Surveillance: I Want Openness & Sunlight On The Fed, Moore Says

Federal Reserve. Everyone seems to view the fetes Sometimes there's this pockets of market participants that always bring it up. Does the FETE know something we don't know looking at those minutes yesterday? They know nothing that we know. No, no, I mean, at the end of the day, their data dependent. They've been articulating that for quite some time. You know. Obviously last year, like most market participants thought growth would stay stronger in Q four and the impact from monetary

tightening would not be as dramatic. And you know, the beauty of where we are today now that financial conditions have loosened off the extreme tights of December is every investor knows it's just as much as the Fed. You can look at the data's rolls rolls in and make your own informed decisions of whether you're being paid enough to take that risk. And you know, one of the things that surprised us recently is that markets have been

so sure that the next move is a cut. You know, when you talk to policy makers or economists or just look at the data yourselves, there's a non zero probability that we have one of two more hikes this cycle, right, But there's also a reasonable probability the next move is a cut in and and that's been unusual the last six years because two years ago it was either one hike, two hikes, three hikes, and there was no probability of a cut. And obviously in the in the crisis, it

was cutting rates to zero as fast as possible. Just to put you on the spot a little bit. Do you think the barber is higher for a hike or is the bar hi for a cut at this point? You know, I think the bar is higher for a hike at this point because if you look at the weakness growth overseas and the natural slowing in the U. S economy. You know, we've talked about this before, where

last year was peak cyclical growth. Uh, this year, we expected somewhere between two to two and a half, but it could be slightly lower given how Europe's really fallen off a cliff um and you go into and you're looking at one and a half to two. So given that inflations rolled over, given his slow his growth has been overseas, given the fact that we're much later in the cycle and there's no way consumption growth or business fixed investment gives to be high this year in twenties

they were last year. You know, that would lead us to think that there's a higher probability of a cut, But you can't completely discount the one to two more hikes in this cycle if growth picks back up. Troy, good morning. I know in December twenty six you told your Massachusetts Institute of Technology to load the boat and they did double leverage up or up twelve percent of the Dow in the spent of the Nasdack composite. How far behind his institutional Wall Street in the equity markets

right now? Uh? Well, I would say anyone that all is ascid allocation is behind always behind equities, right, So if you're not, this cycle has been really reminisced of the nineties. As you guys know right where, you know, the only way to keep up with equities is to be a percent long equities, and the only way to perform equities has been to be levered long, right, But no one does that, right. The question is how much of your equity capital you peel off into fixed income?

You know, and for defined benefit plans, it's not such a bad idea because you know, it helps provide cash flow um. When you look at the average investor compared to the late nineties, when it was all equities all the time, they own more fixed income, more alternative investments, and so as you've seen the embrace of acid allocation

by not only institutions behind it worths. What that obviously leads to is less upside when things are fantastic, like we've really been through the last four years, but also far less downside when things turn south. And so yeah, I mean, so that's why we look at it. If you believe in asaid allocation, embrace it, it leads to more continuous, constant return streams and dramatically less volatility um.

But that being said, in cycles like this or the late nineties, you obviously would be better off long equities. Are you positioned for higher equity prices? You know, we're so. Our job is to make high single digit tim with as little downside and correlation in bated equities as possible.

So when you have that mandate, particularly at the late stage of a cycle, when when there's been so little alpha and the equity part of the capital structure, you know, we've been focused more on cash flows tied to the U S consumer UH, commercial real estate UM, whether it's government sponsored plans like Freddie Max freddie k Plan or SBL plan UM, you know, tied to the regional community banking system. So we look at that as we can provide high single digit returns but have far less upside

if things go south. Obviously that's disappointing in quarters like Q one or or in two thousand and seventeen. But if we can hit high schnole digit returns and be up in years like last year, which we in a handful of others were, you know, that's the consistent which own stream at least that our investors are looking for. So let's talk about that high single digit returns with low beta to equity, don't you end up with a

really concentrated portfolio here in the United States. Well, look there the consumer credit sectors vast, right, I mean, there's r n B s, there's legacy student loans, um, there's some uh you might be surprised with some attractive auto loans, auto receivables these days. You know, if you look at the c MBS market, their vast uh. You know, the

banking system the US is vast. So you know, from our standpoint, you always have to pick one or two or maybe three high conviction themes um which are certainly uh no, more concentrated than being long equities because at the end of for long equities, you know, it's all about beta. But how do you bomp out that just quickly? Troy? Yeah, Well, again we were thinking of any individual investment theme. We're shooting for high single digits with much less downside than equities.

