Podcasts about secretary yellen

 Santi: Hi, this is a special episode of Statecraft. I've got a wonderful guest host with me today. Kyla Scanlon: Hey, I'm Kyla Scanlon! I'm the author of a book called In This Economy and an economic commentator. Santi: Kyla has joined me today for a couple reasons. One, I'm a big fan of her newsletter: it's about economics, among many other things. She had a great piece recently on what we can learn from C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters, which is a favorite book of mine.Kyla's also on today because we're interviewing Wally Adeyemo, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the Biden administration. We figured we each had questions we wanted answered.Kyla: Yeah, I've had the opportunity to interview Wally a couple times during the Biden administration, and I wanted to see where he thinks things are at now. He played a key role in implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, financial sanctions on Russia, and a whole bunch of other things.Santi: For my part, I'm stuck on Wally's role in setting up the IRS's Direct File program, where you can file your taxes for free directly through the IRS instead of paying TurboTax a hundred bucks to do it. “Good governance types” tend to love Direct File, but the current admin is thinking of killing it. I wanted to understand how the program got rolled out, how Wally would respond to criticisms of the program, and what he learned from building something in government, which now may disappear.Kyla, you've talked to Wally before. How did that conversation go? Kyla: I actually was able to go to his office in D.C., and I talked to a couple of key people in the Biden administration: Jared Bernstein, the former chair of the CEA, and Daniel Hornung, who was at the National Economic Council.We're talking to Wally on the day that the House passed the one big beautiful bill. There's also so much happening financially, like the bond market is totally rebelling against the US government right now. I'm really curious how he thinks things are, as a key player in the last administration.Santi: Wally, you've spent most of your career in Democratic Party institutions. You worked on the Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. You served in the Obama admin. You were the first chief of staff to the CFPB, the president of the Obama Foundation, and, most recently, Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Biden admin.30,000ft question: How do you see the Democratic Party today?My view is that we continue to be the party that cares deeply about working-class people, but we haven't done a good job of communicating that to people, especially when it comes to the things that matter most to them. From my standpoint, it's costs: things in America cost too much for a working-class family.I want to make sure I define working class: I think about people who make under $100,000 a year, many of whom don't own homes on the coast or don't own a significant amount of stocks (which means they haven't seen the asset appreciation that's led to a great deal of wealth creation over the last several decades). When you define it that way, 81% of Americans sit in that category of people. Despite the fact that they've seen their median incomes rise 5-10% over the last five years, they've seen the cost of the things they care about rise even faster.We haven't had a clear-cut agenda focused on the standard of living, which I think is the thing that matters most to Americans today.Santi: There are folks who would say the problem for Democrats wasn't that they couldn't communicate clearly, or that they didn't have a governing agenda, but that they couldn't execute their agenda the way they hoped to in the time available to them. Would you say there's truth to that claim?Most people talk about a communications issue, but I don't think it's a communications issue. There are two issues. One is an implementation issue, and the second is an issue of the actual substance and policy at the Treasury Department. I was the deputy secretary, but I was also the Chief Operating Officer, which meant that I was in charge of execution. The two most significant domestic things I had to execute were the American Rescue Plan, where $1.9 trillion flowed through the Treasury Department, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The challenge with execution in the government is that we don't spend a lot on our systems, on making execution as easy as possible.For example, the Advanced Child Tax Credit was intended to give people money to help with each of their children during the pandemic. What Congress called on us to do was to pay people on a monthly basis. In the IRS system, you pay your taxes mostly on an annual basis, which meant that most of our systems weren't set up to pay a monthly check to Americans. It took us a great deal of work to figure out a way to recreate a system just to do that.We've underinvested in the systems that the IRS works on. The last time we made a significant investment in the IRS's digital infrastructure was the 1960s; before we had an ATM machine, before we sent a man to the moon, before we had a personal computer. So that meant that everything was coded in a language called COBOL.So execution was quite hard in the American Rescue Plan. People were left out and felt that the government wasn't working for them. If you called the IRS, only 13% of your calls were being answered. We got that back up to 85% before we left. Ultimately, I think part of this is an execution challenge. In government we want to spend money coming up with new policies, but we don't want to pay for execution, which then means that when you get the policy passed, implementation isn't great.When Jen Pahlka was on your show, she talked about the need to focus on identifying the enablers to implementation. Direct File was one of the best examples of us taking implementation very seriously.But also, on some policy issues that mattered most to Americans, we weren't advancing the types of strategies that would've helped lower the cost of housing and lowering the cost of medicine. We did some things there, but there's clearly more that we could have done, and more we need to do going forward to demonstrate that we're fighting to bring down those costs. It's everything from permitting reform — not just at the federal level, but what can we do to incentivize it at the state and local level — to thinking about what we can do on drug costs. Why does it cost so much more to get a medicine in America than in Canada? That is something that we can solve. We've just chosen not to at the federal level.At the end of the year, we were going to take action to go after some of the middlemen in the pharmacy industry who were taking out rents and large amounts of money. It dropped out of the bill because of the negotiations between the Republican Congress and then President-elect Trump. But there are a lot of things that we can do both on implementation, which will mean that Americans feel the programs that we're passing in a more effective way, and policy solutions that we need to advance as a party that will help us as well.Kyla: Some people think Americans tend to vote against their own self-interest. How can your party message to people that these sorts of policies are really important for them?Ultimately, what I found is that most people just understand their self-interest differently, and for them, a big part of this was, “Who's fighting for me on the issues that I care most about?”From my standpoint, part of the problem we had