A Netanyahu Pivot and Federal Spending Lessons

Published Mar 31, 2023, 1:56 PM

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pivots from his controversial judiciary proposal in the face of mass protests. Opinion columnist Bobby Ghosh discusses the questions it raises about Israel's democracy. Bloomberg's Allison Schrager and Timothy Lavin also join. Allison talks about how rising rates are making us re-examine federal spending, and Lavin explains why the expensive government semiconductor bill is headed towards failure. Opinion's Andrea Felsted also joins, discussing how recent bank crises are impacting Big Bling. Amy Morris hosts.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast. Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. We continue to watch the turmoil in the banking sector, but today we're going to look at it from a couple of different angles. First, we'll learn more about the government's role in all of this and what lessons that might be learned in the future once the dust settles. Also, later in this show, we'll be looking at the impact the uncertainty has on the European luxury market, and we'll be talking about President Biden's chip making bill and why some believe it could wind up being a failure. Let's get started. We begin in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netnah who's administration moved to weaken the judiciary, igniting waves of protests and labor strikes. And it all came to a head this past week when Necktnyah who fired his defense minister, and a nation and wide walk out ground many operations to a halt. Nat Yahoo put the policy on pause, Triosha Shultz when there's an opportunity to avoid civil war through dialogue, I as Prime Minister and taking a time out for dialogue. Now, let's get some insight from Bobby go She is a Bloomberg opinion columnist specializing in foreign affairs. Now set us straight with something, Bobby. For decades, the US has seen Israel as the Middle East's only democracy, and you argue in your column that that assertion can be easily disproved. Yeah, it's something that Israeli politicians have claimed with pride for for many decades now, and American leaders, from presidents on town have sort of repeated it without relief, interrogating that claim very closely. But the fact is that there have been democracies in Israel's neighborhood for even longer than Israel has existed. Turkey is one example, Lebanon is another. There are other democracies in the region. And argue about how perfect they are, and many of them are far from perfect. But that leads me to my second point, which is that Israel's democracy in itself is far from perfect. Nearly twenty percent of the population of the country, which comprises of Palestinians don't have the same rights as as a Jewish israelis, which in my book makes it questionable whether we can call it a true democracy. You know, I was going to ask, Israel has pre elections, its population is protesting to the point where they've actually affected change, And I was going to ask, isn't that how a democracy works, your point being that's not how it works for everyone. Yes, that's true, and when when Israeli's protests, that's to be commended, especially when the protests of peastfool. But we've also seen what happens when Palestinians protest and the responses from security forces to those kinds of products. But beyond that, there's a larger point to be. The elections are very important in a democracy. The right to protest is very important in a democracy, in any free society, but these are only two of many tests of democracy. Freedom for all is I would argue, perhaps the most important test, and in that respect, Israel is all short of the stat the ability of institutions to stand up against authoritary and tendencies amongst politicians. That's very important that scenario. Where As Weel has done very well this pasti week. As you said in your introduction, we've seen how institutions, civil service organizations, civil service unions have stood up to Prime Minister that nah who am this very controversial proposal, and there as much as the protests in the streets have forced him to reconsiderately. Do you find that the events of the past few months, particularly those that you just atomized, there are a reflection of Israel's government as a whole in just how things are or is this specifically about the net Nahoo administration. Well, this is something that net Niya who personally and the far right. His administration is made up mostly of far right parties. These are proposals that have been discussed by the far right for quite a long time. They see Israel's judiciary as too independent. They fear that the judiciary keeps blocking their attempts to pursue the far right agenda. But as we've seen with this protest, there is an enormous section of the population that wants to see the judiciary remain independent. Israel, as a country that does have a written constitution, the judicially act as a kind of check against the government, which here in the US is something that we are very comfortable and which many many Israelis want to see continued, despite the efforts of Prime Minister Etnia who to change that stings. People always want to try to extrapolate and figure out where do things go from here? But one way to do that is to look at where things have been. So have we seen this before? Is this unprecedented? Is there some historic context you can put this in? Well, we've seen this in other parts of the Middle East, not so much in Israel itself, not recently, but we saw it. We saw it in the Arab Spring, where