The Price of Bank Runs and the Value of Twitter Blue

Published May 5, 2023, 10:24 AM

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Paul Davies says although JPMorgan's rescue of First Republic calmed markets for a brief moment, regulators should consider how the costs of such a move could ripple through the economy. Opinion's Lisa Jarvis joins to discuss the weight loss drug race. We also consider the implications for America's democracy if we do in fact see a Biden-Trump rematch with columnist Clive Crook. Bloomberg's Allison Schrager also joins to talk about the value of Twitter Blue, and whether it's been destroyed by Elon Musk. Amy Morris hosts.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at one in seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris. This week we look at the booming weight loss drug market. You've heard of some drugs that are designed to treat diabetes, but they have a desirable side effect, significant weight loss. Now there are new drugs on the market, with more on the way. We'll talk with Bloomberg's Lisa Jarvis. Later. We'll look at the upcoming presidential election and what it means if it becomes another ballot box battle between President Biden and former President Trump. Bloomberg's Clive Crook explains why that scenario may prove to be bad for American democracy. And then a deeper dive into the little blue check mark. Bloomberg's Allison Schraeger explains that Twitter's blue chet, which meant that the user is authentic or verified, now might no longer be the coveted status it once was. We begin with the fed right hikes and banking turmoil this past week, fed share J. Powell said they're watching inflation, which has cooled somewhat, but not quite enough. Not yet.

Inflation has moderated somewhat since the middle of last year. Nonetheless, inflation pressures continue to run high, and the process of getting inflation back down to two percent has a long way to go.

And he touched on concerns over the banking turmoil, which regained some momentum after the takeover of First Republic Bank.

I think that the resolution and sale of First Republic is an important step toward drawing a line under that period of severe stress.

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Paul Davies covers banking and finance and joins me. Now, Paul, let's talk first about share Powell's opening remarks. If you saw them as less hawkish than we heard back in.

March, Yeah, that's right.

I think that you know, things have changed obviously compared to where we were in March. I mean, I think you know, inflation numbers are still high and employment is still very high, so that the kind of the main things that they're targeting aren't necessarily moving in the way that they would want them to. But we have had this banking turmoil since then, with several banks collapsing, first Republic Banks, in the Coon Valley Bank and so on, and that brings concerns that there will be a significant contraction in lending, in kind of credit provision to the economy. And that's kind of, I guess, one of the main ways in which sort of monetary policy ultimately feeds through into economic activity and employment levels, inflation and all.

That sort of stuff.

So, you know, he was expected to be a bit less hawkish certainly. I mean, some people might have been thinking he was going to be even less hawkish than he actually was in the end, really.

And overall, US markets really want some clarity about what may be to come. But Powell gave those conditional answers. Who's very nuanced or more nuanced.

Rather, Yeah, Well, it's a very we're at a very tricky point, I guess, in terms of judging what's going to happen next. As I say, these bank collapses have brought significant worries that will see a major credit crunch, and I kind of I wrote a piece back in March after Credits Sweet collapsed in Europe and after the first bank collapses in the US, where I was saying, essentially, you know when you when you put a bunch of interest rate rises through, nothing seems to happen for a long time, and then suddenly they all can hit at once. It's like it's like an elastic band, kind of like pinging back towards you. And that's because and what that means is you get a sudden kind of tightening of financial conditions, a sudden tightening of the amount of credit that's available, and that's going to have a big effect on what the concern is. That's going to have a big effect on demand in the economy.

There was some conventional wisdom that regional banking turmoil would raise the possibility that the FED might pivot toward lower rates. Where do you sense that stands at this point?

Well, I think what they're doing is I mean, he signaled a sort of a pause yesterday. He didn't signal a pause in quite as certain and as definite a way as markets might have wanted. But it's the right thing to do at this point, I think is to try and is to give yourself some space.

Is the FED to give it self some space.

To wait and see what happens with the banks from now on what happens with stability in the sector. I mean, he said several times that the sector is strong and stable and what have you, and sound and bank executives that have been reporting results, they have been saying much the same thing. Jamie Diamond when they took over. When JP Morgan which he runs, took over First Republic, was very clear in saying he thought this was the end of the banking turmoil.

But we are still.