with Direct File, which I think was an innovative solution, was that we got to implementing it so late in the administration that we didn't have the ability for it to show the impact. I'm hoping future administrations will think through how to start their implementation journey on things like Direct File sooner in the administration, when you have a great deal of political capital, so people can actually feel the impact over time.To your question, it's not just about the messaging, it's about the messenger. People tend to trust people who look like them, who come from the places they come from. When it came to the Child Tax Credit and also to Direct File, the biggest innovation wasn't the technology: the technology for Direct File has been used by the Australians, the British, and other countries for decades.The biggest innovation was us joining that technology with trusted people in communities who were going out to talk to people about those programs and building those relationships. That was something that the IRS hadn't done a great deal of. We invested a great deal in those community navigators who were helping us get people to trust the things the government was doing again, like the Child Tax Credit, like Direct File, so that they could use it.We often think that Washington is going to be able to give messages to the country that people are going to hear. But we're both in a more complicated media environment, where people are far more skeptical of things that come from people in Washington. So the best people to advocate for and celebrate the things that we're doing are people who are closer to the communities we're trying to reach. In product advertising today, more companies are looking to influencers to advertise things, rather than putting an ad on television, because people trust the people that they follow. The same is true for the things that we do in government.Santi: I've talked to colleagues of yours in the last administration who say things like, “In the White House, we did not have a good enough sense of the shot clock.” They point to various reasons, including COVID, as a reason the admin didn't do a good enough job of prioritization.Do you think that's true, that across the administration, there was a missing sense of the shot clock or a missing sense of prioritization? No, because I'm a Lakers fan. These are professionals. We're professionals. This is not our first rodeo. We know how much time is on the shot clock; we played this game. The challenge wasn't just COVID. For me at Treasury — and I think this is the coolest part of being Deputy Secretary of the Treasury — I had responsibilities domestic and international. As I'm trying to modernize the IRS, to invest all my time in making the system work better for customers and to collect more taxes from the people who owe money, Russia invades Ukraine. I had to turn a bunch of my attention to thinking about what we were going to do there. Then you have Hamas attacking Israel.There was more we should have done on the domestic end, but we have to remember that part of the presidency is: you get to do the things you want to do, but you also have to do the things you have to do. We had a lot of things we had to do that we weren't planning for which required all-of-the-administration responses.I think the most important lesson I've learned about that is that it comes down to both being focused on the things that matter, and being willing to communicate to the American people why your priorities have to change in light of things that happen in the world.But the people I'm sure you've talked to, most of them work on domestic policy alone, and they probably never have been in a National Security Council meeting, where you're thinking about the risks to the country. The president has to do both of those things. So I get how difficult it is to do that, just given where I sat at the Treasury Department.Santi: Looking back from an implementation perspective, are there things you would've done differently during your time at Treasury?The most important thing that I would've done differently was to immediately set up a permanent implementation and delivery unit in the Treasury Department. We always like to pretend like the Treasury Department is just a policy department where we make policy, we collect taxes. But in any crisis the country ever has, a great deal of responsibility — for execution or implementation of whatever the response is — falls to the Treasury Department. Think about the financial crisis, which is clearly something that's in the Treasury's domain. The vast majority of money for COVID flowed through the Treasury Department. You think about the IRA, a climate bill: the vast majority of that money flows through the Treasury Department.And Treasury doesn't have a dedicated staff that's just focused on implementation: How do we do this well? How do we make sure the right people are served? How do we make sure that we communicate this well? We did this to a degree by a team that was focused on the American Rescue Plan. But it was only focused on the American Rescue Plan. If I could start again, I would have said, “I want a permanent implementation structure within the Treasury Department of people who are cross-cutting, who only think about how we execute the policies that we pass through Congress and that we put together through an executive order. How do we do that extremely well?”Kyla: What you're talking about is very people-centric: How do we get an implementation team, and how do we make sure that the right people are doing the right jobs? Now we have DOGE, which is less people-centric. How do you reconcile what Doge is doing relative to what you would've done differently in this role that you had?As you would suspect, I wasn't excited about the fact we had lost the election, but initially I thought DOGE could be helpful with technology. I think marrying technology with people — that's the key to success for the government. We've never really been great at doing technology in the government.Part of the reason for that is a procurement process that is very slow because of how the federal acquisition rules work. What we are trying to do is prevent corruption and also waste, fraud, and abuse. But what that does is, it leads to slowness in our ability to get the technology on board that we need, and in getting the right people.I was hoping DOGE would bring in people who knew a great deal about technology and put us in a position where we could use that to build better products for the American people. I thought they would love Direct File, and that they would find ways to improve Direct File and expand it to more Americans.My view is that any American in the working class or middle class should not have to pay a company to file their taxes. We have the ability in this country, and I think Direct File was proving that. My goal, if we'd had more time, was to expand this to almost any American being able to use it. I thought they'd be able to accelerate that by bringing in the right people, but also the right technology. We were on that path before they took those two things apart.My sense is that you have to reform the way that we hire people because it's too hard to hire the right people. In some cases, you don't need some of the people you have today because technology is going to require different skills to do different things. It's easier to break something, I found, than it is to build something. I think that's what they're finding today as well.Santi: When I talk to left-of-center folks about the DOGE push, they tend to