Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

Tech stocks leading gains this morning after a week of mixed earnings and news of China's Deep Seek AI breakthrough. Norie Rabini of NYU Stern and Hudson Bay Capital taking a bullish stance posting on X earlier this week. In my modest opinion, the Deep Seek surprise is counterintuitively over time bullish for US and global stocks, as it is another positive global aggregate supply shock that increases US and global potential growth and makes exponential AI even more exponential. Noria Jones is now for more, always going to see it. Buddy John Most pick up on that theme. Why do you think this is good news? And do you believe it is the real deal? Export compliant only costs five six million dollars.

Tech stocks leading gains this morning after a week of mixed earnings and news of China's Deep Seek AI breakthrough. Norie Rabini of NYU Stern and Hudson Bay Capital taking a bullish stance posting on X earlier this week. In my modest opinion, the Deep Seek surprise is counterintuitively over time bullish for US and global stocks, as it is another positive global aggregate supply shock that increases US and global potential growth and makes exponential AI even more exponential. Noria Jones is now for more, always going to see it. Buddy John Most pick up on that theme. Why do you think this is good news? And do you believe it is the real deal? Export compliant only costs five six million dollars.

No, of course, in spite of their restrictions, probably got more GPU Navidia and otherwise the INDUS five k probably one hundred thousand are in the costs where much more and so on and so on. It's still it's not the twenty X improvement. Maybe it's two or three X. But my point was that if this is true even to a two three X extent, is one of the biggest total factor productivity increases in human history literally and should be increasing potential growth, not just in China. The reinforce learning can be used by everybody's open source. It's going to use it, and it's going to increase also not only the productivity of those who are producer of eyes, but more importantly of the consumers of the ice. So if it's really true, and I think it's an iterative process, we all learn from each other, we all distilled from each other within the US, within China and US and others. It increases the fact that the I is going to change the world for the better. There will be a significant increase in potential growth in the United States and also globally. So over the medium term that should be actually positive for US and global stock markets, not negatives. So the reaction I think initially a Monday was totally excessive, and the fact that now there's been some retracing over the week as people are digesting the news and saying, this is not the shock that we thought.

No, of course, in spite of their restrictions, probably got more GPU Navidia and otherwise the INDUS five k probably one hundred thousand are in the costs where much more and so on and so on. It's still it's not the twenty X improvement. Maybe it's two or three X. But my point was that if this is true even to a two three X extent, is one of the biggest total factor productivity increases in human history literally and should be increasing potential growth, not just in China. The reinforce learning can be used by everybody's open source. It's going to use it, and it's going to increase also not only the productivity of those who are producer of eyes, but more importantly of the consumers of the ice. So if it's really true, and I think it's an iterative process, we all learn from each other, we all distilled from each other within the US, within China and US and others. It increases the fact that the I is going to change the world for the better. There will be a significant increase in potential growth in the United States and also globally. So over the medium term that should be actually positive for US and global stock markets, not negatives. So the reaction I think initially a Monday was totally excessive, and the fact that now there's been some retracing over the week as people are digesting the news and saying, this is not the shock that we thought.

It was positive stocks, positive for the economy, Yeah, for economic growth. I think it's positive for society.

It was positive stocks, positive for the economy, Yeah, for economic growth. I think it's positive for society.

Well, you know, there's been a huge debate about what are the risks of AI as opposed to the benefits of AI? I think, in part is a political and philosophical question. We know the information, this information, the risk of increase cyber warfare eventually is to humanity and so on. But I would say on net AI, like any other techological innovation, is going to lead to an increase in both proditiviy growth, potential growth, and human welfare. We may be able to live until not ninety hundred hundred and twenty longevity helped you name it. So it's a benefit to society overall. And there are side consequences and problems and risk and where to manage them. And I think that the regulation of the EYE is going to be very complicated. Probably like the Internet, We're going to do it little too late, and then we're going to realize there are some mistakes.