So that's the bar it needs to clear. Now any given time, certain ones have more condact city like coming off the Trump election, obviously bank credit quality was going to expand dramatically and improve. Um. Right now, we're looking more at multifamily uh, certain plans that are sponsored by the government where you have slightly better upside less downside.

So so there's no classic barbelling like from an ASDA allocation standpoint of hey, we're long equities that gives us the juice, and there were also long bonds which gives us downside protection. Were more linear thinkers, Tom and looking for positive convexity and that every theme has to stand on its own interesting and hopefully provide some downside and

correlation benefits with others or downside protection. But we're not gonna add something that can make two to three percent just because it'll be you know, uh down a little less if things go south. Troy right to catch out with you. I'm not going to run Troy Gusky that Chief Investment Alfasa at Skybridge Capital. Our next guest is truly expert on the courage it took to clear markets

in the US, but Johnny can't convey how it. Davos, this was the and only backstory Clear cleared the banking Systetcy grazijoining US now head of Banks and Diversified Finance Research Morgan Stanley, Betsy has always a privilege to get your thoughts, to read your research, help us prepare for the bank running season that begins later this week, Yes, tomorrow, we're going to kick off with Wells and JP uh P,

n C, Bright and Early. Our expectation is that, look, the numbers are going to be a little bit weak. They're gonna be down year on year in trading and an advisory. We believe that's more than in the price right because it's expected given the fact that we had the government shutdown, so we should be prepared for that. Our our estimates are still a little bit below the street, um, and I think that's just you know, people being a little late to update their numbers for what we know.

I read one of your recent notes pricing the right cut. The fear of the right cut seems to be driving everything, particularly the back end of last year and into this year. Have we priced that into we believe. So now look, let me explain what that means. To your point, fear of recession seems to be priced into the bank stocks and nowhere else in the SMP. When we look at the SMP, the pe is you know, close to close to highs and the relative pe of the banking sector

today that I cover is bumping around cycle lows. So you know, I kind of asked myself, why is that? Um, And it's it's hard for me to to understand why people think there's you know, recession coming in the near term. It's right where I wanted to go. But first, Betsy, it's really important. How did James Gorman do yesterday in the LoveFest and Washington? Are you trying to get Bessie in trouble? Are you trying to get Bessie in trouvel? Oh? We could talk and get her into so much trouble.

I had a lot of meetings on my calendar already. Yeah, I didn't. And watch the Betsy. To your point on the mystery of bank valuations, do the banks goose that with financial engineering or do they just have to wait

to find a better value? You know, I think that what has happened is we need to crank through the next several quarters here and our expectation is that we have solid economy and that you know, our are my colleague Allen Center, who you know well uh is looking for a pickup in g d P over you know, two q three q UM from what is expected to be a low point in one queue due to government shutdown. Another reasons the banks that I just happened to review

City Group yesterday, picking randomly among the gathered. The operating income build at these ginormous institutions is extraordinary yesterday, did Washington or our listeners or myself or John do we actually understand how big the big banks are? Oh? Me, Oh, that's a question for me. Um. You know, yeah, I do expect that you know, people understand that the the you know, top five banks have depending on the asset class,

fifties sixty percent of you know the market. Um. Importantly, that's in part because they've been investing in their plant and equipment, investing in their technology, UM, investing in you know, branch refreshes, et cetera. And not that other institutions haven't either, But brand matters, advertising matters, national reach matters, and these are things that are you know, working to the advantage