be skeptical about the idea that AI or modern technology can replace existing federal workers. I think some of that is a natural backlash to the extreme partisan coding of DOGE, and the fact that they're firing a lot of people very quickly. But what's your view? After DOGE, what kinds of roles would you like to see automated?Let me say: I disagree with the view that DOGE and technology can't replace some of the things that federal workers do today. My view is that “productivity enhancing” tech — it's not that it is going to make employees who are currently doing the job more productive. It is going to mean you need fewer employees. We have to be honest about that.Go to the IRS, for example. When I got there, we had a huge paper backlog at the IRS because, despite what most people think, millions of people still file their taxes by paper, and they send them to the IRS. And during the pandemic, the commissioner, who was then working for President Trump, decided to shut down the IRS for public health reasons — to make sure employees did not have to risk getting COVID.There were piles of paper backing up, so much so that they had filled cafeterias at the IRS facilities with huge piles of paper. The problem, of course, is that, unlike modern systems, you could not just machine-read those papers and put them into our systems. Much of that required humans to code those papers into the system by hand. There is no need in the 21st century for that to happen, so one of the things that we started to do was introduce this simple thing called scanning, where you would scan the papers — I know it sounds like a novel idea. That would help you get people's tax returns faster into the system, but also get checks out quickly, and allow us to see if people are underpaying their taxes, because we can use that data with a modern system. But over time, what would that mean? We'd need fewer people to enter the data from those forms.When we get money for the IRS from Congress, it is actually seen as revenue-raising because they expect it to bring down the debt and deficit, which is completely true. But the model Congress uses to do that is reliant on the number of full-time employees we hire. One challenge we have with the IRS — and in government systems in general — is that you don't get credit for technology investments that should improve your return on investment.So whenever we did the ROI calculations for the IRS, the Congressional Budget Office would calculate how much revenue we'd bring in, and it was always based on the number of people you had doing enforcement work that would lead to certain dollars coming in. So we got no credit for the technology investments. Which was absolutely the opposite of what we knew would be true: the more you invested in technology, the more likely you were to bring in more revenue, and you would be able to cut the cost of employees.Santi: If the CBO changed the way it scored technology improvements, would more Congresspeople be interested in funding technology?It is just a CBO issue. It's one we've tried to talk to them about over the last several years, but one where they've been unwilling to move. My view is that unlocking this will unlock greater investment in technology in a place like the IRS, because every dollar you invest in technology — I think — would earn back $10 in additional tax revenue we'd be able to collect from people who are skipping out on their taxes today. It's far more valuable to invest in that technology than to grow the number of employees working in enforcement at the IRS. You need both, but you can't say that a person is worth 5x their salary in revenue and that technology is worth 0. That makes no sense.Kyla: When we spoke about Direct File many months ago, people in my comment section were super excited and saying things like, “I just want the government to tell me how much money I owe.” When you think about the implementation of Direct File, what went right, and how do you think it has evolved?The thing that went right was that we proved that we could build something quite easily, and we built it ourselves, unlike many technology projects in government. We didn't go out and hire a bunch of consultants and contractors to do it. We did it with people at the IRS, but also with people from 18F and from GSA who worked in the government. We did it in partnership with a number of stakeholders outside the government who gave us advice, but the build was done by us.The reason that was important — and the reason it's important to build more things internally rather than hiring consulting firms or other people to build it — is that you then have the intellectual capital from building that, and that can be used to build other things. This was one product, but my view is that I want the IRS home page to one day look a lot more like the screen on your iPhone, so that you can click on the app on the IRS homepage that can help you, depending on what you need — if it's a Direct File, or if it's a tax transcript.By building Direct File internally, we were getting closer to that, and the user scores on the effectiveness of the tool and the ability to use it were through the roof. Even for a private sector company, it would've been seen as a great success. In the first year, we launched late in the filing season, mostly just to test the product, but also to build stakeholder support for it. In the limited release, 140,000 people used it. The average user said that before Direct File, it took them about 13 hours to file their taxes, and with Direct File, it took them just over an hour to file their taxes.But you also have to think about how much money the average American spends filing their taxes: about $200. That's $200 that a family making under $100,000 could invest in their kids, in paying some bills, rather than in filing their taxes.Even this year, with no advertising by the Trump administration of Direct File, we had more than 300,000 people use it. The user scores for the product were above 85%. The challenge, of course, is that instead of DOGE investing in improving the product — which was a place where you could have seen real intellectual capital go to work and make something that works for all Americans — they've decided to discontinue Direct File. [NB: There has been widespread reporting that the administration plans to discontinue Direct File. The GOP tax bill passed by the House would end Direct File if it becomes law. At the time of publication, the Direct File has not been discontinued.]The sad part is that when you think about where we are as a country, this is a tool that could both save people money, save people time, improve our ability to collect taxes, and is something that exists in almost every other developed economy. It makes no sense to me why you would end something like this rather than continue to develop it.Santi: People remember the failure of healthcare.gov, which crashed when it was rolled out all at once to everyone in the country. It was an embarrassing episode for the Obama administration, and political actors in that administration learned they had to pilot things and roll them out in phases.Is there a tension between that instinct — to test things slowly, to roll them out to a select group of users, and then to add users in following cycles — Is there a tension between that and trying to implement quickly, so that people see the benefit of the work you're doing?One of my bosses in the Obama administration was Jeff Zients, the person who was brought in to fix healthcare.gov. He relentlessly focused on execution. He always made the