Pod Insights Odd Lots Brad Setser on the Damage From Trump's Gigantic Tariff Shock About this episode He needs no introduction: When trade is in the news, we speak with Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations. Brad has been talking for awhile about the major imbalances of world trade, and the US-China relationship in particular. However, rather than building up a large trading bloc with our allies to counter Chinese influence, the Trump administration has chosen a path of going it alone, targeting friend and foe alike with large and wide-ranging tariffs. In this episode, we talk about the significance of the move, the potential damage, and what, if any, positive scenarios could result. Read More:Global Recession Fears Engulf Wall Street on Tariff RetaliationMatt Levine: The Tariffs Have Some Math Only Bloomberg.com subscribers can get the Odd Lots newsletter in their inbox — now delivered every weekday — plus unlimited access to the site and app. Subscribe at bloomberg.com/subscriptions/oddlotsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcript Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Speaker 00 Finance is increasingly being built on digital rails. But as the adoption of virtual assets, tokenization and stable coins grows, can regulation not only keep pace but help accelerate it? Find out more later in the podcast.
0:16 Speaker 01 This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Getting hired at SpaceX requires exceptional ability and may include having Elon Musk review a candidate's resume. So writes Bloomberg Business Week's Lauren Grush. She reports that the company culture is defined by Musk and job candidates must understand that a commitment to SpaceX means adhering to this culture and exhibiting loyalty to Elon Musk. To get hired, candidates must demonstrate their achievements from past jobs and hands-on experience matters more to recruiters than advanced degrees, with the company looking for people with raw innate intelligence. A spokesperson for SpaceX didn't respond to a request for comment on its recruiting
0:58 Speaker 01 and hiring practices, but according to recruiters, advisors and those who've interviewed for jobs there, it's the space exploration dream that draws people to the company and Musk invokes that dream regularly to remind workers why they're there. Prospective hires are told that the job will require stamina, including in job ads that candidates "must be willing to work extended hours and weekends as needed." One major perk for all that hard work? Employees' access to equity, either the right to buy shares or payment in the form of restricted stock units that vest over time. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at chatgpt.com.
1:41 Speaker 01 Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts, radio, news.
1:57 Tracy Alloway? Hello and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway.
2:01 Joe Weisenthal? And I'm Joe Weisenthal.
2:04 Tracy Alloway? Joe, another day, another emergency podcast.
2:07 Joe Weisenthal? We're gonna do a lot. This is a fact. We, this is the-
2:10 Tracy Alloway? I should just resign myself to this inevitability, right?
2:13 Joe Weisenthal? The story of the tariffs, the market reaction, the global reaction is the central story of our time, one of the biggest stories of our entire career. I think perhaps, depending on how things could go, a bigger story than the past two big stories of the great financial crisis and the COVID shock. We're gonna be doing a lot of episodes about what this all means.
2:36 Tracy Alloway? This is what is mind blowing to me because when 2008 happened, I remember thinking this was the biggest thing that had ever happened in modern finance and the modern economy. And then in 2020, I remember there was a very vibrant debate about whether or not the pandemic and the market sell off would end up being the central crisis for a new generation. And I think in retrospect, it certainly was. A lot more people remember 2020 than they remember 2008 now. And here we are, you know, just five years later, having another discussion about how big this is inevitably going to be. So on that note, we are recording this on Friday, April 4th. The market
3:17 Tracy Alloway? is selling off yet again. We had Trump's new tariff announcements. Those were released on Wednesday, April 2nd, Liberation Day. Investors have been, I mean, I would say pretty much panicking since then. And what's more, overnight, coming into Friday morning, we've started to see some reaction from other countries, notably China. The US is one of the US's biggest trading partners. And they say they're instituting a 34% reciprocal tariff on US goods. So things seem to be escalating.
