Adam Posen on a Surreal Jackson Hole in a Post-American World

27:01And if you're just thinking about like, okay, we provide this insurance role in some ways very literally, say, with our Navy through various straits around the world. and setting aside whether China cheated or not, should we be anxious if pure manufacturing capacity and the technological frontier in building things, including weapons, is in China? Anxious is not the right word, Joe. Okay. And I appreciate your saying about the liberal, and that's the part I didn't say. I mean, I think a lot of people are making the case that I'm pushing back against the tracing you asked about because it seems to be politically advanceable to say that old-fashioned liberal values are bad.

27:44In the case of China, again, there's a difference between arguing in a frankly not just liberal but neoliberal, if I can use that word, way that there is a specific market failure to make sure we have adequate minimum sourcing and diversified sourcing of key national security inputs, right? Yeah. So, you know, that's fine. You can say that. And it's like, yeah, wouldn't it be good if the Defense Department and the Commerce Department and the intelligence community actually had a process by which they identified this and actually had an ongoing commission and had a list and had expert advice and decided, excuse me, in a nonpartisan way how to do that, and then actually marshaled specific money and measures to do that.

28:37And if you could do that, and you should, that would affect some tiny percentage of the US economy. It might be incredibly important for having drones or aircraft carriers or whatever the right technology is, and I'm not going to pretend I know what it is, to keep the Straits of Malacca open or to keep the Taiwan Strait open. But you could do that. And when I was fighting against the Biden administration on some of their national security excuses for economics interventions and their industrial policy a few years ago, I actually had a meeting with a senior person in the White House, not somebody that senior, but senior enough.

29:13And I said, you know, you guys have to have a list. You have to do this. And this person laughed and said, you got to be kidding me because no one wants to write down a list. Because once you write down a list, then you're annoying certain people and excluding others. And if you're the Defense Department, you want to include as many things as possible. And, you know, the general dynamic of how these things go. So I don't think the right response is anxiety. I think the right response is, yeah, let's take this seriously. Let's act like bloody grownups and actually set up a policy process that deals with this.

29:47And let's do the spending. And even to go back to the international side, go to our specific allies and say, again, it's like raising taxes on a specific thing where you're tying it to a user fee or on the insurance. I'm raising your premiums, not threefold and threatening to leave. I'm raising your premiums for 25%. And if you put a fire detector in your house, I will only raise it 20%. Go to Germany, go to Japan, go to Korea, go to the Netherlands and say, in effect, I'm raising your premium. I want you to spend this much more on defense. But if you chip in specifically on this list of military sensitive equipment, I won't ask for as much.

30:31Yeah, the carrots are kind of missing. There's a lot of sticks and not that many carrots. You touched on this just now, but I'm basically going to ask Joe's question in a slightly different way. But are tariffs the right way to bring manufacturing back to the US? No. Sorry, you want more? I mean, look, again, because of the nature of tariffs, which are a tax, which are a distortionary tax on the narrow part of the tax base that has bad distributional effects, they're regressive, they primarily either hurt small business on the corporate side or they hurt lower income people on the household side.

31:10and they tend to lead to corruption even if not literal bribes but distortions of hey apple showed up in the president's office with a gold phone and what do you know they got an exception to the tariff you know tend to lead to stuff like that in a way that most things do tariffs are good for two things right if there is a very specific industry in a very specific bargaining situation, not against the whole world in general, all at the same time. One specific country with whom you can bargain and you can get other people to join you in the tariffs. So it's effectively a form of economic sanction that can work.

31:52The other thing is if you are an underdeveloped country with no state capacity, like the US in 1820, or a number of South Asian and Sub-Saharan African and Central American countries today, even there, not that many, tariffs are a way to collect necessary revenues because you can literally set up guards at the border and make sure somebody gets the money. Whereas other more less intrusive, less regressive, more efficient forms of taxation are harder to collect if you don't have a good state capacity. Those are the only two things tariffs are going to do. This is a good point because you see people like, oh, back in the old days, the golden age tariffs.