Seeing some smaller banks suffer, you know, terribly in the market, and there may well be more you know, failures or more kind of takeovers of some kind that need to happen. So it's a kind of it's a moment where, like I say, inflation is still high, employment is still very high, the economy is strong enough, but all of this banking turmoil in the background is definitely due to higher rates, and it's just sort of trying to you know, it's impossible to say exactly how this is all going to unfold, and the only thing to do really for a central bank is to just kind of try and stand back for a bit and just sort of watch the numbers and sort of see what happens.

Can I ask you a Layman's question with this, because it seems like throughout this entire process with the banking turmoil or regional banking turmoil, you know, we saw what happened with Silicon Valley Bank and we heard, oh, this is an isolated incident, this is within itself. And we saw something similar with Signature Bank and they said, oh no, no, no, that's because of something completely different, isolated incident. And then of course First Republic Bank, and we're not even talking about Credit Sue, but we're seeing all these little isolated incidents happening and throughout let's just say throughout the US definitely, and not exactly at the same time. But it seems domino like, how long before we finally start to connect these dots and say, you know what, maybe there's some there there.

Yeah, well, that's a very good question.

I mean, I think there is definitely a common thread to these banking issues, and it's all to do with higher rates depositors looking for more attractive returns elsewhere in money market funds and even sort of treasury bonds and this sort of thing, and the kinds of assets that a lot of these banks have invested in which aren't necessarily the same assets, but many of them behave the same way in the sense that they lose value when interest rates rise. So you know, there has been a theme to these collapses, and you know the current banks that are under pressure most pressure. Packwest for example, doesn't seem to have exactly the same sort of issues at all, certainly on.

The asset side.

But again, if it does get into trouble, and if we re look at all the bansheet and everything.

Else after it, you know, is after it fails.

If it does fail, then we may well kind of see how it fits into the same sort of narrative. After all, markets generally have a way of looking for the next weakest link in the chain whenever you get a series of problems and kind of going after that week link and seeing if it falls over. And I guess we won't know that this crisis is over until the last week link that the market goes after doesn't break.

And we are talking to Bloomberg opinion columnist Paul Data about the FED rate hikes and banking turmoil. I want to build on something that you just said about being the weak link. Does that then indicate we may be bound to see more failures in the regional banking system. What sort of risks are we looking at and what are you looking for?

So I guess we're looking for, you know, more deposit flight or continued deposit flights from smaller banks to larger banks.

I guess you know.

You'd also be looking for any of the smaller banks that have a very large share of uninsured deposits in the same way that some of these others have done. And then the other thing obviously that we will be watching and that you'll continue to watch, is you know, falling share prices, and you know, the extent to which some of these smaller banks have to compete for the funding that they get through deposits and other means, you know, they have to pay more money for that, and that has an impact on profitability, and this can become you know, for all of these banks, and especially for smaller banks that are less diversified, it can become a.

Sort of a you know, a really difficult.

Spiral to get out of, because you know, falling profitability leads to a collapsing share price, which worries you know, depositors because they see the market saying that their bank is weak, so maybe they start pulling their deposits out, which means even higher funding costs, which means even greater squeeze on profits, which means even more of a problem for the share price.

And it's that kind of it's a circle that keeps.

Going round around and can keep getting worse, and that might be what starts happening to some of these other smaller banks next that don't necessarily have exactly the same problems that you know, Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank had, but can get into these sort of downward spirals because of that interaction of funding costs, profitability and share price balls.

Okay, well, then let's put it all together and tie it up with a little bow. Any final thoughts on the economy, whether we're likely to see a slow down or something more substantial in the coming.

Months, Well, I guess it. It's a very tense, tense and quite finely poised moment. In many ways, we just have to kind of like, you know, watch and see what happens. There's lots of talk about you know, stepping in and ensuring many more deposits, or ensuring all deposits, all.

This sort of thing.

I personally think that would be a mistake for reasons that are probably too lengthy to go into right now, and anyway, and if we were going to do something like that, it would probably be take too long to put it into place to kind of stop, you know, this minibanking crisis that we're currently having.

Anyway.

So yeah, it's a very tense and finally poised time, and it's really uncertain as to exactly how it's going to play out.

Paul, thank you so much for taking the time with us. It is always a pleasure. Thank you, Bloomberg Opinion columnist Paul Davies. Just ahead, we take a look at one sector of the pharmaceutical industry that's got the market's attention, weight loss drugs. Bloomberg's Lisa Jarvis joins us. In just a few minutes. You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion.