3:49 Joe Weisenthal? Totally. You know, I'm just gonna make one short comment here, which is why I think this might be, end up being a bigger story than the great financial crisis, potentially. And that is banking crises happen, they happen around the- World, they've happened in the US, they've even happened in the US between massive crises. And there is a playbook and there's a response and you try to reflect the economy and your stuff like this. This is different because this is a policy choice purposely aimed to completely reorient America's relationship with the rest of the world and reorient the internal economy. And so it's very different than sort of like, oh, you have a run on the bank, which happens for, we had one in March 2023, we had a run on the bank.
4:31 Joe Weisenthal? You know, this is very different in terms of the entire relationship of both the internal and the external economy. And it may end up being more consequential for better or worse than the great.
4:43 Tracy Alloway? I don't disagree with you, but I'm just gonna say one thing. Number one, that's not a short comment. Number two, you're right. This is an entirely self inflicted own goal, basically, by the Trump administration. Like, it is their decision to do this. And they presumably knew what the results were gonna be, right? They decided not to hold the tariff press conference while the markets were open. They knew that coming out was something that was worse than a lot of professional economists and analysts had expected was going to have this impact on the market. And here we are. So this is something that the administration has chosen to do. Obviously, there's lots going on. Obviously, we have a lot of questions. Who do we turn to when we have trade questions?
5:26 Tracy Alloway? We do, in fact, have the perfect guest. We're gonna be speaking with Brad Setser, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a longtime trade expert, one of our favorites to talk to. The last time we saw him was actually at our pre-election event at a live show in New York. And Brad, I remember speaking to you there. There were a lot of concerns about what Trump could do on trade. How has the reality shaped up to expectations here?
5:55 Speaker 04 Oh, look, Trump did campaign on an agenda that was tariffs and more tariffs. He campaigned on a 10% across the board tariff and prohibitive tariffs on trade with China. And at times, he did suggest that 10% was the minimum. That said, a lot of people close to Trump, a lot of people who found their way into the administration, were sending different messages privately to people in the financial markets. People like Scott Besant were talking about how Trump's plan was escalate to de-escalate. The tariffs were a negotiating tool. They weren't a tool to upend the global economy.
6:39 Speaker 04 I think what the announcement on Wednesday showed is that the decision of the administration, not surprisingly, was to follow President Trump's instincts, not the instincts of his more moderate advisers, to go all in, and that the goal really is to, as you guys suggested at the beginning, to radically restructure the US and global economies using tariffs as a tool, with some flexibility perhaps to negotiate at the edges. But fundamentally, this is a test of what you can and cannot do with tariffs, and there was very little restraint, I would say, apart for, strangely enough, Canada and Mexico, USMCA, on the
7:22 Speaker 04 level of the tariffs. So the tariffs are set at levels which are just going to frankly be painful.
7:27 Joe Weisenthal? You know, Tracy mentioned that we talked to you the night before the election, and one thing that's interesting about talking to you is you're not a sort of naive, you know, all traded fine-
7:38 Tracy Alloway? Armchair economist.
7:40 Joe Weisenthal? Yeah, or just like, you know, everything was fine in the global trading system, and you've been talking for years that like this is an unhealthy relationship that the US has with China specifically. And that night that we talked to you before the election, you're like, the answer is to really deepen the trading relationship with our allies, our friends. So that would be Europe, Canada, and so forth, and really build up a coherent, open trading block that would stand to something different to China, which, as you've said, has had unfair trade practices for a long time. Trump says the same thing. We haven't. So what are the consequences of closing, fragmenting, what you saw as the potential open trading block to counter China?
8:23 Speaker 04 Well, obvious point is elections do have consequences. Um, look, I do think that trade with China is very difficult for most countries that aren't just commodity exporters. If you look at China's pattern of trade over the last six years, China's imports of manufacturers increased on average by fifteen, one five billion dollars a year, essentially nothing. China's exports of manufacturers over the last six years increased on average by a hundred and seventy-five billion dollars a year, ten times as much. So China became an economy, particularly in respond because of the way it responded to
9:06 Speaker 04 COVID, because of the real estate crisis that was exporting but not importing when it came to manufacturers. And China's trade surplus surged to be at about a trillion, it's a little over a trillion dollars now, about a percent of GDP, world GDP. Its manufacturing surplus is two percent of world GDP. These are really unprecedented numbers. And so, you know, my view was that, hey, we don't have to abandon all the benefits of trade. We can maintain the benefits of relatively integrated trade amongst like-minded, I guess that's not, I don't like that term actually, amongst countries that have similar economic systems. Sure. Similar politics.