32:31Well, it's like we didn't didn't have like W-2 forms and stuff like that. So yeah, of course, you just have to do it at the ports. Let's go back to like, okay, setting aside the sort of structural issues with tariffs and the bad distribution effects, et cetera. Like just right now in August 2025, and we look at the state of the US economy and people, like how do you perceive the interaction of tariffs with everything else that are going on right now? It's a fair question. We've done a lot of work at the Peterson Institute, colleagues of mine that we've published and others have done slightly different work, and we all come out roughly the same place.

33:05This is the way the Trump administration is doing it in terms of the short-term economic outlook is it's a tax hike. It's stagflationary, meaning it's raising inflation at the same time as slowing growth. It's collecting a sizable chunk of revenue on the order of$200,$250 billion a year at an annual rate at this very high level of taxes that will probably diminish over time because people get around that kind of tax and people choose to produce things elsewhere and people evade it. But for the moment, it's a significant tax increase that would have been better done through more efficient means.

33:51It also is going to do nothing for manufacturing because what it does on net is, well, there are certain industries that are being helped, as I know you've covered in your supply chain stories. You know, there are a lot of small businesses or even big businesses that have imported inputs, whether from China or elsewhere. And it costs them. And it's going to be very hard to replace that. And it's very expensive. And then you've got the issue again, which I know you've covered, but has to be said, that there aren't American workers, for good reason, there aren't American workers who want to be sitting there screwing screws into the back of iPhones.

34:33I don't mean to keep picking on Apple, but it's just a clear example. So you either have to pay them an incredible amount for that, or you have to let somebody else do it. So in the short term, getting back to the monetary policy since we're in Jackson Hole, I think it's not a surprise that we haven't had huge inflation yet from the tariffs because there are a number of things that mainstream people like us expected. People were going to be in denial about whether the tariffs would stay and how big they would be. People were going to have to take time to figure out, if you're a business, Whether you can find a substitute source, whether that substitute source is domestic, if you move it to Vietnam, does that really get you out of the tariffs?

35:17Do you have a good relationship? I mean, it takes, as you've discussed in detail, these supply chains emerge organically, and they're not top-down. Somebody makes one decision. So it takes time to reformulate the supply chains if you're responding to tariffs. Third, you've got a bunch of companies that were called out by name by President Trump, like GM or Walmart that were told don't raise prices because of the tariffs. And so, of course, they're going to hold off as long as they can. And then eventually, when everybody's raising prices at roughly the same time, they'll raise prices. And then finally, a lot of these companies and a lot of the consumer goods companies had inventories, and they built up inventories in the first quarter of imported goods.

35:58And they weren't going to raise the prices until, pass through the tariff costs until they got burnt through the inventories. So you had four very solid reasons why it would take at least a few months for the tariffs to really start showing up in prices. So if I'm sitting at the Fed right now, in my view, the tariff inflation just goes up from here. First round effects probably will peak in second quarter of 2026. And then the debate is, and my estimate is higher than most people's. A lot of people think it'll peak around four on CPI. I think it's going to be closer to a five or a little more.

36:35And then the discussion, which Governor Waller has put out there, which the chair talked about today, talked about in his speech, is how much do you think this translates into second round inflation effects? How persistent is this inflation? And that's the interesting debate, and that's a good faith debate you can have. But the tariff inflation is coming. It's on its way. It's not surprisingly low. It's not surprisingly slow. It's a tiny bit slower than I expected, but not really. And we're here.

37:24For enterprise organizations, managing all your food needs is a tall order. But with EasyCater, you get a single workplace food vendor with the tools and resources to make it easy. Giving teams across your organization an easy way to order from a huge variety of restaurants, all on one platform. All while consolidating your corporate food spend so you can control costs, streamline billing and payment, and simplify reporting. EasyCater, your business tool for food. To learn more, visit easycater.com slash podcast. When you own your own business, you own every decision. Now own the card that rewards you for it.

38:02The Chase Sapphire Reserve for Business card brings the best Sapphire Reserve benefits to business owners who expect hardworking rewards. Designed to meet the needs of business owners at scale, this painful card elevates your travel experience and offers premium benefits and value toward business services that can take your business to the next level. Sapphire Reserve for Business provides over$2 ,500 in annual value. Fuel your business and maximize rewards with 8x points on all purchases through Chase Travel, 3x points on social media and search engine advertising, annual partnership credits, and more.