Well, you know, there's been a huge debate about what are the risks of AI as opposed to the benefits of AI? I think, in part is a political and philosophical question. We know the information, this information, the risk of increase cyber warfare eventually is to humanity and so on. But I would say on net AI, like any other techological innovation, is going to lead to an increase in both proditiviy growth, potential growth, and human welfare. We may be able to live until not ninety hundred hundred and twenty longevity helped you name it. So it's a benefit to society overall. And there are side consequences and problems and risk and where to manage them. And I think that the regulation of the EYE is going to be very complicated. Probably like the Internet, We're going to do it little too late, and then we're going to realize there are some mistakes.

If I cliped what you just said and use some AI and took out some words and replaced the I with globalization, yeah, when we send the same thing a few decades ago.

If I cliped what you just said and use some AI and took out some words and replaced the I with globalization, yeah, when we send the same thing a few decades ago.

Well, globalization that is being bashed right now by everybody led to an increase in huge amounts of welfare for business of people around the world. Two precisely on changeans and others and so on, and even in advanced economies so great and globalization and technology are the same. Thing is the ways of increasing productivity growth. There'll be a backlash, But I think that the backlash is going to come on AI is that there will be massive amounts of job displacement. Job augmentation will be initially, but then jobs well, this is what is going to be, and then there'll be UBI or other things to result it.

Well, globalization that is being bashed right now by everybody led to an increase in huge amounts of welfare for business of people around the world. Two precisely on changeans and others and so on, and even in advanced economies so great and globalization and technology are the same. Thing is the ways of increasing productivity growth. There'll be a backlash, But I think that the backlash is going to come on AI is that there will be massive amounts of job displacement. Job augmentation will be initially, but then jobs well, this is what is going to be, and then there'll be UBI or other things to result it.

AI do the services. What globalization did to manufacturing is a question. I keep going back to how many people are going to be satisfied with just UPI I don't want to sit at home, do nothing and get paid by the government. We aspire as human beings to be better, to improve, to climb the social ladder.

AI do the services. What globalization did to manufacturing is a question. I keep going back to how many people are going to be satisfied with just UPI I don't want to sit at home, do nothing and get paid by the government. We aspire as human beings to be better, to improve, to climb the social ladder.

A lot of people, let's do it much In a world of scarcity, of course, the dignity of life was to provide for yourself and for your family and go and look for water, food shelter every day. In a world in which scarcity becomes less of a constraint, we have to produce see less because the robots are going to do it and we can consume more. You're right that you guys saying what's the meaning of life in that situation? It's a philosophical question. And John Manachizin at thirty said, once we get this technology innovation, it's going to work only ten hours than sixty hours, and we all become poets, artists, creators and whatever not. Maybe the nature of life is going to change. Maybe with AGI, we have to merge with the machine, because if we don't merge with the machine, become hyper intelligent and we become obsolete, and then they's going to be a new species. It's not going to be almost appiens, but a more robot. Because it's going to take decades. That's an important philosophical question. But I would argue provocatively that twenty years from now, potential growth probably could be eighty percent, sorry eight percent. An unemployment rate could be eighty percent. We are going in that direction over time, and then we have to manage the council and UBI, by the way, cannot be only national because the winners and losers are going to be only internal, but so across countries. Does we innovate get better off compared to those who don't innovate. Can we have a system of global governance that has a cross border UBI. I mean, those are big issues global governance, well, a form of global governance cooperation actually, But if.

A lot of people, let's do it much In a world of scarcity, of course, the dignity of life was to provide for yourself and for your family and go and look for water, food shelter every day. In a world in which scarcity becomes less of a constraint, we have to produce see less because the robots are going to do it and we can consume more. You're right that you guys saying what's the meaning of life in that situation? It's a philosophical question. And John Manachizin at thirty said, once we get this technology innovation, it's going to work only ten hours than sixty hours, and we all become poets, artists, creators and whatever not. Maybe the nature of life is going to change. Maybe with AGI, we have to merge with the machine, because if we don't merge with the machine, become hyper intelligent and we become obsolete, and then they's going to be a new species. It's not going to be almost appiens, but a more robot. Because it's going to take decades. That's an important philosophical question. But I would argue provocatively that twenty years from now, potential growth probably could be eighty percent, sorry eight percent. An unemployment rate could be eighty percent. We are going in that direction over time, and then we have to manage the council and UBI, by the way, cannot be only national because the winners and losers are going to be only internal, but so across countries. Does we innovate get better off compared to those who don't innovate. Can we have a system of global governance that has a cross border UBI. I mean, those are big issues global governance, well, a form of global governance cooperation actually, But if.