point that it's easy to come up with a strategy to some degree: you can figure out what the policy solution is. But the difference between good and great is how you execute against it. I think there is some tension there, but not as much as you would think.Once we were able to show that the pilot was a success, I got invited to states all over the country, like Maryland, to announce that they were joining Direct File the next year. These members of Congress wanted to do Direct File events telling people in their state, “This product that's worked so well elsewhere is coming to us next.” It gave us the ability to celebrate the success.I learned the lesson not just from Zients, but also from then-professor Elizabeth Warren, whom I worked for as chief of staff at the CFPB. One challenge we had at the CFPB was to build a complaint hotline, at that point mostly phone-operated, for people who were suffering. They said it would take us at least a year to build out all the product functions we need. We decided to take a modular approach and say, “How long would it take for us to build the system for one product? Let's try that and see how that works. We'll do a test.”It was successful, and we were able to use that to tell the story about the CFPB and what it would do, not just for mortgages, but for all these other products. We built user interest in the complaint hotline, in a way that we couldn't have if we'd waited to build the whole thing at once. While I think you're right that there is some tension between getting everyone to feel it right away and piloting; if the pilot is successful, it also gives you the opportunity to go out and sell this thing to people and say, “Here's what people who did the pilot are saying about this product.”I remember someone in Texas who was willing to do a direct-to-camera and talk about the ways that Direct File was so easy for them to use. It gets back to my point on message and messenger. Deputy Secretary Adeyemo telling you about this great thing the government did is one thing. But an American who looks like you, who's a nurse, who's a mom of two kids, telling you that this product actually worked for her: That's something that more people identify with.Healthcare.gov taught us the lesson of piloting and doing things in a modular way. This is what companies have been doing for decades. If it's worked for them, I think it can work for the government too.Santi: I'm a fan of Direct File, personally. I don't want this administration to kill it. But I was looking through some of the criticism that Direct File got: for instance, there's criticism about it rivaling the IRS Free File program, which is another IRS program that partners with nonprofits to help some folks file their taxes for free.Then there's this broader philosophical criticism: “I don't want the feds telling me how much I owe them.” The idea is that the government is incentivized to squeeze every last dollar out of you.I'm curious what you make of that, in part because I spoke recently to an American who worked on building e-government systems for Estonia. One of the things that has allowed Estonia to build cutting-edge digital systems in the government is that Estonia is a small and very high-trust society. Everybody's one degree of separation from everybody else.We're a much bigger and more diverse country. How do you think that affects the federal government's ability to build tools like Direct File?I think it affects it a lot, and it gets back to my point: not just the message but the messenger. I saw this not just with Direct File, but with the Advanced Child Tax Credit, which was intended to help kids who were living in poverty, but also families overall. What we found initially in the data was that, among families that didn't have to file taxes because they made too little, many of them were unwilling to take advantage of Direct File and the Advanced Child Tax Credit because they couldn't believe the government was doing something to just help them. I spent a lot of time with priests, pastors, and other community leaders in many of the communities where people were under-filing to try and get them to talk about this program and why it was something that they should apply for.One of the challenges we suffer from right now in America, overall, is a lack of trust in institutions. You have to really go local and try to rebuild that trust.That also speaks to taking a pilot approach that goes slower in some cases. Some of the criticism we got was, “Why don't you just fill out this form for us and then just send it to us, so that Direct File is just me pressing a button so I can pay my taxes?”Part of the challenge for us in doing that is a technology challenge: we are not there technologically. But the other problem is a trust problem. If I were to just fill out your taxes for you and send them to you, I think people, at this stage, would distrust the government and distrust the technology.Direct File had to be on a journey with people, showing people, “If I put in this information, it accurately sends me back my check.” As people develop more trust, we can also add more features to it that I think people will trust. But the key has to be: how do you earn that trust over time?We can't expect that if we put out a product that looks like something the Estonian government or Australia would put out, that people would trust it at this point. We have to realize that we are on a journey to regain the trust of the American people.The government can and will work for them, and Direct File was a part of that. We started to demonstrate that with that product because the people who used it in these communities became the spokespeople for it in a better way than I ever could be, than the Secretary or the President could be.Everyone knows that they need to pay their taxes because it's part of their responsibility living in this country. The things that make people the most upset is the fact that there are people who don't pay their taxes. We committed that we were going to go after them.The second frustration was: “Why do you make it so hard for me to pay my taxes? Why can't I get through to you on the phone line? Why do I have to pay somebody else to do my taxes?” Our goal was to solve those two problems by investing money and going after the people who just decided they weren't going to pay, but also by making it as easy as possible for you to pay your taxes and for most people, to get that tax refund as quickly as possible.But doing that was about going on a journey with people, about regaining their trust in an institution that mattered to them a great deal because 90 something-percent of the money that funds our government comes in through the IRS.Kyla: You have a piece out in Foreign Affairs called “Make Moscow Pay,” and what I found most interesting about that essay is that you said Europe needs to step it up because the United States won't. Talk through the role of Treasury in financial sanctions, and your reasons for writing this piece.People often think about the Treasury Department as doing a few things. One is working with Wall Street; another one is collecting your taxes. Most people don't think about the fact that the Treasury Department is a major part of the National Security Committee, because we have these tools called financial sections.They use the power of the dollar to try and change the behavior of foreign actors who are taking steps that aren't consistent with our national security interests. A great example of this is what we did with regard to Russia — saying that we're going to cut off Russian