38:35Make every journey more rewarding with a$300 annual travel credit and access to a network of airport lounges, whether you're looking for pre-flight productivity or time to rest and recharge. Chase Sapphire Reserve for Business. With over$2 ,500 in annual value, it's the card that gives back all you put in. Learn more at chase.com forward slash reserve business. Chase for Business. Make more of what's yours. Account subject to credit approval. Restrictions and limitations apply. Cards are issued by JPMorgan Chase Bank and a member FDIC. Okay, Canva can take your presentations to another level. It's super easy to use.

39:11But do you really know everything Canva can do? Let me walk you through some of the highlights. Take Canva Video. Whether you're a content pro or just starting, you can make standout videos right away. There are thousands of templates, a super simple editor, and AI-powered tools that let you generate cinematic quality videos with sound from just one prompt. It seriously couldn't be easier. Then there's Canva Docs. Create, collaborate, and share visual documents that actually make an impact. Reports, plans, whatever you need. And with MagicWrite, Canva's built-in AI, you can brainstorm, draft, and even create copy in your own voice.

39:47And Canva sheets? It's like spreadsheets, if they were fun. Which is maybe an over-promise because spreadsheets. But they're more visual and insightful, plus easy to generate. So whether it's a doc, a sheet, or a show-stopping video, Canva lets you bring your big ideas to life as fast as you can think of them. Put imagination to work at Canva.com. Well, I'm going to take you up on the debate tease, but where do you fall on the side of the second order effects debate? Because you can make, it feels, a convincing argument for either side. You could say that, well, tariffs are a tax, and so they destroy demand and maybe lead to deflation.

40:24Or you could argue that tariffs perhaps give companies an excuse to all start raising their prices together. And so you don't get that competitive activity that would normally keep prices in check. I think you can make a plausible, serious debate on both sides. But I think the arguments are very clearly on the side that the second round effects are going to be large and persistent. There are several reasons, which is why I think it's pretty clear. The first one is we know from what happened with the tariffs under Trump One, under Biden, from other countries in recent times, that the pass-through, what generally you end up being, if you're the company that ultimately buys the imported input or the household that buys it, the pass-through of the final purchaser is usually 85 % to 90 % of the tariff.

41:15It's already very clear from the data that the foreign companies are not paying for any of this. So the question is, how much are the importers eating it versus passing it on? And it takes a little time for you to get to that, but generally, it's a very robust result. So even if you get less than that, you get 65%, 70 % on average. That's still a lot. The second is implicit in what you said, and then sometimes in things some of the people on the other side of this argument say, is essentially the demand destruction is either symmetric to the price increase or is larger than the price increase.

41:48And there's no particularly good reason to assume that. So you have to look at what actually is going on. We have a pretty robust economy, pretty close to full employment. We are about to get, though it hasn't shown up yet, this to me is the big surprise, but we're about to get more damage in a stagflationary way from migration restrictions, deportations, sudden stop of growth in the labor force. That's going to give American workers more bargaining power in the short term. That's going to create labor shortages, which put upward pressure on wages. That's going to decrease productivity and capacity.

42:25So on balance, you may get some recessionary forces out of both that and the tariff increase, But I strongly doubt they will outweigh the inflationary impulses, that there will be room for price increases and wage increases. Third, going back to one of the things you said at the start, anchoring inflation expectations is the game. That ultimately is what allows a central bank to say, as Bernanke, Laubach, Michigan, and I argued 25 years ago in the inflation targeting book, You're allowed to look through the first round effect of supply shocks if it's clear what the supply shock is and you have anchored expectation.

43:05I think the Fed, whether they admit it to themselves or not, is publicly underestimating how much the 2020 to 2022 experience de-anchored inflation expectations. It didn't take us to Argentina in 1980, but anybody who says that they're the same as they were before 2020, I think is deluding themselves. And then additionally, going back to what Joe was saying about the surreal aspect of this time, if the Trump administration has been, as they have, hugely attacking the independence of the Fed in multiple ways, and this is showing up in a less strong dollar, then that's another reason to think that the expectations aren't going to be anchored, and you're not going to get an offset from the currency to the tariff inflation.