You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast Contest 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 podcasts.

You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Amy Morris, and by now you've heard of these weight loss drugs, they weren't really intended to be weight loss drugs. Dominating the obesity market. The drug commonly known as ozempic, designed to treat diabetes, has become so popular for people trying to lose weight. It's getting harder for diabetics to get their hands on the drug. And now we're learning that Eli Lilly has another drug in the pipeline called Munjaro that helps people with diabetes lose a significant amount of weight. Let's get more on this. Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis covers biotech, healthcare, and the far parmaceutical industry. She joins us now to sort of walk us through all of this. Lisa, always a pleasure. I want to thank you for joining us today. This drug not Ozambic, but Monjaro is currently marketed for diabetes. Is that right? Or is this specifically for weight loss?

That's right, and thank you for having me Amy. It is currently marketed for diabetes. It was approved last summer. But we know that this class of drugs, which is called glp ones, they mimic hormones in our body and essentially make reduce your appetite. They have result in this feeling of safety and so people lose a lot of weight on them and so they have been developing it in tandem for diabetes and for weight loss. There was a lot of excitement starting last year in April, like Lily came out with a phase three trial in people with obesities showing that the drug could help them lose over twenty percent of their body weight, which was by far the highest we've seen any of weight loss drug kind of in history, and you know, is on par with bariatric surgery. And so that's one of the reasons that there's so much excitement around this class of drugs.

So would they be willing to test it not only for diabetes, because as you say, it was already approved for that, but now they have to go through an entire new testing process to make sure it's safe for weight loss specifically.

That's right. So they did diabetes first. I think that's like a well known FDA kind of trajectory. And in the diabetes trial, you know, a side effect is weight loss. And they've been running these very large trials, I mean thousands of people in weight loss because the market with drugs that actually work has the potential to be huge. I think some of the forecasts are pretty pretty mind boggling. Fifty four billion dollars by twenty thirty is what one analyst forecast to the weight loss drug market could be for this class. So they are expected to see approval by the end of this year for this drug and weight loss. There's already one other drug on the market, so we hear a lot about ozen Pic that's actually a diabetes drug. That same drug at a higher dose, the same ingredient in that drug is sold as we go Vy, and that has already been kind of going like gang busters. And so Eli Lely's drug will be formally approved, likely in weight loss, by the end of this year and go up against wegov.

Are there any concerns for people who may be taking these drugs? I mean, they're tested, but they're they're also kind of untested, you know, out in the right I think.

I mean, well, my main concern is that a lot of people are taking them off label, and by that I mean that right now, when they've been in shortage, there's this potential for you to go to a telehealth provider and get them prescribed to you. You may or may not actually fit into the kind of guidelines that the FDA has approved them under. Who knows how much actual guidance you're getting for how to take them. They have side effects, like some people can't tolerate them, and really you're supposed to ramp up on them very slowly. But you know, if you stop taking them, the weight we'll come back. And I think one of the concerns is like, you know, what do we know about long term use of this. There's been a lot of media attention on this class of drugs and what we do and do not know, and would really like to know if we're going to have people taking them for the long term.

Okay, so then who are these drugs for?

So right now, they're for people with a BMI above a certain level, or a BMI above a certain level who have another risk factor let's say they have high cholesterol or at risk of having diabetes or have diabetes. But I think that you know, we also know from TikTok and social media that celebrities are taking them as a quick fix. That's the rumor. At least I don't want that, but celebrities are supposedly taking them as a quick fix to lose weight. For you know, an event that they're going to, and I think the regular you know, public is interested in them for this type of purpose. That is making it hard for people with diabetes to get them, which is also a problem because I think the companies just didn't anticipate the swell of immediate demand and they just in the beginning couldn't make enough of them.

Lisa, in your column on the Bloomberg Terminal, you talk a bit about the sales goals for these drugs. What will it take to achieve the goals that they have set forth?