of some of the larger institutions. But can you just give us a hand to help us out with something that a lot of people find difficult to understand, and that's the relationship between treasury yields and what should and shouldn't happen with bank stocks. What we've seen over the last year or so, is this the yield curve narrows, flattens bank stocks roll over, But at the same time, net interest margins are not getting narrow that they've been

getting wider. We misunderstanding the relationship and how that's evolved over the last ten years between what happens with the yield curve and what happens with bank profitability. Well, it's a great question, and I think one of the things that's happened over the past decade or so is that, you know, bank um business mix has widened out a

little bit, right. I mean, you go back ten years ago and you had companies that were just broker dealers or companies that were very heavily skewed towards you know, corporate or consumer, and now you've got more of a mix. In an addition, you do have a bigger portion of the deposits in some organizations coming from consumer deposits. And then the last thing I would highlight is the yield curve flattens that that does pressure certain parts of their business.

But what I think the market forgets is that banks benefit from non interest bearing deposits, and noninterestparing deposits are as much as about of your average earning assets. So you know, really the not only the shape of the curve matters, but the absolute level of rates. And when the front end of the curve is at two forty, you have and you have twenty of your your average

earning assets funded by zero percent cost of funds. I think that's the piece that the market forgots so deposit by the restate really low and we have this essentially, we have this free funding and you can then lend it out. And making this sound very simplistic, but you can make a lot of money that way. And I'm just wondering whether the sensitivity to the yield curve has changed quite radically over the last ten years. To what degree is that true? But say, I think on a

bank by bank basis, there's some evidence of that. UM As a system overall, what we've seen is as these rate cycles UM you know, continue, you get you actually have had a build up over the last ten years in liquidity, and that liquidity is relatively cheap for banks. So that's my answer to your question. Let's see, thank

you really appreciated one of our joys. There's guests that we see every spring meeting of the I Am of Jacob Frankel, with us tomorrow, among others, Catherine Man of City Group we are thrilled to have with us now, William Lee with the Milken Institute, with City Group for years, and of course is public service at the International Monetary Fund as well. Bill, I want to go back to first principles, and we saw it a bit overnight with President Trump tweeting on the evil trade of Europe as well.

Exactly how mercantilist, How seventeenth century are these I m F meetings. The I m F meetings is like a gathering of the masters of economists. And I think one of the differences between golf and economics is that here we have a bipolar world. The International Entrey Fund is

a edifice of multilateralism. And so we are all at the I m F worried about why it is that President Trump is so bilateral, but the domestic economists here in the US are getting more and more bilattle, and President Trump is saying to the world, you know, I'm gonna bash down the bilateral deficit with China. They're gonna bash down the bilattal deficit with the EU, and and this kind of bashing down to bilateral deficits and and and surpluses is doing nothing but just keeping that aggregate

common account deficit as big as it always was. So so it's a it's a full game in part. But I think President Trump has got onto something because he's trying to say, we need to restructure our economy so that we can compete with our biggest competitors, China and the EU. But do we overestimate our fear of their wealth, our fear of their growing incomes. Do we overestimate the

demographic economics of China? Absolutely, Tom, Just as we overestimated the Soviet Union and what a huge power it was supposed to be and it turned out that they were not. China may well be that. But one thing we know about China is that their intellectual powerhouse, their intellectual capital, was trained at might Teach, Health Tech and Stanford and and these are the places that that we have a

handle on. So we know that China is in fact pushing the frontier out and it's up to us to develop our own intellectual capital, our own technology is to be able to compete. But let's just assume that the resolution with China is a positive one, the outcome is a good one. Let's move on to Europe. What happens next? Boy, John, You know I as an ugly American and as someone who was the head of the German desk when I

was at the I M f uh. They used to say, Bill, when you got up Europe, it's like John Wayne walking down the Chan's else. And I have to say that Europe is such a morass of structural problems that they

barely can get a one handle on growth. And so so when you talk about all these issues of Brexit and and continental Europe and the banking system uh at Italy going to default, I think this to me, that's just characteristic of what you're really is slow growth full stop, whereas China and US has still will have the potential for high digit growth. That's what I worry about, battle that China can respond to a tried dispute with the