43:59So bing, bing, bing, that's four reasons why I think the argument is clear that we're going to get more inflation, more persistence of inflation, more second-round effects than some people are saying. I have a question. I've been asking this to a bunch of people. I'm not totally satisfied with any of the answers I've gotten, so I'm going to try again. even before the tariffs, even before Trump, it appeared that from the perspective of the market, that long-term rates were going to be durably higher than they had been in the decade prior to COVID. How come? What changed? So isn't there a place where I'm, there's a legitimate real discussion and I'm very strongly on one side of it.

44:45So I think the useful discussion, all credit goes to Larry Summers. Roughly, was it 2019, 2018, he gave the speech about secular stagnation, reviving the concept from Alvin Hansen. And, oh, sorry, that was much earlier he gave that speech. Then he gave the speech in 2019, which he said secular stagnation may be ending. And he made a number of points. But the biggest one was if you're in an environment where you're going to have sustained expansionary fiscal policy pushing up demand and meeting shortfalls of demand, then the R star, the neutral interest rate is higher. And that's pretty clear economics.

45:25And then the reasons which he said and others of us have developed, I think are right that going back to the insurance before, the risks are higher now. There's climate change. China is, no matter whose fault it is or whether it was inevitable or not, China is more of a security threat than it was. Russia is more belligerent than it was. People have to spend more on that. Our societies are aging. At least almost all the large societies, with the exception of India, are aging. And you have to spend more on healthcare and more on social security. All of these things are going to lead to sustained increases in government spending, irrespective of whatever else you do.

46:02and they are unlikely, as we've already seen, to be fully tax financed. So that is a fundamental. The second fundamental, I would argue, that's pushing up our star is that we don't know when AI is going to kick in. We don't know how big an effect. We don't know how many jobs. You guys, again, have had many good guests talking about this. But I think we can all agree that sometime between two and 10 years from now, there will be a meaningful increase in the productivity growth trend. There are a few smart people like Asimoglu and Johnson who say no, but most of us think that there will be an increase of some sort.

46:40Now, I don't have to go all the way to McKinsey Global Institute and believe it's some enormous number. But whatever it is, that number, an improvement in productivity growth trend is generally one for one should be thought of as raising the equilibrium interest rate because you're raising the average return on capital, essentially. That's totally counterintuitive to me. I would have thought that a big productivity increase would be all things equal to disinflationary and rates lower. Well, no, it's disinflationary. But remember, inflation, we should think about as a short-term phenomenon, a cyclical phenomenon, not as a structural phenomenon.

47:18So it's disinflationary in the sense that while the productivity gain is ongoing, you're getting more stuff for less. But as a structural matter, you are raising the average returns on capital in the society. And so all capital that's competing has to compete with a higher return. And so therefore, R-Star is up. So now that we are deep in R-Star territory, I'm going to ask a central banking question with your central bank hat on. So you mentioned stagflation. He actually has a central bank hat. His central bank hat is a Boston Red Sox cap for those who aren't in the room. That's right. All right.

47:58So you mentioned stagflation earlier. What exactly are central banks supposed to do when they're faced with a stagflationary scenario? Because we just listened to Powell talk about downside risks to employment and upside risks to inflation. He clearly seemed to choose the labor market over the inflationary risk at this moment in time. But there's clearly a trade-off. You have to make a choice here. Yes. And this is why you try to avoid bad policies such as the ones the Trump administration are doing, which gets you into a stagflationary situation if you can. Essentially, it's a contingent choice.

48:34And this is why the Fed is right to be putting so much emphasis on debating over second round effects of inflationary shocks and things like you were saying, how much pricing power there is, how much recessionary effect do you get from these stagflation? It's essentially a balance issue. If you're forced to choose between the two goals, the two halves of the Fed's mandate, but the two goals for any central bank, essentially you have to go after the one that's more likely to spiral out of control. So this is their argument that labor market deterioration can be very nonlinear, right? It can kind of explode.