popular protest against authoritarian governments brought those governments down. In some cases Tunisia comes to mind. We saw how civil groups as well as trade unions back the protesters, enforced the governments to back. Now we've seen this recently in places like Lebanon and in Iraq, but the fact that we've seen this happen over and over again tells a story in itself. It tells you that in many parts of the Middle East, people are not satisfied with what they're getting from elections, that elections by themselves are not a solution, which the point of is making earlier elections are an important indicator of democracy. But that's not about how are these events in Israel playing out across the region, particularly with the Arab nations that sign the Abraham Accords. But they're being watched very closely. Countries in particularly the states in those neighborhood are are looking very closely at what happens. For several one is there's a concern that if Latnia Who can push through his far right agenda, there will be harsh consequences for Palestinians, and there is Arab solidarity, if not at the government level, then certainly at the level of Arab civilians. There's Arab solidarity for the Palestinians, for the countries that sign the Abram Accords, particularly the United Arab Emirates bheign. They're concerned that some of the far right partners in latnia Who's coalition are so overtly hostile towards Arabs, not just Arabs within the Israeli society, but Arabs in general, and that they are so openly Islamophobic that it makes them very uncomfortable to be in any kind of partnership with his. Other Arabs who did not sign those are courts like Albi Arabia, for instance, right now are feeling quite vindicated. They're thinking to themselves, well, it's a jolly good thing we didn't sign those are cords, because then we'd have to explain to our populations why we are partnered with the country where the government is so hostile to Islama, to Arabs. That hostility you referenced, is that bound to change or is it gaining more traction? Which way is that wind blowing? Well, it's always been there. There have been been factions within the Israeli far right that have openly expressed this kind of hostility for debt. The nature of coalition politics, which is a characteristicsm Israel is that extreme voices sometimes get platforms in the mainstream, and that's what we're seeing right now. Whether or not, if we'll continue, and whether it will get amplified, we'll have to see Latia who is beholden to some of these far right parties. These coalitions cannot stand, cannot remain in power without them. But against that you have not just the voices of all the Israelis who we've seen protesting over several months, but also as well as friends and partners abroad, the United States, the Biden administration has made it clear. The President himself has said that he does not think that these proposals to overhaul the judiciary are a good idea that he hopes let mea who back away from it. So all of his pressure is building up on left mea who is. What he does over the next few days and weeks will be very very interesting to watch. How might this impact the relationship with the US well, So let me I was in a very difficult position. On the one hand, the United States is far and away the most important ally and partner that Hasrael had security point of view, consural point of view, from point of view, war of trade, an investment. But at the same time, the United States is not going to keep let Miah who empower. People who are going to keep him in power are those small our right parties, And so he has to balance the national interest against his personal political interest. In the past, when faced with that kind of the fork in the road, let Bia who has always opted for the latter, which is to look out, look out for his own interest. If he continues to do that, well, things with the United States are bound google a little more sour. But if he can rise above his own interests now and pursue the interest of his country. Then the relationship will remain solid. All right, Bobby, thank you so much for taking the time with us today. Thanks so happy. Habby Coach is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist specializing in foreign affairs. Coming up, we're going to take a look at the fallout of the banking sector and the role of the federal government, not just in the recovery, but in the mindset of free money. Are just getting started. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the I Heart Radio app and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris, and we continue to follow the fallout of the turmoil in the banking sector. Investors are still assessing how the recent turmoil in regional banks will affect the broader economy in the US and how policymakers might respond. There is a calmer mood now of late in the banking sector, but there are also lessons to be learned. Meanwhile, President Biden continued to reassure the public that banking in the US remains safe and stable. It's pretty much under control. Now remands to be seen. We're looking to see whether we've done further legislation now, as President Biden on the safety of banking in the US this as Congress this past week held hearings on the bank failures, the impact on the country's financial system, and how they can try to keep this from happening again. Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina wanted to hear more from bank officials themselves and from Biden administration officials, including FED Chair J Powell. I think it's incredibly important that we hear from the folks specifically and uniquely responsible for the failure of these banks. That's Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina. Now, later this hour, we will look at the impact on the luxury goods sector and where that might be going this year. But right now, we want to look at the US government's role in all of this, not so much the bailout of the banks, but how the government seemed to behave over the past several years. As many consumers and bankers did, acting as though interest rates would remain at zero forever. Joining US Now Bloomberg opinion columnist Alice and Schreeger, she covers economics. Alison, thanks for joining us Now. You write in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal that the US federal government has been borrowing and spending as though rates would remain low forever, and you say they're still counting on that. What are you seeing now? Well, what we're seeing is Biden's leader's budget was six point nine trillion dollars. We still see big plans to expand a lot of entitlements and not even touched reforming the entitlements we do have. They're set a run out of money. It's just, you know, it seems like, you know, for a lot of years, when we at very low rates, you didn't really have to think about trade offs. Effectively, you could spend for free, and it doesn't seem like there's any acknowledgement that those days might be over. The attitude dates back fifteen years, though it's not anything new. We I mean, you can follow this back all the way to the two thousand date financial crisis. What have you found as you go back through your notes and through the historical parts of this, well, it does seem like as evolution, you know, because for most of American history we couldn't spend that way. You know, rates were significantly higher, but they've been trending down for forty years. And after the financial crisis, you know, there's you know, economists started to look around and be like, wow, rates are really low. You know, we can afford to make more investment in the economy. But it's one thing to make an investment in the economy, like build a bridge or a highway, and to actually commit to an ongoing entitlement. So I think, you know, we were a little slow to catch on, but over the years it's been building up of hey, we can spend as much as we want. We can spend as much as we want. And you know, I feel like now that reality has changed, and we're kind of slow to catch on to that too. So reality hasn't then sunk in yet, Is that what you're saying. Yeah, I mean, and I think to be fair, there's an expectation that maybe when we get through inflation, rates maybe will go back down to zero. I mean, I think it seems like the FED is counting on that. I looked at the CBO report, they expect, after you account for inflation, that ten year rates will only be one point eight percent. So it does if they are being intellectually consistent. But I think hoping that the zero rates we're kind of our new normal and that we're going to go back to that normal. Is there a lesson to be learned for the Biden administration here? Yeah? I think it is that you know interest rate risk is real, and that interest rates change a lot. You can't count on high rates forever, you can't count on low rates forever. Said, I don't think that we're going to going back to zero rates, and you maybe they're right, maybe I'm right, but one thing is for sure, we do not know, and you cannot sort of plan you're spending around the best case scenario. If you said you're a company and rates we're a rising, and you said, well, I'm just going to assume rate you're going to backtown to zero and sort of spend it that way, you'd be considered really irresponsible. Yeah, borrowing and spending with abandon would be considered irresponsible. But it's there's something to be said then for that investment that you would referred to earlier, you know, putting it into improvements in the infrastructure, that sort of thing. Is there some sort of happy medium, is what I'm getting at. Yeah, for sure, And I mean certainly not arguing we need to cut off all spending, you know. I mean it is that rates are historically still not even that high. You certainly can justify making productive investments in the economy, although you know those you know, those are hard to find and hard to execute, for sure. But I think the responsible thing to do would certainly would not be to cut off spending, but to sort of really think about the long term obligations. When you commit to an entitlement that's an ongoing expense forever, that's very very hard to cut. So if you're going to make that sort of commitment in a low rate environment, you really have to think about how can you finance this in a higher rate environment. Is there an argument to be made that that may be something that was underlying when they made the decision to bail out the banks, to step in and cover all of the deposits that were in SVB and Signature Bank that were at risk. I mean, I'm not sure that that was that they were being I think they were just responding in the moment, sort of setting the loop bleeding. But there is definitely a risk that you know, you can I mean, we saw this in the UK in the fall, that you know, when you end up with trouble in sort of the long term bond sector, that market can freeze up and then rates can get really high, and then that's that's you know. I think that was sort of the second order concern in the moment, but longer term that is a very real concern. So it sounds like all of this is really just a