banks from the US financial system, which means that you can't transact in US dollars.The problem for any bank that can transact in dollars is that the backbone of most of the financial world is built on the US dollar. It increases their cost, it makes it more difficult for them to transact, and makes it harder for them to be part of the global economy, nearly impossible.And that's what we've done in lots of cases when it comes to Russia. We have financial sanction programs that touch all over the world, from Venezuela to Afghanistan. The US government, since 9/11, has used sanctions as one of its primary tools of impacting foreign policy. Some of them have gone well, some of them I think haven't gone as well, and there's a need for us to think through how we use those policies.Santi: What makes sanctions an effective tool? Positions on sanctions don't line up neatly on partisan lines. Sanctions have a mixed track record, and you'll have Republicans who say sanctions have failed, and you'll have Democrats say sanctions have been an effective tool, and vice versa.The way I think about sanctions is that they are intended to bring change, and the only way that they work is that they're part of an overarching foreign policy strategy. That type of behavior change was what we saw when Iran came to the table and wanted to negotiate a way to reduce sanctions in exchange for limits on their nuclear program. That's the type of behavior change we're trying to accomplish with sanctions, but you can't do it with sanctions alone. You need a foreign policy strategy. We didn't do it by the United States confronting Iran; we got our allies and partners to work together with us. When I came into office in 2021, Secretary Yellen asked me to do a review of our sanctions policies — what's worked, what hasn't — because it had been 20 years since the 9/11 attacks.And the most important lesson I learned was that the sanctions programs that were the most effective were the ones we did on a multilateral basis — so we did it with our friends and allies. Part of the reason for this is that while the dollar is the most dominant currency around the world, oftentimes if you can't do something in dollars, you do it in a euro, or you do it in a Japanese yen, or pound sterling.The benefit of having allies all over the world is that the dominant, convertible currencies in the world are controlled by allies and partners. When we acted together with them, we were more effective in curtailing the economic activity of our adversary, and our pressure is more likely to lead to them changing their behavior.We had to be very cautious about collateral damage. You might be targeting an individual, but by targeting that individual, you might make it harder for a company they're affiliated with to continue doing business, or for a country that they're in to get access to banking services. Let's say that you're a huge bank in America, and you're worried about sanctions risk in a small country where you do little business. Why not pull out, rather than having to put in place a huge compliance program? One of the challenges that we have is that the people who make the decisions about whether to extend sanctions don't necessarily spend a lot of time thinking about some of these economic consequences of the sanctions approach.Whenever I was around the table and we were making a decision about using weapons, there was a process that was very elaborate that ended up with something going to the president. You'd often think about kinetic force very seriously, because you were going to have to get the president to make a decision. We didn't always take that kind of rigor when it came to thinking about using our sanctions policy, but the impact on the lives of people in these countries was just as significant for their access to not only money, but to food and to the resources they needed to live.Santi: What do you make of the effectiveness of the initial sanctions on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine? I've heard mixed reviews from folks inside and outside the Biden administration.Sanctions, again, to my point, are only a tool. They've had to be part of a larger strategy, and I think those sanctions were quite effective. I think the saving grace for the Russians has been the fact that China has largely been able and willing to give them access to the things they need to continue to perpetuate.There was a choice for Ukraine, but when you think about Russia's economy today vs. Russia's economy before the sanctions were put in place, it's vastly different. Inflation in Russia still runs far higher than inflation anywhere else in the world. If you were a Russian citizen, you would feel the impacts of sanctions.The challenge, of course, is that it hasn't changed Vladimir Putin's behavior or the behavior of the Kremlin, largely because they've had access to the goods and supplies they need from China, Iran, and North Korea. But over time, it means Russia's economy is becoming less competitive. They have less access to resources; they're going to struggle.I think everyone hoped that sanctions would immediately change the calculus of the Kremlin, but we've never seen that to be the case. When sanctions are effective, they take time, because the economic consequences continue to compound over time, and they have to be part of a larger strategy for the behavior of the individual. That's why I wrote the article, because while the Kremlin and Russia are under pressure, their view is that ultimately the West is going to get tired of supporting Ukraine, financially and politically, because the economic consequences for us — while not as significant as for Moscow or for Kiev — have been quite significant, when you think about the cost of living issues in Europe.I think it's important to write this now, when it appears that Russia is stalling on negotiations, because ultimately, US financial support is waning. We just know that the Trump administration is not willing to put more money into Ukraine, so Europe is going to have to do more, at a time when their economic situation is quite complicated as well.They've got a lot to do to build up their economy and their military-industrial base. Asking them to also increase their support for Ukraine at the same time is going to be quite difficult. So using this money that Russia owes to Ukraine — because they owe them compensation at this moment — can be quite influential in helping support the Ukrainians, but also changing Russia's calculus with regard to the ability of Ukraine to sustain itself.Kyla: On CNBC about a month ago, you said if we ever have a recession over the next couple of months or so, it would be a self-inflicted one. Do you still resonate with that idea? To build on the point I was making, the economy has done quite well over the course of the first few months of the year, largely because of the strength of the consumer, where our balance sheets are still quite strong. Companies in America have done well. The biggest headwind the US economy faces has been self-inflicted by the tariffs the president has put on. Part of what I still do is talk to CEOs of companies, big and small. Small businesses feel the impact of this even more than the big businesses. What they tell me is that it's not just the tariffs and the fact that they are making it more expensive for them to get the goods that they need, but it's the uncertainty created by the off-again, on-again, nature of those tariffs that makes it impossible for them to plan for what supplies they're going to get the next quarter. How are