49:13Yeah, nonlinear is the way they think of it. I think, again, it's no reason I would take the other side because the evidence is, yes, and there was the discussion about the so-called SOM rule, that you can have these very rapid increases in unemployment. But what we've seen is, much to people's surprise, but has to be taken seriously, is both after 2008 and after 2020, so after the financial crisis, after COVID, unemployment actually came down pretty fast. And there wasn't evidence of what economists call hysteresis, which is the idea that once you put a lot of people out of work, it's harder for them to get back into work.

49:56And so it's taken from engineering. It's a concept that was very true of Europe in the 70s and 80s, that every time you got an unemployment rate hike because of recession, it wouldn't come all the way back down to where it was before the recession because there would be a certain number of people who couldn't get back into work. and ahead of the 2008 crisis and during it including what my time at the bank of england speeches and then chair powell and others in 2020 during covet worried a lot about this potential for permanently having rises in the unemployment rate yeah and but the thing is all the evidence from 2008 and all the evidence from 2020 is that didn't happen and again it was a surprise, but it's a really important and a really robust result.

50:43You really are an unreformed neoliberal because so many people have accepted the opposite. Everyone, almost everyone thinks there's some hysteresis. And like I said, I respect it. Well, it's, I'm not, and this is not so much, I appreciate that joke, but this is not so much being a neoliberal as being an empiricist. So, so, I mean, on my staff, a colleague of mine is Olivier Blanchard, and he coined the hysteresis concept 20 years ago. And he and Larry Summers and the co-author, his name, of course, I forget, I apologize, did a paper in 2013. It was like the first paper they did for us after I took over at Peterson, looking for hysteresis effects in the 2008 to 10 data, and they couldn't find it.

51:23And then Powell, again, I think with a great deal of sympathy from me and others, talked a lot about hysteresis for why they were so aggressive and cutting in response to COVID. But then again, we know the unemployment rate came right down. So people care about this. They're coming from a good place to care about this. But it's not neoliberal. It's the evidence. The evidence isn't there. And so the implication is not that you shouldn't care about unemployment. You should have temporary measures of fiscal policy like we did during COVID to extend unemployment insurance, to extend health insurance, to make it less miserable for people who are unemployed.

51:59But the inflation is probably the thing that's more likely to get out of control in my people. Tracy asked you a question putting on your monetary policy hat, but I'm going to ask you a question specifically with your monetary policy committee hat having served at the Bank of England. Long-term rates in the UK are higher than the so-called Liz Trust moment. And I asked you a question about this last year, and it was very vague at the time. I was like, what's going on with the UK? Because it always seems like there's some sort of mess. But now I actually have something specific to ask, which is what's going on with the UK in the sense that it seems bad.

52:37It seems bad. The rates are very high. What's going on there? I think I said to you when you asked about this last year, Joe, that the single biggest call I got wrong in terms of analysis and forecasting in my career was 2012 at Bank of England. I and some others on the committee at the time, but I'm responsible for me, said, yeah, productivity has been lower the last few years to 2012 because of the financial crisis. But it's going to come back up because it's been the same long-term trend since 1850. And there was nothing destroyed by the venture. Is this a breaking of a trend from 1850? Yeah, I don't remember if it's 1850 or 1860.

53:18But there's some incredibly long data series we have for UK productivity growth. and even if you watch it, it's just a straight upward line. And even the Great Depression sort of makes a little blip and World War II makes a little blip. And then suddenly in 2008, it goes flat. And I and a bunch of other people said, well, it's not like the blitz, right? And so productivity growth is going to come back up to trend. It never did. The UK is the one rich economy, high-income economy, where productivity growth not just went down for a while, but kept going down. And so now we've had a dozen years of very low productivity growth in the UK.