United States. I've really struggle to say how the Europeans can the Chinese can inject some stiminus into the economy. Monasty policy in Europe looks totally exhausted, Fiscal policy looks incredibly constrained. What do they do? The old retort of I M F policy prescription, structural change and guess what, that's the last thing they ever do. In fact, they never get to it. So I I honestly believe that if I were a global investor, the last place I've

been look into Europe. Well, if you're a global investor and your name is Prime Minister Mayor David Davies is just making headlines right now in the Telegraph. I mean, is the United Kingdom wrong to say, you know, we

just really don't want to go down that road. The United Kingdom, in some ways it's very special because London is still a global capital market, is global uh place where global investors go to allocate their funds, and and whether it's tied to Europe but tied to the rest of the world in some out of the way Europe, the UK is gonna do quite well in and of itself.

Trouble is, the UK is more than just London, and and the other parts of the UK have to start to fall in line with the same problems that's facing Europe, which is they've got structural problems. The technology, for example, in the UK, UK used to be the best air jet engine makers in the world with Rose Royce. They have lost that edge. But let's talk about a service sector, shall we and what's gonna happen next in the UK? What has happened with services? I barely have a herit discussed.

When was the last time you worried about insurance from Lloyd's? I mean, you know they again? I think, uh, the service sector and everything else in the euro in the UK has to modernize. When was the last time a hit movie was made in the UK? US right now has compared advantage in the export of services. Uh, Marvel comic movies and and and and all these these these these uh Disney productions. They are flooding the world. And I think the UK has got to get up with

gett and speed with doing exactly that. What has been clear Bill over the last few months that Europe is incredibly divided about how to deal with the Brexit situation. Tom earlier bringing up the example of Emmanuel Macron trying to play to the audience back home, trying to hold things up. If you can't get the whole of Europe to agree, how on earth did we get the whole of Europe to agree and to get the UK to

agree to the same thing. You just repeated exactly what we were saying before, which is, uh, He's going to Europe as an ugly American. I've got to say, Europe is in a thousand year war and it's going to continue the next thousand years, I think, battling tribalism. So what can Madame Legard do about does? I mean, you know, we come down here, happy talk interviews Madame Legarde later today, Bill ye. But what can a multilateral institution do given

these fractured relationships. I think the best we can do is to recognize that countries are countries and there are national objectives. So does Brussels matter? I mean, this is perfect overnight, Charles de Gaulle angel a miracle. They matter, Brussels doesn't matter. Brussels has got get out of the way,

just as Washington's gotta get out of the way. And I think get letting, letting an entrepreneurship and private sector take hold in Europe is the biggest challenge yet to great comments, Billy, thank you so much with the Milk and Institute, Johnny, you know, to get to our controversial and steam guests here. Now, let me just say that, John, about the time claims were back where they were in October of sixty nine. The hit that Steve Moore was

listening to was suspicious minds. What's it it really? And what a number it is? As well. I'm really pleased to say that Stephen Moore joined us now distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and we assume the presuming President Trump choice for a seat on the Federal Reserve. Steve, did you ever think you'd become this controversial? Well, no, I didn't. I I'm sort of surprised by the by

the resistance by the left to my nomination. But it's going fine, and you know, I'm well, I'm doing well with the Senators, and so this is going to happen. Um. You know, I do have some controversial views I'm in terms of what I want to do with the FED. I feel very strongly about more transparency at the FED. I think there should be more openness and sunlight about how the FED operates. Um. I do believe that maybe

this is controversial, maybe it's not. I believe, as as Donald Trump believes and and Larry Cudlow believes, that growth does not cause inflation. I'll say that again, growth does not cause inflation. I think there are too many people at the FED, and too many people find in the financial industry who believe that every time we get growth, sometimes we have to pull that back because it causes inflation. If you have an increase in goods and services, prices fall,