You use deep sea today you can't even find out things about the Chinese Communist Party, things like tenements square. How are we supposed to have global governance with these kinds of countries.

You use deep sea today you can't even find out things about the Chinese Communist Party, things like tenements square. How are we supposed to have global governance with these kinds of countries.

I think what's going to happen is that over time, given the geopolitical divisions within US and China, the Wall is going to be divided in two. There'll be a group of countries US with its friends and allies and others in the global ceuth who prefer the economic, monetary, social, political geopolical system of the US and the West. Someone the globals are going to go with us, and there'll be other going to go with the model of China, but model economic trade in state, capitalist geopolitical security via right technology and whatever not, and there'll be a split world. But within the West, if there are and those friends and allies, if there are winners and losers within countries or across countries, we'll have a system of transfers. I mean, we've been subsidizing the defense of our friends and allies from Asia to Europe for now eighty years because it was in the global interests of the United States. So if we need to do global UBI across friends and allies and others part of our system, we're going to do it. But that's the world we're going. And China is doing the same thing. We have to subsidize our friends and they'll do the same.

I think what's going to happen is that over time, given the geopolitical divisions within US and China, the Wall is going to be divided in two. There'll be a group of countries US with its friends and allies and others in the global ceuth who prefer the economic, monetary, social, political geopolical system of the US and the West. Someone the globals are going to go with us, and there'll be other going to go with the model of China, but model economic trade in state, capitalist geopolitical security via right technology and whatever not, and there'll be a split world. But within the West, if there are and those friends and allies, if there are winners and losers within countries or across countries, we'll have a system of transfers. I mean, we've been subsidizing the defense of our friends and allies from Asia to Europe for now eighty years because it was in the global interests of the United States. So if we need to do global UBI across friends and allies and others part of our system, we're going to do it. But that's the world we're going. And China is doing the same thing. We have to subsidize our friends and they'll do the same.

Unpatch a fund of the world to described nothing to do with it.

Unpatch a fund of the world to described nothing to do with it.

And this is not here, and it's essential. Lisa is not even here, and it's gone very existential. This conversation when it comes to this idea of our global regulation on AI, do you think Trump will use AI right now in the next four years as a bargaining chip as you try to work on global realignment.

And this is not here, and it's essential. Lisa is not even here, and it's gone very existential. This conversation when it comes to this idea of our global regulation on AI, do you think Trump will use AI right now in the next four years as a bargaining chip as you try to work on global realignment.

When it comes to trade, it will actually buy them. Right before he left in early January, this new AI diffusion rule that divides essentially the world in the three group of countries Tier one, Tier two, Tier three. If you're part of the global technological order of the United States and you accept all the rules and the security, you have access to unlimited amounts of advanced chips of Navidian others. You have access to all the AI models you can have access to building the data center, and you're part of our own technological sphere, and we set the rule of essentially within that type of Tier one, we are deciding utterly. It's not a question about regulating AI but with our friend and ally and even within NATO. There are only so far eighteen countries that qualify for tierue, not all NATO countries. Of course, the countries in the Big Big Five I are part of some of the other NATO members, plenty of countries are not. Tier two is mostly the Global South and everybody else. Of course, China arrivals are three and so on. So the US is going to set the rules of the global technological order, and it's going to do it totally unilatterly. And it's either you're with me, because I'm setting those technologies and I'm the one who's advancing those technologies, and then you can use the chips, you can develop the application, you can do the data center with me, or otherwise you're in the doghouse.