54:01And at some point that catches up with you. And I think that's the way to look at it is you throw Brexit in on top of that, which may be one of the reasons why productivity growth hasn't come back. And there's debate about that. But they have been running, making less with more rather than more with less for a very long time. And wages and prices and the pound all haven't dropped accordingly. So it's not like, unfortunately, Greece suffered through, say, or Portugal during the financial crisis. And so something's out of whack. And this shows up eventually in the fiscal policy, which is what you're talking about, that they have a bunch of really hard choices to make.

54:44If the government, the current labor government, doesn't make lots of cuts, the interest rates keep going up. If they do make lots of cuts, then probably productivity growth doesn't improve. So they're just in a really, really tough situation. So Joe asked you a question with your BOE hat on, and I'm going to ask something similar, which is one of the things that makes Jackson Hole such a big deal is that we don't just have the Fed here. We also have other central bankers like the ECB, the BOJ, and you see them do the classic walk with the Fed chair every year. When it comes to central bank credibility and the independence issue, what do you think those other central bankers are thinking here?

55:29And do they possibly use some of Jackson Hole? We're still waiting to hear from them. That usually happens on Saturday morning. We're recording this on Friday afternoon. Do you think they maybe use this as a platform to try to push back against some of it? So the central bankers, both publicly and in conversations I've had with them from around the world are shocked and horrified that the Trump administration is doing this to the Fed. Beyond just the obvious, they're sympathetic to their colleagues from the Fed and it's pretty yucky, is just the fact that they have taken it for granted. The entire economics profession has taken it for granted for more than 40 years, going back to a classic paper by Ken Rogoff in 1986, and then some subsequent work others did, that in central bank independence is good.

56:21It reduces inflation and reduces the volatility of inflation on average for a country in a large way without reducing the average growth rate. Full stop. This is lived experience. This is what the European Central Bank was based on. This is why the Bundesbank and the Germans were willing to give up sovereignty to the European Central Bank. This is the standard practice that dozens of countries have adopted. The Bank of Japan got independence over the last 30 years. So it's kind of like with trade economists in the past, but even more in questions. It's like, you know, this is like questioning vaccines, which of course nowadays people do, but at one point would have been thought of as what kind of anti-scientific illiterate are you that you would question central bank independence?

57:10So, I mean, there's no way to exaggerate. That's the response. At various international versions of central bank summer camp, you know, which is what Jackson Hole is. So the ECB has their version, which is called the Cintra Conference. And this year at Cintra, everybody was rallying around Jay, the chair Powell, and there were public statements about central bank independence and support for him. at the BIS annual meeting, which is a sort of similar thing, which this year I got invited to. I don't usually get invited to that. I do get this intro. Anyway, again, there were public statements or privacy statements.

57:43Everyone was rallying around. But as we discussed, the Fed leadership seems to have decided that Chair Powell should not mention a word about central bank independence in his speech this year. And so this is pure extrapolation. By the time this recording comes out, we'll find out. But my expectation is they will have passed a memo to ECB President Lagarde, Bank of England Governor Bailey, Bank of Japan Governor Ueda, who are the three big central bank governors speaking on Saturday. Please don't talk about it. And I think what they've probably decided is having foreign central bankers talk about this would not play well in MAGA land.

58:30and might just induce more problems with the Trump people. So I think the instinct of the foreign central bankers here would be to talk very loudly about this, but I think they explicitly or implicitly have been told not to. Well, this is exciting because by the time this comes out, this will either have been correct. Our listeners will already know. You'll either be very wrong or very right. Ediphausen, always great catching up with you, and we'll do it again next year. Thank you for having me. Congrats to both of you. Thank you so much. Great substantive discussion. Thank you so much. Thank you.

59:16Tracy, I love our annual catch-up with Adam. He was the perfect guest because he'd just say whatever. He'd just say what's on his mind. Well, at a time when a lot of people don't want to talk about this stuff, right? You know, people are like anxious when people feel like there's like recriminations where people want to keep low. Yeah. People want to keep their heads low at a time when they don't know if there's going to be some attack on them from the White House or, you know, on Twitter. People want to keep low. And Adam, I appreciate his candor. Can I just say I'm always really impressed by people who are able to organize their thoughts in real time to be like, well, there are three reasons.