9:48 Speaker 04 And that, that was a, a better way of both putting pressure on China, because the pressure's really on China, and also avoiding the costs that come from fully disengaging from the world economy. I think the choice was made, was essentially an American, to go with an America alone policy, where we're going to give up a lot of the benefits of trade with our neighbors and with longstanding friends. And I think the net effect of that, yes, it's going to put a lot of pressure on China. The tariffs on Vietnam are in some ways tariffs on indirect Chinese exports as well, but it does so at a very, very high cost. And it, it, it sort of gives up the benefits that I thought the US had for being at the center of a much bigger block than China was.
10:33 Speaker 04 Going to be at the centre. We've kind of, the vision here is at least shrinking to within North America and maybe shrinking to within the United States. That's just fundamentally a different vision. And I think it's a more costly form of disengagement.
11:01 Speaker 00 What's next for virtual assets? I'm Jacob Greece, host of Economy Scale, a series exploring growth in key global sectors. And in this episode, we're diving into the digital forces shaping finance. Sean McHugh from Dubai-based Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority has this to say.
11:17 Speaker 05 We're seeing a lot of insocial players come in, digital asset dedicated hedge funds, high frequency traders and that sort of thing, and folks who service insocial clients.
11:26 Speaker 00 As more capital enters the market, adaptive regulation is likely to become increasingly key. Greece America Report says.
11:34 Speaker 06 A lot of regulators globally would like to keep the industry at arm's length. That's the opposite here. I think also what you'll find is that regulation and frameworks can come out, but some of them are maybe a slight iteration on some 80-year-old policy and not actually in line with what the technology can do and offer. And again, that's very different in Dubai.
11:53 Speaker 00 Listen to the full episode wherever you get your podcasts. This series is brought to you by Bloomberg Media Studios and the Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism.
12:03 Speaker 01 This is the Bloomberg Tech Minute brought to you by ChatGPT. I'm Carol Muster. Millions of Americans are taking peptides, short strings of amino acids that can act as biological signals for cells. Peptides like insulin can occur naturally in the body, or they can be synthetically introduced to induce a biological process, as happens with semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic. Now Bloomberg's Anika Inam Pudi reports peptides may be exploring their next frontier, the brain. People are taking peptides for mental clarity and cognitive benefits as alternatives to psychiatric medications and to gain a competitive edge or stave off the effects of aging. Insulin and semaglutide are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
12:47 Speaker 01 Because importing or selling unapproved peptides for human use is not legal in the U.S., many people turn to online forums for guidance and overseas vendors with questionable credentials to obtain them. Unapproved peptides, which are marketed as research chemicals, have been circulating in what's become a billion-dollar gray market amid the rise of do-it-yourself medicine as people increasingly turn to social media or artificial intelligence for medical help. Doctors warn against self-experimentation and advise talking to providers before trying any new therapies. That's the Bloomberg Tech Minute, brought to you by ChatGPT. Get started at ChatGPT.com.
13:26 Tracy Alloway? So you mentioned Vietnam there, and I think this is one of the big differences between tariffs this time around and tariffs in the first Trump administration. So we did see a lot of production that basically circumvented the China tariffs post-2018 that increased production in places like Vietnam, lots of Chinese components going into Mexico and then finding their way into the U.S. from there. Is there any wriggle room left in the current constellation of, you know, the new export limitations, the new tariffs? Is there any wriggle room to kind of reorient potentially American imports that way?
14:06 Tracy Alloway? Or are there ways maybe to, I don't know, figure out lower tariff bans by like arbitraging between one country and another? Or are they so sweeping that a lot of that ability has just been wiped out?