mindset. Everybody, including the federal government, maybe got comfortable with those super low zero interest rates. So at this point, then what would it take to adjust and amend that outlook. Well, it might be, as I said, I think we were slow to realize that rates were low, and we're probably going to be slow to realize rates will be high and probably I mean it's unfortunate, but maybe sort of having to put a lot more of a budget towards enters payments will be the wake up call people need. I mean, it would be better to realize that sooner rather than later, but sometimes you have to have that experience to realize it. When you are watching this and how this is unfolding, what do you expect to come about over the next quarter or maybe even the next year. I mean, this doesn't sound like something that's going to be wrapping up ending dust settling anytime soon. No, I mean, I think you know the dust will only settle really when we sort of end up with whatever our new inflation reality is said. If inflation is going to be permanently higher, then rache are going to be permanently highed too, And so I think everyone's just still wishing and hoping that everything goes back hu normal, and I think we have to wait and see if that happens. But it does seem in the meantime before we know that the government is still planning understanding a lot. And can we just clarify when you were talking about the government currently, you've got the Biden administration, would you apply this also to other administrations in the past, whether it be the Clinton, the Bush, the Obama, the Trump administrations, they've all sort of fallen into that trap of the low interest rates. Well, no, I mean the Climent administration faced higher indust rates and they actually ran a surplus. So of all the presidents you've named, they've been the most fiscally responsible by far, but each administration after that sort of gotten more and more progressively irresponsible. It said, like, you know, tax cuts are the other side of the coin of you know, more spending. It's also fiscally irresponsible. Alison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers economics, and you can find Allison's column. Biden has to learn the same lesson as SVB on the Bloomberg terminal. Now, stay with us, we have much more still to come. We'll be talking with Bloomberg Opinion editor Timothy Lavin about President Biden's chip making bill. Now, the President spent most of the past week on an Investing in America tour, touting his legislation, which provides subsidies for semiconduct from manufacturers across the country, and highlighting his economic agenda. Now, that so called ship bill has often been referred to as a win for Democrats, but could it actually wind up becoming a failure. There's a lot more work ahead, and we're going to get to it. That's coming up. Don't forget. We are also available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion. You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Catch us Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcast. This is Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. The Biden administration is quick to tout the Chips and Science Act. It's considered a victory for Democrats, a bill that passed with bipartisan support with high hopes to revive the chip making capacity in the US. President Biden says the bill will help the US regain its edge. Erica lost its edge, and manufacturing lost its edge across the board, and we did that for decades. Now we're creating jobs, we're exporting jobs. No longer American products are being made here. We're growing the economy. But there are signs now that the legislation might not work. Let's bring in Bloomberg Opinion editor Timothy Leavin, a member of the Bloomberg Editorial Board covering technology and politics. Timothy, thank you very much for taking the time with us. Whatever, why do you believe that it won't work as intended. Well, I think this bill was a response to genuine concerns. You know, the chip making capacity is very heavily concentrated in East Asia. These chips are obviously essential to every part of modern economy. They're essential for a national defense. I think that you know, the Pentagon uses something like two billion chips a year for its its purposes. UM. So you know, there are genuine concerns that we don't have enough manufacturing capacity here at home UM, and that we're taking seriously. The problem is UM, US chip makers are not very competitive with overseas chip makers, and there are a lot of reasons for that. There are a lot of sort of deep um structural reasons in the US economy, in particularly with the US US politics, that makes it very difficult for manufacturers making chips here to compete with those overseas. The problem with this bill is that it writes a big check UM, but it really does not address any of those underlying problems. In many ways, it makes them worse. So I worry that while this bill was obviously quite well intentioned, as by partis et um, you know, I worry that it's very unlikely to end up producing, um, you know, a thriving chip making industry in the United States unless we start, you know, tackling the real underlying problems. You say, it's a microcosm of all that is wrong with America's approach to building things. And what I'm getting from you is we tend to throw money at something and hope it works. That's right. Uh. You know, there are a lot of reasons that we have difficulty building things in this country doing it, particularly building things quickly and building you know, things on a reasonable budget a huge