they don't rise. We'll get to the economics. Just to get to the process quickly. Yeah, when does it become official? Well, I have to go through an FBI clearance and I have to also do a financial disclosure that could take I don't know exactly how long it'll take for that to be completed, maybe a month. And so the way this process works is that you're formally nominated once you've gone through the clearance. So what was unusual is that that this story kind of got out before. Usually you'd

go through the clearance first and then be nominated. So Steve Moore of the uproar over your candidacy to be with the FED is about theory as well. Let us begin with the defense of supply side theory. There are many that push against it. In much of what they say is we don't have tangible evidence that growth doesn't harm fiscal trajectories. Growth, How do we get growth and a better debt and a better deficit well, look, I

mean supply side. I am a supply sider. I believe the way to grow the economy has increased the supply of goods and services and increase employment. And by the way, I mean, as there ever been a better vindication of supply side economics than the last two years when all the liberal remember when Trump was elected, all the all the his critics that he was going to cause a second great depression. Remember, and this is gonna be the you know, the worst financial meltdown in history if he

was elected. And of course just the opposite has happened where we now have, uh, you know, we have markets up some since he was elected. We have a very strong economy. And I think the tax cuts had I'm I'm totally proud of the tax cuts. I mean, has there ever been a policy that's worked so rapidly and so effectively as the tax I'm gonna take it over. The fifth was like the phone ring in their folks,

was Herman Kane online to um Steve. I want to talk Steve more about the expansion of the Dutton deficit. My chart for chart of the year last year was the twin deficits, the trade deficit, the president so concerned with and also the growing fiscal deficit. Isn't the price of a supply side cud Lot Moore theory at some point all of the eighties, that debt and deficit catches up with us. Well, look, I think what's most important

is how I am a depsit hawk by you. You go back to the last twenty five years, I don't think I look, well, let me make this point. I mean it's a very important one. I don't think you can. I challenge you to find anyone, anyone in Washington who has wanted to cut government spending more than me. I mean, really, I don't think you Since I was twenty five years old I came to this town, I was the youngest. But our listeners, we have to cut governments. Okay, everyone

knows we have to cut government spending. By the way, it's not a Republican or Democrat thing. Both parties want to speak way too much money. You will enter the FED with the reality of a vector on the twin deficits that take us back to middle Reagan? Can we sustain that with supply side theory? If the economy is growing, the most important thing about the debtist make sure, the economy is growing faster than the debt. I think you

all agree on that. And you know, if you if we stayed on the course that we had been on for the previous ten years, where the economy was growing at one point at one point nine percent, that's not sustainable. The debt is going to cycle out of control. We have increased the growth rate from one point five percent in Obama's last year two over three percent. Now, I mean that's a that's an incredible record in two years.

So you get that economy growing at three percent on a suspeninable level, you're gonna level off debt as a share GDP, and over time the debt is going to be reduced as a percentage GDP. But we do have to cut government spending. There's no doubt about it. There's no argument there. Government spending is way way too high. We have to do something about the entitlements. We have to do something about bringing down the domestic spending, and even the military. I think we spending too much money,

frankly on the military. We have to cut Everyone knows that. The problem. I mean even you know it's not a revenue problem, right, We have more revenues in two thousand eighteen than any time in history. It is a spending problem. Well, a lot of people listening right I mean, do not do you people listening to this problem right now are gonna be a sealing that three it's a story of yesteryear. It has been and gone. Three percent is no longer sustainable.

Projections that we see from the economists that join us on this program, most of them have two handles. Why are they wrong? Why you? Because these are the same people said I mean, you know, I don't know who you're talking to, but you know all the people at the New York Times and the Washington Post and so on are the same people who two years ago, go back and read what they said when if Donald Trump

is elected. We are going to journalist Steve, I'm talking to economists who are forecasting, on average, the estimate that we're looking at, the median estimate in our Bloomberg Serve at one point nine. Let's assume they're wrong. You're right that we get three percent. Hold on, I'm not saying that we are going to get. What I'm saying is we have the rights if we have the right set

of policy. Place is policies in place. Look, we have created an incredibly pro growth, pro business atmosphere with the reduction and tax rates, right with the reduction and regulation, with the pro American energy policies and other pro business policies we've got. Now, my problem has been, I do think over the last four months or so, the FED has been too tight. They've looked at this economic growth and they felt like they've had to pull it back.

