate is a perfect example. For twenty five thirty years, climate has been a key focus of this global group think movement, and yet the numbers aren't there,
So maybe we need to try something new. I'm arguing that power resides in states. It's a state centric system. But that's a good thing. It's okay, that's the way the world works, and if you acknowledge that as a starting point, maybe you'll get to better outcomes.
I think others who.
Argue against a state centric approach see it as sort of a Hobbesian world of everyone fighting against each other. I'm not arguing that. I just argue that if you acknowledge that states have power, are the source of power, and you begin from that, you create a way of doing things that might lead you to.
A better place. I'm arguing for cooperation.
You need cooperation, but not necessarily through these hugely bureaucratic institutions. Work with other like minded countries. And I argue that it's really important for democracies because we're seeing over and over again the difficulty of actually getting things done. We see this domestically too, and it hurts democracies. It hurts confidence in the American system. People want to see that
the promises are kept and that outcomes are achieved. So I'm arguing for a different operating system, meaning a different approach to solving problems and to going more to a level where you're approaching things from coalitions of the willing, smaller scale, beginning at the local and working your way up, not beginning from in New York. I think we're all near New York, not from New York top down, United Nations top down and solving that way.
So Nadia again, just to fall upon that point, what is the role of the United Nations of NATO. How should the US, I guess, operate within that framework or is it America first?
Well, NATO is really different.
NATO is a perfect example of the exact type of multilateral institution of states cooperating. We're cooperating because we basically agree on the problem sets. We have similar political systems. We're all democracies almost roughly. Where we've created. Where NATO has created for a particular reason, and it's a military alliance that has worked, that has developed real defense capabilities that we should not throw out. It's really hard to operate with allies and partners on the ground in a
military way. So NATO is a great example of an institution we should work with and through the United Nation is a huge, sprawling set of agencies and organizations that really is far.
Removed from state control.
Fundamentally, states fund it, but it's far removed from from democracies and from actually being close to what you might vote for as a citizen. And then get through the United.
Nations, Naddie, we've got to get your back up on coming out of the Cornell's Soviet Studies combine, which is world class. We've got to get you back on to get an update on Vladimir Putin. I just really can't say enough about what they've done in Ithica on Soviet studies over many, many decades. Nanni is Shadlow in Foreign Affairs magazine. The issue is really something.
This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast, available on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live each weekday, seven to ten am Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can also watch us live every weekday on YouTube and always on the Bloomberg terminal