59:53And actually there's three. Number one. That's right. That's right, Joe. But that was a fantastic conversation. One thing, well, I guess the thing that I still don't get, and I think it is really hard to make an argument that the US has lost out from an economic and financial and in some respects political system around the world that it has helped to create, right? Like there are tangible instances where you can say like the US benefits in sometimes incredibly weird ways. Like if you look at the debt crisis in like 2013 or 2011, you know, this is a crisis emanating from the US, from the United States, from US politics.

1:00:33And what you saw was investors flock to the security of US treasuries and, you know, yields actually go down, which helps with US debt. So there are these like sometimes perverse benefits that the Trump administration seems to want to throw away. You know, one thing I will say that I was thinking about in your intro is, and I think back to that book, Trade Wars Are Class Wars, which I think is actually, I suspect Adam almost very disagrees with the premise of that book, et cetera. But regardless of where you stand on some of these questions, there is that relationship between you can't disrupt the domestic without disrupting the international, or vice versa.

1:01:16These are inextricably linked. If you perceive to be there some sort of inequality in the United States, or whatever it is, these things like the trading relationship, all of these things, they are interlinked. So it's like one thing to say like, you know, there's this view is like, oh, knocking over all of these different institutions. I think they're linked in fundamental ways. And it sort of makes sense that if you go after the Fed because you perceive whatever, that that's part and parcel of the whole thing. You can argue they're linked. But I would say if you're trying to solve domestic inequality through international means, that doesn't seem that it seems like the emphasis and the focus is wrong.

1:01:55I guess what I'm saying is I'm not surprised that it all goes together. Because like that was my story for like the sort of Klein-Pettis theory, et cetera, that, you know, there's this inequality in the United States because of these winners and losers from the international trading system, right? And so we fight these trade wars, et cetera, because we're, it's about something internal that rectifying some sort of internal imbalance. Right. And so I do think like, I guess, so this just gets some, all I'm saying is I'm not surprised it all goes together because - Oh, I see. I get it. Yeah, I get it.

1:02:27As part of like a policy agenda. But it's possible that we should be looking at domestic policy more rather than fighting with trading partners. That also seems possible. You're not going to say, you're lying low now. Well, no, no, I'm just saying I don't have an opinion on the right way to do it. I'm just saying I'm not surprised that this is one way of going. Okay, shall we leave it there? Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Allaway. You can follow me at Tracy Allaway. And I'm Jill Weisenthal. You can follow me at The Stalwart. Follow our guest Adam Posen at Adam Posen.

1:02:57Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at CarmenArmondDashelBennett at Dashbot and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks. For more Odd Lots content, go to Bloomberg.com slash OddLots, where we have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes. And you can chat about all of these topics 24-7 in our Discord. discord.gg slash odd thoughts. And if you enjoy Odd Thoughts, if you like our annual tradition of catching up with Adam Posen at Jackson Hole, 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.

1:03:30All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

1:03:43Thank you.

1:04:12EasyCater, you get a single workplace food vendor with the tools and resources to make it easy, giving teams across your organization an easy way to order from a huge variety of restaurants, all on one platform, all while consolidating your corporate food spend so you can control costs, streamline billing and payment, and simplify reporting. EasyCater, your business tool for food. To learn more, visit easycater.com slash podcast. Hiring is about people, not just algorithms and online searches. And with more than 870 locations, the people in your local Express Employment Professionals office are ready to support your workforce.

1:04:52Visit ExpressPros.com. Whether you need contract workers to keep up with changing demands or your next full-time team member, Express has a network of candidates ready to work. Go to ExpressPros.com to find a location near you. That's expresspros.com. This podcast is brought to you by FedEx, the new power move. Hey, you know those people in your office who are always pulling old school corporate power moves? Like the guy who weaponizes eye contact. He's confident. He's engaged. He's often creepy. It's an old school power move. But this alpha dog laser gaze won't keep your supply chain moving across borders.

1:05:34The real power move? Having a smart platform that keeps up with the changing trade landscape. That's why smart businesses partner with FedEx and use the power of digital intelligence to navigate around supply chain issues before they happen. Set your sights on something that will actually improve your business. FedEx, the new power move.