And my point is, growth does not inflation. Let's get a little practice here and you going before the Senate, the House, and everybody else and at Washington. The fact is they're gonna tell you it's a guilded age. You're gonna say it heritage, that it's a lackey in America, every man for himself. How does Steve Moore define the income and the wealth wealth inequality that we saw for example yesterday between Mr Diamond and the congresswoman from Harlem.

How do you define this guilded age? And what are you gonna do about it? I love growth, I mean I I'm for growth. I'm for growth for Mr Diamond or by the way, you call us a guilded age. Wait a minute, you've seen the statistics for the first we not only have we had the strongest wage growth for American workers in fifteen years, but according to the Wall Street Journal just two weeks ago, the biggest wage

gains in the American economy. You guys know this. The biggest wage gains have going to the kind of the lowest income, lowest skilled workers. So that's reducing income into quality, it's not raising it. We've got a minute left. I need to went through some really quick questions. I need some quick answers. WHI is FED independence so important? FED independence is important because we don't want politicians making the decisions about what the FED should be doing. It should

be made by professionals. But that doesn't mean everyone has to be a PhD economist. I love the fact that Herman Kane is going to the FED. Practically agree with that state absolutely. Next question is if the perceived independence of the Federal Reserve is damaged by your nomination, are you willing to withdraw? Well, how would it be. It's not going to be. I'm i am independent. Perception of the independence. You have to read My book is very

clear trump Anomics. People have to read it. They don't know what they're talking about I've been very critical of Donald Trump on a lot of issues on trade, and I think he's spending too much money. So I will be independent of him, but I also agree with a lot of things that he's done, and I'm not gonna apologize for that. I help they adjenda together. Stephen Moore, great to catch out with you. Thank you got fiery Tom. I wish I had a bit more time to time.

Stephen wore Zone walkman for a solid hour, and we'll go after this. Maybe we can get sixty minutes with Stephen Moore and then we can get herm and trying to join us as well, and we can just hash it all out well. Is a tumultuous time, not only for economic theory. What we missed their Stephen wore a huge proponent of MMD same so Steve. Great to catch

out with you. Debbie Dingle is of course a congresswoman, well known in Washington and of course in her Michigan, a descendant of all of the body by Fisher people, and she joins us this morning. Debbie, what was it like to grow up in the extended and I do mean extended Fisher family, I mean innovation? Was there from the get go, wasn't it well, good morning and it

I mean, yes, it was. I mean for a long time, Michigan, Southeast Michigan was known that probing it the forefront of innovation, technology, trying to get the next design. Unfortunately, I think in the seventies, uh, people began to, I don't want to say, become lazy, but got settled in and you know, we had some very tough times in the industry and people realized that we weren't keeping current with some of the

times and some of the challenges. And since then, the auto industry keeps going up and down in terms of what's happened. And I fear that there's so many challenges up there right now that we've got to make sure that the US I wanted to be Southeast Michigan staying at the forefront. And it the challenge right now. What is the Dingle prescription to do that? We had a president overnight begin to once again advance the idea of trade discussions, let around automobiles in Europe as well there

boodle or whatever he said, trading partners as well. But what is the Dingle prescription to jump start America back to manufacturing excellence. Well, I don't, I actually don't. I think one of the reasons that President Trump won and I was one of the people that predicted it, is because we had bad trade deals that didn't create a level of playing field. So I don't think. I always call it napsis to point because I want everybody to understand what we're talking about. And actually at one point