14:19 Speaker 04 There are two potential arbitrages that have opened up if Wednesday night is maintained. So the first is, there are a set of countries, generally countries which have now relatively balanced trade with the U.S. that only got the baseline 10% tariff. So if you reoriented your supply chains and took the increase in shipping costs and found a bunch of, say, workers in Brazil, you could employ those workers in Brazil to put together components from China and send them to the U.S. And only pay a 10% tariff. That's better than Vietnam's 45% tariff and the 55% tariff ballpark that China,
15:02 Speaker 04 that any good from China faces with some goods facing higher tariffs. So opportunity number one is basically move production or at least final assembly to countries that already have balanced trade with the US and thereby only have a 10% tariff. Note the irony that if these countries become centers for final assembly, bilateral trade will no longer stay balanced. It'll quickly shift. The other big exception, again, for now, and it doesn't apply to autos and it doesn't apply to steel and it doesn't, probably won't apply to pharmaceuticals and it probably won't apply to some other sectors, is that for now, and I mean, I do find it a bit shocking, given how much
15:44 Speaker 04 emphasis President Trump has placed on Canada in the first two months of its administration. For now, most trade with Mexico and Canada outside of autos is still relatively low tariff. It has to be USMCA compliant. You can generally achieve that. The USMCA compliance, a lot of people weren't doing it because there was no advantage in, say, electronics, because electronic tariffs were zero inside USMCA and zero for Vietnam. Now there's a huge incentive to be USMCA compliant. So if you can do USMCA compliant production, assembly in Mexico, there's no really right now, but it'll probably change over time.
16:26 Speaker 04 Limits on how many Chinese parts can be included in that operation. For now, you get around the tariff. Now, I think there will be a renegotiation of USMCA that will make some of this a bit harder over time. But that at least is the opportunity that would be open for now if nothing more changes. But it doesn't feel fully consistent with the president's intent either.
16:51 Joe Weisenthal? You know, you've been talking about trade for your entire career, et cetera. You know, on that Wednesday announcement, every country got a tariff slapped on it. And it was basically a strict function of the amount of surplus, then divided by exports and then divided by, yeah, so China, for instance, trade surplus of 295 billion last year on exports of 438 billion, a ratio of 68%, and then they divided by two, and that's how they got 34%. And that's how they did it every country down the line. And the theoretical idea here seems to be that if we run a bilateral trade surplus with you, any country in the world, then that must be some proxy for the amount that
17:33 Joe Weisenthal? you're cheating, either through tariffs or non-tariff trade barriers or currency manipulation or something like that. This seems to be the intellectual logic. And what I'm curious from you is, in all your knowledge of sort of the theory of world trade, is this something that people have talked about as a reasonable way or a reasonable proxy to measure the amount with which a country, quote, cheats in the rules of free trade?
18:02 Speaker 04 The simple answer is, as you know, Joe, no. This felt like a group of economic advisors who had put off doing a term paper until really late at night and were scrambling to come up-
18:14 Tracy Alloway? And then use ChatGPT, right?
18:16 Speaker 04 Perhaps, but I mean, essentially, it certainly seems from the TikToks that the president himself asked for tariffs on not just 15 countries, but 70 countries or something. And people had to come up with a formula because it was clear that USTR and others didn't have the capacity to do true assessments of all of the countries that were covered by this announcement. But it does feel like a term paper that went horribly wrong because it was written at four in the morning and it had to be submitted at six. There are some obvious- Weirdness that comes from this formula. The most significant of which, in my view, is that small Asian economies that generally
19:01 Speaker 04 have current account deficits, their trade deficits overall, often run surpluses with the United States because they're relatively poor, they can't afford many of our goods, and they can still produce clothing, more or less for the US market. So hence we put really quite heavy tariffs on a country like Sri Lanka, on a country like Bangladesh, you know, countries where I don't think there was any significant concern about the pattern of trade. Sure, there were some concerns about sweatshops and labor rights and so forth and so on, but no one was sort of in the US economy was, you know, hey, hey, ho, ho, competition from Sri Lanka has to go.