I think really two things. You know, one is convincing insurers to cover them. The drugs are not cheap right now. They cost over ten thousand dollars a year if you were to pay for them out of pocket, and amazingly some people are willing to pay that, but you know, it's not sustainable for most people, and so some private insurers will cover them. It can go take a battle. I know that some telehealth companies have emerged almost with the intent of being the person that goes to battle with your insurance company to try to get them covered for you. Right now, Medicare is not covering them at all, which there's a lot of you know, controversy over whether they should be covered. On the one hand, if it does improve health outcomes, that would save our healthcare system in the long run, and the other there have been some estimates about the incredible burden these trucks can have on our healthcare system if Medicare did cover them, stay Medicaid. It's been patchwork, and so there's a bill that the companies have been trying to put forward around getting these covered. But I think the other big thing is really proving that when you lose weight it improves your long term health. People have that people have fewer heart attacks and strokes and live longer, and that's the companies are running very big trials right now to try to show that. We won't know that answer to those questions for another you know, one to three years.

Though, it seems like this has the potential and set me straight if I'm wrong, Lisa, this would have the potential for completely redesigning and forgive the term, but disrupting the weight loss.

Market, oh for sure. And we saw that recently when we saw weight Watchers acquire a company Sequence that you know is a telehealth company that is prescribing these drugs. It was an admission for the first time that diet is probably diet alone is not enough for many people, and that these companies, these dinosaurs like weight watchers, are gonna die off if they don't adapt. And so, you know, I think it is changing the paradigm, good or bad. You know, there's lots of different opinions on whether that's you know, we all should be taking medicines or not for weight loss.

But.

You know it is, it is a sea change because we've never seen drugs the kind of closest I think are the drugs that could you know, people could lose five percent of body weight, which is much different. You know, that's a much small amounts. Those still could be an amount that could affect your health.

And we're going to continue to watch it because we want to see how the people who are using it fair over the next five to ten years, the long gain, the long term use of this product. You know, how are how are how does their body handle it?

That's right, I mean, and I think you know, another issue is that if you go off the drugs, you're likely to lose weight. There's a lot of things that are in development coming up behind them, and so I think there are questions can you take them less frequently? You know, what are ways that we can change, not just you know what we already have, but change the paradigm going forward so that it feels more accessible and more possible for people to be on these for the long term. So that's that's There's a lot more to come. This is a huge area of investment for pharma. Everyone's seeing what's happening with these two first drugs and trying to put their own stake in the ground.

We're going to keep watching it with you.

Lis.

Thank you so much for following this, and we want to keep in touch with you as there are developments in this part of the industry. Thanks so much, Thank you for having me. Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist who covers biotech, healthcare, and the pharmaceutical industry. Now stay with us. Coming up on Bloomberg Opinion, we'll take a closer look at how the twenty twenty four race for the White House is shaking out and what might signal some very real issues with American democracy. And don't forget We're 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 podcasts.

This is Bloomberg Opinion. I Amy Morris It. I feel like the twenty twenty four presidential election is right around the corner. But you know, a lot can happen between then and now. President Biden has continued to address concerns about his age.

Every bloody running for reelection, and this time has been in the same position.

There's nothing knew about that.

You're making it sound like Biden's really under.

What while Republican front runner and former President Donald Trump is looking to sink his competitors.

Sure, I'd love to.

Have your support, sir.

I'd love to have your support.

I'm down at about three. I'd love to have your support. All right, let's think about it. And there was like a rocket ship after I gave it.

Otherwise, right now you'd have a lawyer or someplace looking for business.

We could easily see a repeat of the twenty twenty election. But if that is the case, what does that say about our democracy? And we pose that question now to Bloomberg opinion columnist Clive Crook, who is also a member of the editorial board covering economics, finance, and politics, and he joins us now, Clive, it is a pleasure and I loved reading your column about this. What is it if we do see a repeat of the twenty twenty race for the White House?

Well, I think that, you know, the main thing it means, and the main thing that's been missing in a lot of the commentary, is just what a stunning turn events this would be. Now, admittedly, you know, a lot can happen between now and the election, but let's just suppose it is a Trump Biden rematch. Every you know, I think most of the country thinks that's bizarre, that's you know, are these are these men really the best that each party can offer as our next president. Foreigners, I think could just completely bewildered by the fact that we're looking at this, at this choice. But I'm struck by the fact, you know that it were political specialists, analysts and observers are just taking this completely in stride, as though you know, well of course, Yeah, Trump v. Biden. What could be more natural? You know, our reactions should be this is ridiculous. These are these two terrible candidates that both unpopular with most Americans. What on earth has gone wrong with our system? That's my main point.