out for the industry terribly. But you know, the faction matter is and global climate is real. I mean we see it happening every day, and other countries coron of mandating electric vehicles, Western Europe mandating electric vehicles, India's mandating electric vehicles, and our country is not encouraging, uh the development. We don't have a the electricity infrastructure to support it. And now the presidents actively taking shots at evs. That

sounds helpful because we're trading in the global marketplace. We've got to have products that's gonna go there. Nor can you know, I was really proud of the fact autunomos nasals are also coming because there's consumer confidence issues. They are creative them, but they're being built and they're gonna be built in China, Western Europe and India again, and

we can't. The House unanimously and I am very proud of this, unanimously passed out a committee and the Congress a regulatory framework for those to be developed and explored. Senate killed it, and you know, again we're standing still there's not a regulatory framework for it. Yesterday several of the companies A Toyot, Afford and Gentlemotors announced they were forming up a consortium to study autonomousteo because one work on them. But you know, this stuff's gonna happen. It's

gonna be built someplace. It's gonna be built someplace. Yeah, should be built here. This is a wonderful conversation today with Debbie Dingles. She's a congresswoman from Michigan, of course, and wife of Lake John Dingle. I watched the festivities congresswoman yesterday between the acclaim Maxine Waters, age eighty, head of the House Financial Services Committee, and at one point I said to myself, John Dingle would never have asked questions in that way, where is the civility gone? Where

is the grace gone? Even in talking to Evil Wall Street? Instead of the almost sniping that we saw over the last number of days. I am very concerned about the tone of what happening in America period. Thank you. You know, are trying never to attack anybody individually, from the White House on down, but we leaders set homes they you know, the rhetoric, the lack of civility is coming every place.

I think the Internet, while it was founded to help connect us, has become a tool of total lack of civility. It lets people anonymously say the most divisive, horrendous, horrific thing. And I think all of us, I mean, I've gotten much more verbal about this. Uh since with all of these shootings and all of the you know, I live in the city that's got the largest population of Muslims and the hate crimes that are going down there. You know, you sort of live it in the community that you're

going in. But the Jewish community is also seen it. It's not it's not okay, and all of us have to start now, but it starts. I want the House has to do it, The Senate's got to do it. Administration has got to do it. People yearned, maybe for a moderate Republican or moderate Democrats stance here. How should old line Democrats and disaffected Republicans. How should they adapt to the new strident progressive democratic message? Do they wait

it out? Did they change it? Now? Even President Obama the other day weighing in on this, what would you do there? Do you just his patients the Dingle prescription? Well, John Geggle probably would be more patient than well, actually John Diggle would be twittering right now with some of these very wise thoughts. You know when he did adapt.

You know when John Staph used to collect his wittisms or are the things that his daily you know, sort of wisdoms that he would just say, you can't imagine any sus twitter very well, because his wisdom was sort of made for Twitter. I myself, I'm not a raping We'll know and will call me that. Uh, But I am for medicare for all. But I want to figure out how we get health care for every American. But I want to bring everybody to the table. I don't you know. A lot of this is true. We have

to have these economic discussions. We're the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn't guarantee all of its citizens healthcare, and we're competing in a marketplace where we're chased twice as much as most of the countries and getting okay, But the great fear of socialized medicine. Can the Democratic Party with a Democratic president, can they deliver modern healthcare that isn't socialized. We have to figure that out. And

you know the factor menders. Everybody screamed about the Affordable Care Act and it's not perfect. There are things that must be changed, and we can't get to changing or making them law better because everybody's always playing games with it.

But you've seen how the pendulum has swung from ten years ago where everybody it was, you know, it was the worst thing since life bread and now in the last election, people understand that ut we need to protect people with creating conditions if people are trying to want

to make people forget that. In the late and when that field was passed, the auto companies were healthcare providers who happened to build products, and a lot of companies the healthcare costs of a very small business, Uniford healthcare. You got to figure this out. Well, we gotta figure it out, and there's an urgency to a de Wie Dingle. Thank you so much for an extended conversation today. Debor Dingle of the twelfth District in Michigan, a Democrat. Thanks

for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide. I'm Bloomberg Radio