they going to fulfill their orders? What employees are they going to need? It's having a real impact on the performance of these companies, but also their ability to hire people and plan for the future.If you go to the grocery store, you're going to start seeing — and you're starting to see already — price increases. The thing that Americans care most about is, the cost of living is just too high. You're at the grocery store, as you're shopping for your kids for the summer, you're going to see costs go up because of a self-imposed tax we've put in place. So I still do think that if we do find ourselves in a recession, it's going to be because of the tariffs we've put in place.Even if we don't enter a technical recession, what we're seeing now is that those tariffs are going to raise the cost for people when they go out to buy things. It's going to raise the cost of building homes, which is going to make it harder for people to get houses, which is ultimately going to have an impact on the economy that isn't what I think the president or anyone wants at this point.Kyla: Is there anything else we haven't asked about? I think the place where we continue, as a country, to struggle is that, given the federal system we have, many of these problems aren't just in Washington — they're in state and local governments as well. When you think about the challenges to building more housing in this country, you can't just solve it by doing things at the federal level. You have to get state and local governments unified in taking a proactive approach. Part of this has to be not just financial or regulatory from the federal government, but we have to do more things that force state and local governments to get out of the way of people being able to build more housing. I think that the conversations that you've had on your show, and the conversations we're having in government, need to move past our regular policy conversations of: “Should we do more on LIHTC? Should we try to fix NEPA?” Those, to me, are table stakes, and we're in the middle of what I'd say is a generational crisis when it comes to housing. We have to be willing to treat it like a crisis, rather than what I think we've done so far, which is take incremental steps at different levels to try and solve this. That's one thing that I wanted to make sure that I said, because I think it's the most important thing that we can do at the moment.Kyla: Absolutely. During your time there, the Treasury was doing so much with zoning reform, with financial incentives. What I really liked about our last conversation was how much you talked about how important it is that workers can live close to work. Are you optimistic that we will be able to address the problem, or do you think we are sinking into quicksand?I'd say a little bit of both, and the thing that I'm doing now is getting hyperlocal. One of the projects I'm working on in my post-administration life is I'm working with 15 churches in D.C., where they have vacant land and want to use it to build affordable housing as quickly as possible.I'm learning that even when you have the land donated for free and you're willing to work as quickly as possible, it's still quite hard because you have regulations and financial issues that often get in the way of building things. Part of what we have to do now is just launch as many natural experiments as possible to see what works.What I've learned already from this lived experience is that even cities that are trying to get out of the way and make it easier to build housing struggle because of what you all know to be true, which is that the local politics of this is quite complicated. Oftentimes, the way that you get them over the line is by creating incentives or disincentives.In the past, I talked a lot about incentives in terms of “giving people money to do things.” I'm now in favor of “not giving money to people who don't do things” — if you don't take steps to fix your zoning, some of the federal money that you regularly get is not coming to your jurisdiction. I'm going to reallocate that money to places that are doing this activity. I think we have to take those types of radical steps.It's similar to what we did with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, where if you didn't spend your money, we could take your money back and reallocate it to people who were giving away emergency rental assistance money.That motivates people a lot — when they feel like something's going to be taken away from them. I'm of the view that we have to find more radical things that we can do to get housing built. If we don't, costs will continue to rise faster than people's incomes.Santi: Wally, I have to ask after that point you just made: did you read the paper by my colleague Chris Elmendorf on using LIHTC funds? The idea is to re-allocate those federal funds away from big, expensive cities and into other places in a state, if the cities don't commit to basic zoning reforms.I completely agree with him, and I think I would go even further than just LIHTC money. I would reallocate non-housing money as well, because from my standpoint, if you think about the most important issue for a family, it's being able to find housing that is affordable near their place of work and where their kids go to school. I said that on purpose. I didn't say “affordable housing.” I said “housing that is affordable,” because affordable housing is, in lots of ways, targeted towards a population of people who need it the most. But for even people who are middle income in this country, it crowds out their ability to pay for other things when housing costs continue to creep higher.The only way we solve that problem is if you get rid of restrictive zoning covenants and fix permitting. The natural thing that every city and state is thinking about right now is throwing more money at the problem. There's going to need to be money here, just in light of some of the headwinds, but it's going to be more costly and less effective if we don't fix the underlying issues that are making it hard to build housing where we want it.Right now in California, we're having a huge debate over what we do with infill housing in urban areas. A simple solution — you don't have to do another environmental review if one was already done in this area— is taking months to work through the California legislature, which demonstrates that we're going too slow. California's seeing an exodus of people. I just talked to a CEO who said, “I'm moving my business because the people who work for me can't afford to live in California anymore.” This is the kind of problem that you can solve. State legislatures, Congress, and executives have to get together and take some radical steps to make it easier to build housing.I appreciate what you said about what we were doing at Treasury, but from my standpoint, I wish we had done more earlier to focus on this issue. We had a lot going on, but fundamentally, the most important thing on housing is taking a step to try and build housing today, which is going to have an impact on the economy 10, 20, 30 years from now. We just have to start doing that as soon as possible.Thanks to Emma Hilbert for her transcript and audio edits. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Today's show opens with a clown interviewing another clown. That's actually about the nicest thing I can say about the MSNBC interview Larry O'Donnell had with exiting President Joe Biden. Filled with lies, exaggerations, misrepresentation and gaslighting, in a way, it was the perfect way to leave office, reminding everyone of who Joe Biden has always been for the last 50 years. At one point, Biden wants us to believe that the only reason our economic recovery wasn't as good was he had to “help the red states” who don't know who to manage their states. It's utter lunacy to believe that. My own governor, Brian Kemp (R-GA) just gave a State of the State address where our fiscal management is so good, they are going to reduce taxes and provide a rebate. New information shows the Chinese hack of the Treasury on December 8, 2024 was worse that initially thought. Seems even Secretary Yellen herself had files taken off of her personal devices. Outgoing VP Kamala Harris has refused to provide a tour and/or sit down with VP-elect JD Vance and his family to get ready to move into the VP residence. Her petty and mean side continue to reveal how this nation dodged a bullet. Joe Biden magically believes by tweeting out a graphic design, he can make the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution a reality. That's not how it works. It shows how the Marxists running his account also have no idea how it works. Finally, we get into one more exchange from yesterday's hearing for Secretary of the Treasury. Scott Bessent is asked by Senator Bernie Sanders about increasing the Federal minimum wage. Not only does Bessent shoot that down, but also provide me a perfect launch into everything wrong with the concept of a “minimum” wage and the new term pushed by Leftists, “Livable” wage. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been thinking about the economy since she was a young girl in the working-class neighborhood of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, keenly attuned to how broader economic trends impacted the employment of her neighbors. Once she took her first economics class in college, she was hooked. She has since spent her career moving between academic and government roles, including many years at the Federal Reserve. Secretary Yellen joined David to talk about the barriers women face in finance, the economic implications of immigration, China and tariffs, and why government intervention in the financial system is necessary.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Darius Dale is the Founder & CEO of 42Macro. In this conversation, we talk about Secretary Yellen's hawkish tone on quarterly refunding announcement, liquidity dynamics, impact of decision to flood the market with bills, rising inflation, asset prices, and future macroeconomic outlook leading up to the election.  ======================= Introducing Espresso - the world's most interactive portable display. They have a portable screen that is incredibly light, comes with a nice stand, and the user interface is very easy. Anyone who listens to this podcast can go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠us.espres.so/pomp⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. They have a brand new offer waiting for you.  ======================= Meanwhile is the world's first licensed and regulated life insurance company built for the Bitcoin economy. Protect your loved ones with sound money built to manage life's uncertainty and a broken financial system. Their BTC-denominated Whole Life Insurance policies allow HODLers to pass more BTC on to their loved ones and a tax-advantaged way to access BTC for liquidity during their lifetime. Visit their website at https://meanwhile.bm/ to join the waitlist for a policy and to learn more. ======================= Pomp writes a daily letter to over 265,000+ investors about business, technology, and finance. He breaks down complex topics into easy-to-understand language while sharing opinions on various aspects of each industry. You can subscribe at https://pomp.substack.com/ ======================= View 10k+ open startup jobs: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dreamstartupjob.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Enroll in my Crypto Academy: https://www.thecryptoacademy.io/

Leslie is joined by Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), a partnership established by some of America's leading manufacturers and the United Steelworkers union. First, Scott explains how high interest rates and trade deficits are stifling U.S. factory jobs growth. Second, Leslie and Scott move across the globe to discuss China, where U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, is wrapping up a five day trip. Scott begins this discussion by highlighting how Beijing's economic success remains tied to U.S. market access, and how that offers America leverage. Next, Leslie and Scott discuss the increasingly high risk that China will flood the globe with EVs and green tech thanks to their government subsidized overcapacity in both industries. During her current trip to the Communist nation, Secretary Yellen says that the concern about excess capacity is shared by many other countries in addition to the U.S., both developing as well as rich ones. “This is not anti-China policy,” she said. “It's an effort for us to mitigate the risks from the inevitable global economic dislocation that will result if China doesn't adjust its policies.” Finally, Scott shares the advice he provided to a panel convened last week by the Washington International Trade Association (WITA) about Chinese auto imports. To summarize, he encourages the U.S. not to wait for China's heavily subsidized car to arrive here.  But instead, to be PROACTIVE! For over 16 years, Scott Paul and AAM have worked to make American manufacturing a top-of-mind issue for voters and our national leaders through effective advocacy, innovative research, and a savvy public relations strategy. Their website is www.AmericanManufacturing.org and their handle on X is @KeepItMadeInUSA. Scott's handle is @ScottPaulAAM.

Leslie is joined by Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), a partnership established by some of America's leading manufacturers and the United Steelworkers union. First, Scott explains how high interest rates and trade deficits are stifling U.S. factory jobs growth. Second, Leslie and Scott move across the globe to discuss China, where U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, is wrapping up a five day trip. Scott begins this discussion by highlighting how Beijing's economic success remains tied to U.S. market access, and how that offers America leverage. Next, Leslie and Scott discuss the increasingly high risk that China will flood the globe with EVs and green tech thanks to their government subsidized overcapacity in both industries. During her current trip to the Communist nation, Secretary Yellen says that the concern about excess capacity is shared by many other countries in addition to the U.S., both developing as well as rich ones. “This is not anti-China policy,” she said. “It's an effort for us to mitigate the risks from the inevitable global economic dislocation that will result if China doesn't adjust its policies.” Finally, Scott shares the advice he provided to a panel convened last week by the Washington International Trade Association (WITA) about Chinese auto imports. To summarize, he encourages the U.S. not to wait for China's heavily subsidized car to arrive here.  But instead, to be PROACTIVE! For over 16 years, Scott Paul and AAM have worked to make American manufacturing a top-of-mind issue for voters and our national leaders through effective advocacy, innovative research, and a savvy public relations strategy. Their website is www.AmericanManufacturing.org and their handle on X is @KeepItMadeInUSA. Scott's handle is @ScottPaulAAM.