19:43 Speaker 04 This was just a function of a formula applied without thought. And so you end up having heavy tariffs on countries that are just producing clothes which realistically won't be produced in the US. So there's an element of pure pointlessness that comes out of this formula. Now, I will say that there is some value in looking at bilateral trade patterns. I mean, I've certainly learned a lot from trying to understand why the US runs such a large deficit with Ireland. I think the answer is not that Ireland is an unfair trader. I think the answer is we have a tax policy that incentivized American companies to produce in Ireland to reduce their US tax rate from 21 to 10 and a half percent.
20:28 Speaker 04 And so we, some cases, you can learn from the pattern of bilateral trade. I certainly think you can learn something from looking at global trade surpluses, not bilateral trade surpluses. And the global surplus is pointing to a problem with China. And China really has been growing on the back of net exports for the last four or five years. China's trade surplus with the world really is big. And in a sense, the bilateral deficit with China now understates our reliance on Chinese supply because of all this rerouting through third countries. But just using this simple formula produced some obviously absurd results. And you know it was done late at night because we ended up tariffing islands that only produce penguins.
21:10 Joe Weisenthal? Yeah.
21:11 Tracy Alloway? Yeah. Make the penguins sign up for better trade terms. Certainly. Okay. So on this note, I mean, this is actually the thing that I find most depressing slash disturbing about all of this. It's the arbitrariness with which some of these seem to have been designed. And I know I wrote about it in the newsletter yesterday. So Joe's aware of this, but like the example I've been reaching for is Nehru. So, you know, 30% tariffs on this tiny island state in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean. And they, you know, they export like one to two million worth of pigmeats and some computer parts every year to the US.
21:49 Tracy Alloway? I just cannot fathom what the US wants from a country like Nehru, or in what way the US economy is at all threatened by a country like Nehru. And as you point out, Brad, it's not like the islanders are suddenly going to be buying a bunch of Fords from the US, right? Like they have 12 miles worth of road. What exactly are they going to be buying from America? That disturbs me a lot. But beyond that, you know, you might have realized already, Joe certainly has that I'm a little bit cranky and tired this morning. Joe's very exhilarated by watching a history change in real time. I just got kind of, kind of sad and tired. But for my benefit, can you maybe describe, is there any path where you
22:32 Tracy Alloway? see this going reasonably well, or at least not completely terribly?
22:40 Speaker 04 Well, there
22:42 Joe Weisenthal? Long pause.
22:42 Speaker 04 is a path to de-escalation. The path to de-escalation is one where, you know, in some sense, the Trump administration decides not to make history. Joe's going to be a bit bored. This doesn't turn out to be the repeat of the global financial crisis. It turns out to be a more ordinary trade war, maybe with a few Trumpian flourishes and maybe with a bit more revenue collection. But if you If the administration concludes that it overshot, that they are worried about throwing the US economy into a self-induced recession, that they don't have political support for this particular trade war, and they want to back off, they've left a little space to do "phenomenal deals."
23:25 Speaker 04 And so if there are phenomenal deals done with China, with Europe, with Japan, if there's some agreement that is reached with Mexico and Canada that rolls back some of the auto protection, which is actually significant in its own terms, even if the rest of, well, not the rest, but even if the consumer goods and non-metal-based part of North American trade is still relatively untariffed, if you reach deals with them, reach deals with Southeast Asia, reach deals with the UK, you know, so forth and so on, you could generally perhaps fall back to something that's closer to a 10% tariff across the board, which is significant but not as disruptive.