Well, you just described a lot of the elections leading up to twenty twenty four, and what I mean by that is, you know, we saw this sort of legacy election with the Bill Clinton and then Hillary Clinton. We saw, of course the Bush legacy elections with George Bush Senior and then George Bush, George W. Bush, and for a while it looked like a Bush versus Clinton dynasty in all the elections. Is that where all of this started?

I don't know if that's I mean, it's a good point. I mean, that was a strange phenomenon, and especially you know, the I think the Hillary's candidacy was weird because that was almost like her main you know, her main claim, it's my turn. You know, it was a kind of dynastic, almost like a Dynastics succession thing. And voters really didn't weren't that interested in that. They didn't want they didn't want that. But now I think we have a different phenomenon, because I think if you look back to you know, the Bill Clinton days and the Bushes, you know that we lived although you know there were intense political fights, intense political conferences. You don't misunderstand me, but by modern standards, you know, there was at least the possibility of a more consensual style of politics. And I think that's actually what Bill Clinton stood for him. He's an extremely skillful politician and he was able to reach out to a lot of moderates as well as dents. And actually I think Obama had that same kind of talent. You know that certainly in eight when he was running, you know, the pitch he made was very much along those lines. You know, he was he was a progressive Democrat, is a progressive Democrat, but he crafted a message that had great appeal to the center of the country, stressing unity, coming together, fixing problems, and the country like the sound of that and wanted it. That's just gone. Now we have Biden, who ran as a centrist but has turned into not a centrist in my view. He's he's gone along with this kind of left left leaning tilt in the Democratic Party and he's running as a sort of anti maga Republican. His his posture is mainly about, you know, sticking it to the enemy. It isn't about reaching people in the middle. It's about uh, you know, energizing democrats to see the danger on the other side, which of course activists democrats already do. And then Trump, of course is the quintessential divisive candidate. I mean, for him, is all about identifying an enemy and sticking it to the enemy, and he does. I don't think he even really cares all that much. Who So, what's happened is that we have a very very different, angrier, more oppositional, anti consensual style of politics that I think is the profound change. And what I find so depressing about this forthcoming contest, if it happens, is that we just seem to be cementing this approach to politics into the country, and I think it's profoundly bad, profoundly dangerous for the country.

Clive, you said something that really struck a chord with me. Are we lazy? Are we just not politically motivated or civic minded anymore? Are we just I don't know, burned out, tired, sick of it, just lazy, just too preoccupied with whatever else?

Well, I must. I do think that's a that is an excellent point because one of the things that I've been trying to argue in some recent columns I've written on American politics is that the blame for this mess wherein lies partly with people like me, as it were, the disgusted centrists. But I mean that that's the problem that I mean, an awful lot of Americans I think are just disgusted with politics, and I would say they have every reason to be, and their response is sadly to switch off and just you know, so I don't even want to talk about this stuff, you know, just leave me alone. And the problem, of course, is that that leads the field to the true believers on each side, you know, the Trump fundamentalists and the you know, the progressive fundamentalists, and the middle of the electorate, you know where common sense prevails and you know, where people are willing to strike compromises. Those people are sort of left out of the system. But to respond to your point, it is partly their fault. I mean, they've chosen to stand aside. And that's partly why I feel, you know, I really have a longing for you know, a sort of centrist, compromising leader who can channel this disgust with the extremes and appeal to the center and will re engage the center. But when you look around, where are these politicians. There are some in the Republican Party, there are some in the Democratic Party, but they aren't speaking up very much, are they. I mean, they're completely sort of subdued and cowed by Trump on the one side and the progressive activists on the other. Biden's fallen in with those people, in my view, and so you know, the moderates in Congress are sort of they aren't stepping forward to represent the middle of the country. That's what's missing.

So if they're not stepping forward, and you are making this point of I would really like to see someone more centrist, it is possible that you're not in the minority, that you are not alone in this longing what would it take to fix this broken system?