problem. There's a huge problem across the board. If you recall them. The last Congress, we had a bunch of very, very big, ambitious piece of legislation that would have to do a trillions of dollars in spending on everything from green energy to um infrastructure to this building, particularly about jimming m. The problem is we tend to write these big checks um and you know, we often end up spinning our wheels and not achieving the goals of the of these of these big bills because we're not doing the hard work to change polish that's going to make these bills effective. So, in the case of chip making, some of the things we identify. You know, there's there's an enormous amount of red tape in the United States. There's a suite of environmental laws that we're passing the seventies that you know now make it extraordinarily difficult to break ground on a big new construction projects are very time consuming. Uh, there's a lot of busy work involved this kind of thing that makes it difficult for chipmakers can compete overseas. It takes it takes much longer to build a new factory here than it would in Korea or Taiwan, for instance. Um So when I say it's a microcosm, you know, there's a reason that we're having difficulty in this country building new things. And the Chips Act, unfortunately, sort of exemplifies a lot of those underlying problems. You mentioned the red tape and the regulations that sort of hold everything up. But there's also the issue that we've been seeing across the board, and that's labor shortages. Is that also applicable here? Yeah, I mean I think a big missing piece here is immigration reform. We need more high school immigrants. Unfortunately, US schools are not graduating uh, you know, enough qualified people in the in the fields that we need, particularly in semiconductors. UM. There are a very large number of UM overseas students studying in American schools, studying in relevant fields. UM, but we make it very difficult for them to stay here and work. And that's that's that's because our high school immigration system is not working as it should. A lot a lot of people want to come here, high skilled people across the world want to come to the United States. Uh, it's a great strength of ours. Unfortunately, our immigration system makes it quite difficult for those needlessly difficult for those people to come here, to stay here, to raise their families here. So that that's when I say they're underlying problems. That that's something that needs to change if we want to have a thriving ship making industry, if we want to continue leaving leading the world in various other technologies. UM, you know, we need we need to we need to start getting the skilled labor that that these projects require. But you believe this is all very solvable, I think so. I mean, you know, unfortunately, it's it's very easy in Congress to write a check and to go to ribbon cunning ceremony and everybody pass themselves on the back. Um, it's it's much harder when you get down to the nitty gritty details and you have competing interests and you need to make difficult judgment quotes that sort of thing. Congress is not great at doing that. But there are ways, there are, you know, precise discrete ways that you can address these problems. Um. You know, there are ways that you can fast track construction projects, that you can limit the amount of red tape that's imposed on projects in the national interest, fixing immigration should not be that difficult to welcome more high skilled immigrants, to exempt them from the cap on green card allotments, for instance. UM. I think these things are very achievable, and in fact, there's a lot of bipartisan support, but it requires a lot of hard work and a lot of ambition, and unfortunately that's been sort of the missing piece so far. Let me get into that just for a minute. The bill itself had tremendous bipartisan support, as you alluded to, and that is unusual in this rather politically entrenched environment. Those solutions that you've been referencing, would they also get similar support. They would also need to get that bipartisan support so that they can make it work. Sure. I mean, I'm optimistic about this, other people to maybe less. Um. You know, it's it's easy to get bipartisan support when you're writing a big check. It's hard when you know you need to make like I said, judgment calls between competing interests. Um. But if you look for Senator Joe Manchin has been a strong advocate for permitting and reform, that is, for making it much easier to to to build things by cutting down on needless bureaucratic red tape. Is this has been a big problem for President Biden's Green Energy Plan. A lot of these projects have a ton of money behind them, but they're held up for in some cases for years, for more than a decade, on these sort of needless environmental reviews. Uh. You know, this is a process that is, you know, impeding national priorities across the board. It might be needlessly so, and I think that that's the sort of thing that should not it should not be hard to get bipartisan support. Forum. Like I said, you know, it's going to require a leadership, It's going to require hard work, it's going to require a lot of a lot of ambition. But like I said, I'm an optimist on this. I do think it can get done. It just requires a lot of will. But you've mentioned more than just semiconductors. I mean, ostensibly we started this interview talking specifically about semiconductors the Chips and Science Act, but this seems to really go beyond it. This seems to be sort of endemic to how things don't