Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Here in New York City, Mack Show the film A chief of staff to the foam of Vice President of my Pench joins us now for Mo MO, good morning, good morning, Thanks for having me. Thank you for big kay a much more interventionist white House over the past week, and I've maybe the last number of months as well. Yeah, can you just weigh in how you framing things at the moment well on.
This pretty quod topic. I actually think there is probably broader support among a lot of small government people who say, you know what, the notion of a FED truly being independent was a nice notion, went before it had seven trillion dollars of assets on its books, and so you have a lot of unlike to people with fourteen year
terms have enormous influence over the economy. Having said that, I think there's probably a desire also that if there was actually effort to change it, it'd be more above board than coming up with sort of these fraudulent charges against the board governor, because there's probably plenty of political pointees administration of multiple mortgages too, said they're both their primary residents, so I'm sure there's a double standard here, and I wish there is a more intellectual appeal about
the fed's role as a postcon with bogus chargers.
I just want to pick up on the language a difference between challenges of fraud and fortullent challenges. Which one do you think it is?
I think these are bogus charges. I mean, what makes you believe that, Well, I don't know how many how many homes she has or if she listed both as private resident, is that really a reason you're going to remove somebody as a board governor? And once again, I believe there's probably plenty of people in the indministration have done the same on their mortgage file.
Well, lots of reporting over this summer about Ken Paxton, who's the Attorney General of Texas, who's running to be the senator. Point and do you think this litmus test now for the president. He's going to decide whether or not he's going to back Ken Paxton because he has three residences listen as a primary more you know memory, he's.
Very flexible in these things. I think this is this is more about his effort to exert control over the FED because I think they're concerned that their trade agenda is causing great weakness in the labor market, and they want rates lower, and to be fair, this is what
the President has always one of his lower rates. Even when he had the option to appoint Jerome Powell in the first administration, there were three options between Kevin Warsh, John Taylor, and Jerome Powell, and the President asked who's going to make rates lower? And that's one of the ironies is that he chose the person who Steve Nuchen told him is going to keep rates lower, but obviously he wants even lower.
They are Now, how difficult is next week going to be? If the Senate Banking Committee begins their hearing of Steve Myron and you look at some of the Republicans on that committee. Are we going to see pushback not just from the likes of Elizabeth Warren but also like Tom tell Us.
We haven't seen it yet, Henry. He said, I'm not so confident that it's going to be significant pushback on his appointment. And I look, again, I think this is about effort, exert control, want to have a majority so he can lower rates faster. But again I think it's reflective of a concern about where the labor market's going.
I remember Stephen Mall nominated for a seat on the Federal sev The Senate was Republican at the time, and he didn't make it, and that was pushback. What's the difference between that first time for the president and this second?
Yeah, yeah, great question, because think this is much brought than the Federal Reserve. I think it's about all of his nominations. I think that you know, you go to his cabinet, and I think it'd be hard to envision that RFK would have gotten confirmed in a previous Republican controlled Senate. I think this is basically a reflection that
Republicans are very worried about the president primary. He has shown his ability to engage in primaries and exert that control, and there's just an enormous fear factor, and he's using that with great leverage amongst Senate Republicans. Has the ponce he changed, the party's absolutely changed. I mean, I think
the party has certainly become far more populous. I think, you know, when you see basically the federal government looking to seize means of production and the biggest cheerleaders are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and there's not a Republican speaking out about the government taking over ten percent of Intel. On the heels of saying, you know, in selling we have export controls, we don't want to sell these chips
to China. Oh, but if you allow us to take fifteen percent of the profits of a vidiot, it's okay. And on the heels of say we're gonna take golden shares of Nippon Steel, US Steel. It's like this is clearly moving a direction where the populism and the progressive merge, and there's been total silence among center Republicans.
And centered Republicans with their silence, you say, potentially though, they're interested in revamping the Federal Reserve because they're in favor of small government. Nothing you just listed in terms of taking shares of companies is small government, imriy.
That's I think one of the shocking parts is that I do believe that the first Trump administration was predominantly small government. It was deregulatory, it reduced taxes, and I feel like the second administration is exerted its influence in all sectors of the economy and looking to exert its muscle. And I think it's a very different agenda.
To be more constructive about what they're doing in terms of say Intel, there's been a lot of criticism that they're mirroring what China does, or this is state capitalism like Europeans did in the nineteen sixties. What do you actually think Trump is thinking? Is this about building a sovereign wealth fund? What is actually the strategy?
I think that he kind of rejected the sovereign wealth fund the other day, but I do think it's concerning that the projectory there is basically Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Russia. Those are the ones with sovereign well funds. I certainly hope that's not where we're going. I do think it's more for in his mind simply about leverage and where
he can have leverage. But again, the basis of it was two weeks before he more or lessens anyway the Intel CEOs and Chinese spy and then basically allowing that, basically saying Okay, well, we're not so worried about the national security and more as long as we can have ten percent. It's like, what's the justification. I feel like when you do this, you crowd out private investors. I don't think this would be good for either side. I
think you can see intel shock. Intel stock probably declined because what private investor wants to engage If they feel like the federal government can just come in and take ten percent or more.
They suffering well fenced, the ships ACKed, that's the investment vehicle. I didn't see that coming, but that's why this is coming apparently.
Well, yeah, potentially, I mean. And it's also not just the examples Mark Short brought up. You also had the DoD recently take a stake in a company as well, and Howard Ludnik is basically saying that this might be potentially direction or travel for other defense companies.
Mark, this was great. It's going to see you.
Thanks for breaking it down.
The traditional Republican view of was playing out down in Washington, d C.