I mean, I don't think I'm in a minority. I mean, I think many Americans feel this way, but it's extremely difficult to, you know, for them to make an impression on the system. And as I say, and I agree with the point you were making earlier, that you know there is an element of it being our fault. You know, the centrists need to be more energetic. I mean it's not good enough to say, you know, the system is failing, this candidate is terrible, that candidate is terrible, and then as it were, you know, have nothing to say about your own role in fixing the problem. I mean, we have to step up and fix the problem, and we aren't willing to do that. But I mean I do understand the exhaustion that people feel when they follow politics. I mean, wherever they look, it's this dysfunction, this anger, this reluctance to apply common sense solutions to problems that everybody can see need to be addressed. I mean, it is exhausting. What is an is it we're an ordinary centrist American to do? I don't know.

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Clive Krook, thank you very much for taking the time with us.

Thanks for having me. I enjoyed it.

And if you're a Twitter user, you already know there's been this issue over the infamous little blue check mark. Never has there been so much uproar from so many people over something that seems, if you think about it, kind of artificial, but maybe not let's talk this over with Bloomberg opinion columnist Alison Schrager. Alison set me straight, what's going on with the little blue check mark?

Well, I mean it's interesting how no matter how much we evolve and how much tech we have access to, how we're just still these very tribal people couching for status. Like people don't change, and the blue check mark has just been something to behold because for several years, people who had status which was arbitrarily defined or in our case just worked for a media company got a blue check mark, which meant that you were a public figure, and it became a status symbol. It also meant your tweets were more visible, more promoted, and more visible in people's notifications. And then Elon, you know, rightly, I think he had a point of thinking when he took over Twitter, how can I monetize this business? It's never made any money, And he's like, well, this check mark's valuable, maybe I should start charging for it. And then you know, all hell broke loose, right because for a while people are upset that you had this checkmark, but someone could pay to look like they had the same special status you did, and then they took away the check marks from the status people. And as this, I liken it to like an e regency era novel of just British nobility losing their status and having these or these pay their way in. It's just like, as you said, we are so you know, such tribal people obsessed with hierarchies, and that never ever changes, no matter what technology we've got access to.

Now there's something to it because it does give people who might want to quote you or might want to follow you a little more gravitas. It gives them the idea that this isn't just somebody pretending to be someone else. Okay, I get that, But then the check mark itself was a commodity before Elon Musk tried to monetize it. Did he break it?

I think he did. And I mean, this is the larger point of the column. It's not just you know, me working out my mixed feelings about losing.

My check right, it is.

It is actually I mean, a bigger story about the tech economy which really did offer services for people hoping, well, if we just have the same network effect, see everyone's using it, that's got to be valuable. Somehow We'll figure out how it's valuable later. But giving someone something for free and then taking it away sort of again sort of raises a lot of our tribal like instincts of hey, that's unfair, and then it's really hard to move out of that model.

Is this going to be the end of Twitter?

I don't think so. I mean maybe, I mean, I don't know. I'll be the last one there. I mean, I mean, the thing is it is just I sort of I go through my I said, my own issues with it, which is it's so bad for me, but I can't quit it. I think everyone keeps trying to quit it and trying different social media platforms. But the thing is, there is something to the network effect, which is everyone is on it, and this is where you get all your information and this is where a conversation is happening, particularly if you're in media that you feel like you have to be part of. And I'm not sure if Elon can monetize it. But you know, it's got everyone saying it's not the same. But I think it's got several notches to fall before anyone will actually start leaving.

What do we do about it? I mean, are we just going to watch and see what happens with the blue check mark. Are we going to watch and see how Twitter develops or doesn't develop? I mean it does. As you say, speak to the great tech industry as a whole, particularly with social media.

Well, I think the.

Tech industry is it is going to have to change. I think with rising rates and sort of realizing that this way of monetizing this through advertising or even data might not pan out the way they want. I mean, these tech companies can't keep doing this forever. Elon can't as rich as he is, can't fund it forever. So I mean, either the something will have to change, and maybe that will mean why actually have to pay for this stuff? No, I was thinking about it. Eight dollars is really not that much to pay for Twitter. Concerning how much time I spend looking at it, I mean, I spend more time on this than anything I subscribe to. But so either but if you do pay for it, fewer people are on it, so it is less valuable. So I think the tech will change, But I suspect my mind is already broken from it, so I don't see it coming back.

Alison Schreeger is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. 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. Were also available as a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are just ahead. I Mami Morris, this is Bloomberg

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)