24:10 Speaker 04 And then whatever your deal with China leaves you with, you kind of play a trade war out with China using the 301 tool, and you really just focus on China. So that is the most plausible path towards de-escalation. I think right now, though, Joe's in luck. We're on a path where the president does seem fairly committed to changing the fundamental structure of the US and North American economies. And if you want to achieve that deep change through policy, you have to impose policies that are disruptive and painful. And so, and other countries are going to react. And the US basically is taking policy steps that on one hand risk throwing the US into recession
24:53 Speaker 04 and are almost certain to throw some of our major trading partners into recession. And countries generally don't want to be pushed into recession by policy choices made abroad. So the natural reaction is going to be to try to reduce your dependence on the US market. Now, that's really hard, because the US is the only big, big, big country that runs really big deficits, I guess, along with the UK. It is just really hard for all the surplus countries to find an alternative source of demand. The US has really been supplying a lot of demand to the global economy. But if Trump is determined to close the trade deficit and willing to do so by shrinking the US economy, and has more or less given up on the idea of growing exports as a way out.
25:37 Speaker 04 And then I think we're, A, we're making history because we are tearing apart something that has grown up organically over 80 years, something that the US actually helped. You know, it's a trite statement, but it is true, is the system the US after World War II more or less created. And then the cost of that system, in Trump's view, eyes got to be too big. And so he made a decision to radically step away from current trade patterns and trade policies. I mean, this is a real break. It's a much bigger break than just doing a targeted action against China, which is his term one trade policy. You know, I'm not sure it's going to be bigger than the global financial crisis.
26:17 Speaker 04 I mean, I was unfortunately around then and I remember, you know, the panic in New York when the big institutions were on the edge of going bust and the 5% fall in the US economy and the very, very slow recovery. You just do normal economic analysis, you maybe get a shock of a third of that size from what we're doing now. We're not so integrated into the global economy. We haven't stopped all trade, we've just taxed at a very high rate. But yeah, it will play out over a much longer period of time. A financial crisis, you know, risk disaster, but it forces you to respond quickly.
26:57 Speaker 04 This is a more slow-moving and as you indicated, it's a result of a conscious policy choice. So therefore it has a very different dynamic.
27:08 Tracy Alloway? Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of trade episodes to come in our future.
27:14 Joe Weisenthal? We'll talk to you next week, Brad.
27:16 Tracy Alloway? Yeah, Brad, thank you so much.
27:18 Speaker 04 Let's talk about capital flows and, you know, Canadian pension funds and why the dollar has rallied into the trade war in Taiwan.
27:29 Joe Weisenthal? Taiwanese life insurance.
27:30 Tracy Alloway? The good old days.
27:31 Joe Weisenthal? Yeah.
27:32 Speaker 04 They are still interesting, Joe. They are still interesting.
27:36 Tracy Alloway? The good old days of Taiwanese life insurer mysteries. All right, Brad, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.
27:41 Speaker 04 My pleasure. Thank you.
27:55 Tracy Alloway? Joe, I guess, I guess on the plus side, we are making history. All of it is very interesting from an economic, intellectual perspective. So there is that. Can you tell I'm trying to make myself feel better?
28:07 Joe Weisenthal? Tracy, we're the best business in the world. This is why we get up in the morning, but I'm just going to say one comment. There's not really much for me to add. I don't have much to add to Brad, but when he said that comment about how the formula for the tariff announcement reminded him of turning in a very bad economics term paper at 4 a.m.
28:26 Tracy Alloway? Yeah.
28:26 Joe Weisenthal? The only thing that I could remember was the time that I interviewed for a job with Rubini Global Economics in 2007, and Brad Setser was my interviewer. And I completely flopped that interview by basically talking about the Argentine economy with the sophistication that he described the tariffs, and I did not get that job. And so when Brad says, this is bad economics, I have personal experience with hearing that from Brad. That's all I'm going to say.
28:59 Tracy Alloway? I mean, yes, it does seem to be bad economics in terms of the tariff rollout. But this is the thing that, you know, okay, yes, it's exhilarating. It's interesting to watch. But this is the thing that actually bothers me because, as Brad points out, there are some legitimate grievances over US-China trade. And you could go about trying to fix those in a cohesive and potentially effective manner. And instead, we've chosen this weird wish list of things that we want that don't seem to be based on anything like rational. Here are some numbers that we pulled out at 4 a.m. in the morning as we were cramming for this announcement or whatever. And we're also targeting countries from which, like, there can't be anything we want from,
29:44 Tracy Alloway? like, Kiribati or... Or Nehru, like, why exactly are they even included in this thing? What are we doing here?