When it comes to trade, it will actually buy them. Right before he left in early January, this new AI diffusion rule that divides essentially the world in the three group of countries Tier one, Tier two, Tier three. If you're part of the global technological order of the United States and you accept all the rules and the security, you have access to unlimited amounts of advanced chips of Navidian others. You have access to all the AI models you can have access to building the data center, and you're part of our own technological sphere, and we set the rule of essentially within that type of Tier one, we are deciding utterly. It's not a question about regulating AI but with our friend and ally and even within NATO. There are only so far eighteen countries that qualify for tierue, not all NATO countries. Of course, the countries in the Big Big Five I are part of some of the other NATO members, plenty of countries are not. Tier two is mostly the Global South and everybody else. Of course, China arrivals are three and so on. So the US is going to set the rules of the global technological order, and it's going to do it totally unilatterly. And it's either you're with me, because I'm setting those technologies and I'm the one who's advancing those technologies, and then you can use the chips, you can develop the application, you can do the data center with me, or otherwise you're in the doghouse.

I wanted to squeeze one more questions or pains would be us we ever set it. Europeans would be deeply upset with this conversation showing no, but.

I wanted to squeeze one more questions or pains would be us we ever set it. Europeans would be deeply upset with this conversation showing no, but.

They already accepted it. The same thing happened with data centers, right they tried to find an alternative, they were not successful. And the hyper scalers are providing those data centers in Europe, and maybe they are technically in Europe, but they are controlled by WUS and Microsoft and you name it. That's already the world we're in.

They already accepted it. The same thing happened with data centers, right they tried to find an alternative, they were not successful. And the hyper scalers are providing those data centers in Europe, and maybe they are technically in Europe, but they are controlled by WUS and Microsoft and you name it. That's already the world we're in.

I wanted to squeeze in a word on Stephen Moran just quickly worked alongside the Hudson By Capital who you represent? This morning published a really interesting pay for the end of last year activist treasury issuance ITI. Now he's in power now in the White House, working alongside Donald Trump, is an incomp adviser. What's going to happen now if you believe that yan In the former Treasury secretary with issuing treasuries actively at the front end to have different objectives, how do we unwind that this time around to even try well.

I wanted to squeeze in a word on Stephen Moran just quickly worked alongside the Hudson By Capital who you represent? This morning published a really interesting pay for the end of last year activist treasury issuance ITI. Now he's in power now in the White House, working alongside Donald Trump, is an incomp adviser. What's going to happen now if you believe that yan In the former Treasury secretary with issuing treasuries actively at the front end to have different objectives, how do we unwind that this time around to even try well.

Scott Bsingt in his confirmation hearing was asked about this and he already said that effectively, given the impact on long term interest rates, if you phase it out right away, it's going to be a shock to long bond yials already going higher. In our paper estimated the shock could be for the next two or three years or at least fifty business points. So then all that so they're going to have to wait and phase it out one gradually and two interview when bond yields are going lower, either going lower because maybe growth is slower or because inflation is lower. So they'll have to opportunistically gradually phase it out over time. But it's not going to happen overnight. There already, said Noriel.

Scott Bsingt in his confirmation hearing was asked about this and he already said that effectively, given the impact on long term interest rates, if you phase it out right away, it's going to be a shock to long bond yials already going higher. In our paper estimated the shock could be for the next two or three years or at least fifty business points. So then all that so they're going to have to wait and phase it out one gradually and two interview when bond yields are going lower, either going lower because maybe growth is slower or because inflation is lower. So they'll have to opportunistically gradually phase it out over time. But it's not going to happen overnight. There already, said Noriel.

It's always going to see a sir lost to think about scaring me about the future. Noriel Rabini off NYU Stern in Hudson Bay Capital. I want absolutely nothing to do with that.

It's always going to see a sir lost to think about scaring me about the future. Noriel Rabini off NYU Stern in Hudson Bay Capital. I want absolutely nothing to do with that.