get done. That's right, you know, these these are problems across the board. Like I said, these are problems for all those ambitious bills at the last Congress past. If you want to build infrastructure and this coming country, which we spent you know, a trillion dollars on. If you want to build a green energy economy, which again we know one hundreds of billions of dollars float out and as Congress toward all these projects. If you want really to you know, accomplish things that we need to do to be a prosperous, ambitious country, well these are the sorts of very difficult, very detailed, very sort of nitty gritty policy reforms that need to happen. Just writing the big checks is very unlikely to effectively accomplish the goals that we have, and doing that requires much harder, much harder work, and much more, much more ambition. I'm hopeful that this is starting to dawn on our policymakers and so, like I said, I'm an optimist on this, but again, it's going to take really quite a lot of hard work. Timothy. Before we let you go, I just want you to get kind of specific here and just name one thing that must happen to get those wheels turning again. Although this is very nerdish and wonks, it's permitting reform. We need to make it easier to build stuff in this country. It takes way too long, it cost way too much. And this is something that is purely in the national interest. It's it's in all of our interests, and I think it should be a top priori. Nerdy and wonky is what we do here at Bloomberg Opinion. We love it. Thank you so much, Timothy for taking the time with us. Thank you. Timothy Lavin is a member of the Bloomberg Editorial Board. He covers technology and politics. Regular Bloomberg Radio listeners know that we have been following the turmoil in the banking industry very closely. We continue to see more ripple effects as this drama unfolds. And today we're going to take this from a different angle. Roiling markets and fears of further contagion are not good news for big European luxury companies. We want to learn more about the impact. We welcome Bloomberg opinion columnist Andrea Felsted to the program. Andrea covers consumer goods and the retail industry. And Andrea, the US has been the big driver for luxury over the past two years. Will this have an impact? We are seeing some signs of weakening in the US luxury markets, but it's mainly been younger, simply affluent people rather than the super rich, the super richest still living in their own world. If those younger, perhaps not quite as wealthy consumers who spent stimulus checks or crypto gains on utikers or Gucci handbags, they're started to slow a little bit. Now the big question is whether with the banking issues, with the tech job losses, that starts to work its way up the income stale to those really truly wealthy shoppers who have kept spending all the way through on working bags and Rolex watches. Walk me through how banking crisis on the West Coast or a banking crisis in Europe might impact those who want to buy those high ticket luxury items. What's the sequence of events there? We luxury does well when we feel happy and wealthy. It's very correlated to how well off we feel, to stock market, increasingly to crypto. So when we see, you know, bank tremors, worries about is the center affect credit, that all starts to make us feel a little bit more nervous. That's not the best environment to be spending thousands of pounds on a watch or a handbag. Is there the possibility though, that other places like say China and those consumers can help take up the slack that is now the big issue. So what's happens is when China was in various states of lockdown, the US consumer really stepped up and was a great stop gap. The China will be ultimately the big driver of the luxury industry. While Chinese consumers perhaps taking a break, the US steps in. So what we've got to see now is whether China can pick up that billing bat on once more. So we will all be watching now to see whether China picks it up. Now. The early indications are good. Some of the commentary from the Luxury Group has been that the early signs are encouraging that Chinese shoppers are coming out, but we've got to see how that progresses over the year, and importantly whether they start to leave China and travel to Europe, because that's where they tend to spend the most. Thinking of when the luxury consumer good market is impacted, could that trickle down in other ways. The big European groups are, you know, the big sellers of luxury, so it's going to have its real impact on them first, and we'll see first. I think it will start on the aspirational customer, which we're already seeing. Then it will work its way up to the truly wealthy customers. So it will really have an impact on those big European luxury groups. You have some luxury in the US, the big department stores, but it will really be felt in those big European luxury names and they will all start to report their first couture results, so we will start to see that coming through. Andrea Felstead is a Bloomberg opinion columnist covering consumer goods and the retail industry, and that does it for this week's Bloomberg Opinion. We're produced by Eric mollow and you can find all of these columns on the Bloomberg Terminal. And we're available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast platform. And stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.

Bloomberg Opinion

Deeper conversations on the week's most significant developments. Tune in and join in!
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 102 clip(s)