29:50 Joe Weisenthal? Well, this actually is one thing, you're right, that drives me crazy, which is there's this whole game that gets played where it's like, oh, we need more manufacturing and, you know, what are we gonna do? Be reliant on China for all of our, like, semiconductors and batteries and stuff? That's actually really not great. And we had a policy put in place by the last administration that was specifically targeted. And look, I'll be very clear, like, I'm totally fine with disagreeing with, like, how the CHIPS Act rolled out. And I think there's reasons to think, like, that is totally, like, to my mind, ground for debate. But the idea that no one was talking about the national security implications of heavy reliance on China for manufactured goods up until Wednesday?
30:33 Joe Weisenthal? That part is complete nonsense.
30:36 Tracy Alloway? No, it's crazy. And also, I mean, we know that central to Trump's world vision or his economic vision of America is the centrality of private capital, right? You want private capital to fund in and, and build all these strategically important industries for the US, like semiconductors. But at the same time, the magnitude of what he's trying to attempt all at once seems very obviously going to scare a lot of private capital away from building anything in the US. Like, I don't really see why it has to be this shock and awe approach to reorienting US trade when you could be something that's much more strategic
31:18 Tracy Alloway? and done perhaps like much more in coordination with a bunch of different constituents, I guess, of the American economy.
31:26 Joe Weisenthal? Don't ask me.
31:27 Tracy Alloway? I'm going back to bed. Okay. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast. I'm Tracy Alocke. You can follow me at Tracy Alocke.
31:35 Joe Weisenthal? And I'm Jill Weisenthal. You can follow me at TheStalwart. Follow Brad Setser, Brad underscore Setser. Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armin, Dashoban at Dashbot, Kel Brooks at Kel Brooks. For more Odd Lots content, go to Bloomberg.com/oddlots, where we have all of our episodes and a daily newsletter. And you can chat about all of these topics 24/7 with fellow listeners in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.
32:02 Tracy Alloway? And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we roll out these emergency trade episodes, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad-free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.
32:55 Speaker 07 Empower is all about helping you invest well, so you can go out and live a little. And their Free Empower Personal Dashboard shows you your full financial life in one place. You'll be able to see your net worth, monitor budgets, analyze your portfolio, set retirement goals, and more. Whether you're saving for something big, want to treat yourself, friends, or family, or meet long-term goals, Empower helps you see where you stand. You've worked hard for your money, and Empower can help you make the most of it. Download the Empower Personal Dashboard or visit empower.com. Not an Empower client paid or sponsored. She's been thinking about this sleepover all week, but I think about her food allergies all the time.
33:32 Speaker 00 Fortunately, her doctor prescribed Zolair, omalizumab. It's proven to significantly reduce allergic reactions if a food allergy accident happens.
33:40 Speaker 06 Zolair 150mg is a prescription medication used to treat food allergy in people one year of age and older to reduce allergic reactions due to accidental exposure to one or more foods. While taking Zolair, you should continue to avoid all foods to which you are allergic. Don't use if you are allergic to Zolair. Zolair may cause a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. Tell your doctor if you ever had anaphylaxis. Get help right away if you have trouble breathing or if you have swelling of your throat or tongue. Zolair should not be used for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. Zolair is for maintenance use to reduce allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, while avoiding food allergens. Serious side effects such as cancer, fever, muscle aches and rash, parasitic infection, or heart and circulation problems have been reported. Please see zolair.com for full prescribing information. Ask an allergist
34:22 Speaker 06 about Zolair. This is an advertisement for Zolair, paid for by Genentech and Novartis.
Previous Lots More on a Massive, Historical, Stagflationary Shock Next Tether's CEO Speaks on His Insanely Profitable Business Page updated November 3, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