Will the United States increase its tariffs on China? Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said it's a possibility, as she just touched down in China Thursday. President Joe Biden is telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the U.S. posture on the war now hinges on Israel's efforts to reduce civilian harm. How could a deadly strike on aid workers change the war's dynamics? The White House on Thursday announced new rules that would make it harder to reshape the federal workforce. More specifically, it will prevent the government from reclassifying civil servants as political appointees. A Fulton County judge has thwarted former President Donald Trump's attempt to get the Georgia election trial dismissed on First Amendment grounds. NATO foreign ministers celebrate the alliance's 75th anniversary amid divisions over Ukraine aid and the future of the conflict. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

Today, Jess, Les, and Morgan discuss U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's second trip to China, where she will advocate for fair treatment of American workers and businesses, press Chinese counterparts on unfair trade practices, and warn of the consequences of Chinese industrial overcapacity. This trip follows a domestic tour by Secretary Yellen to key swing states selling President Biden's economic and industrial policies to the American Public.What is the Biden administration's strategy when it comes to China? What does Secretary Yellen's visit seek to accomplish? Will this visit affect any policy changes within China?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.Check out the sources that helped shape our expert's discussion!https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2218https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/04/heres-who-treasury-secretary-janet-yellen-is-going-to-meet-in-china.html https://www.voanews.com/a/treasury-secretary-yellen-to-visit-china-for-high-level-talks/7555456.html Follow our experts on Twitter: @NotTVJessJones@lestermunson@morganlroachLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube, and watch today's episode here: https://youtu.be/kJHFlJVF9Es Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The DEC hosted Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer on Wednesday, February 14, at the Huntington Place in Detroit. In an exclusive meeting for DEC members and accompanied guests, the Governor shared remarks regarding her administration's FY '25 budget priorities. She was later joined on stage by U.S. Department of the Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen for a fireside chat.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was ousted from his role by his own board, and he was promptly hired by Microsoft in a tumultuous weekend for tech. Internally at OpenAI, employees have reportedly threatened to follow Altman, requesting resignations from the OpenAI board, and externally, investors and news outlets are following the drama at one of the highest profile companies pushing AI forward. Also in tech, Elon Musk is in hot water with his biggest advertisers, including Disney and Apple, over antisemitic content and Musk's own posts on X. Julia Boorstin breaks down the timeline of X posts, retweets, antisemitic accusations, and big advertiser backlash that colored the weekend. CEO of the Anti-Defamation League Jonathan Greenblatt discusses his own personal conversations with Elon Musk, including his advice to protect the Jewish community on and off of Musk's platform. Plus, President Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen have finished their latest meetings with China's President Xi and Vice Premier He, respectively. Yellen shares her takeaways from those meetings, including how both the U.S. and China plan to keep an open dialogue about AI. As inflation continues to pressure American consumers, Secretary Yellen considers the progress of the fight against inflation and the state of the U.S. economy.  Janet Yellen - 13:11Jonathan Greenblatt - 30:01 In this episode:Julia Boorstin, @JBoorstinAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkBecky Quick, @BeckyQuickKatie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie

#PRC: Secretary Yellen accommodates & What is to be done? Stephen Yates, chair of the America First Policy Institute's China Policy Initiative, @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/06/china-relationship-good-american-economy/ 1966 Red Guards

While the world is distracted, members of Congress are writing bills designed to steal Russia's money and give it to Ukraine. In this episode, listen to the pitch being made to Congress as we examine if this is a good idea. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Taking the Russian money: is it legal? Lee C. Buchheit and Paul Stephan. October 20, 2023. Lawfare. Chelsey Dulaney and Andrew Duehren. October 11, 2023. The Wall Street Journal. Lawrence H. Summers, Philip Zelikow, and Robert B. Zoellick. June 15, 2023. Foreign Affairs. Paul Stephan. April 26, 2022. Lawfare. Laurence H. Tribe and Jeremy Lewin. April 15, 2022. The New York Times. April 15, 2021. President Joe Biden. White House Briefing Room. What we're being told about Ukraine Secretary of State Anthony Blinken [@SecBlinken]. November 3, 2023. Twitter. Visual Journalism Team. September 29, 2023. BBC News. June 2023. Reuters. Biden wants to hide weapons deals with Israel Sharon Zhang. November 2, 2023. Bills Audio Sources October 31, 2023 Senate Appropriations Committee Witnesses: Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S. Department of State Lloyd Austin, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense Clips 1:05:05 Secretary of State Antony Blinken: If you look at total assistance to Ukraine going back to February of 2022, the United States has provided about $75 billion our allies and partners $90 billion. If you look at budget support, the United States has provided about $22 billion during that period, allies and partners $49 billion during that period; military support, we provided about $43 billion allies and partners $33 billion; humanitarian assistance, the United States $2.3 billion allies and partners 4.5 billion, plus another $18 to $20 billion in caring for the many refugees who went to Europe and outside of Ukraine. October 19, 2023 Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (The Helsinki Commission) Witnesses: Eliav Benjamin, Deputy Head of Mission, The Embassy of Israel to the United States Jamil N. Jaffer, Founder and Executive Director, National Security Institute at George Mason University Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, Senior Vice President, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Dr. Dan Twining, President, International Republican Institute Oksana Markarova, Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States of America Clips 19:25 Eliav Benjamin: Understanding in the most unequivocal manner and in the clearest way that these are evil people. If we can even call them people. This is Israel's 9/11, only if you take the proportion of the size of Israel, this is 9/11 times 10, at least. 20:45 Eliav Benjamin: Because these terrorist organizations are not only against Israelis or against Jews, and not only in Israel, they are against mankind and anything which calls for decency, any entity and anybody who calls for protecting human rights and protecting individuals and protecting civilians. 21:25 Eliav Benjamin: Hamas have no value for human life, while Israel is doing its utmost to protect human life, including Palestinians in Gaza by even calling for them to go down south so that they won't be affected by the war. Hamas is doing everything in its power to harm civilians, to harm its own civilians. And everything that Hamas is committing -- and committed -- is no less than war crimes. And if you want crimes against humanity, and this is while Israel is working within the international human rights law, and within the military law. 28:15 Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN): Ambassador we have attempted to get some monies to from Putin and from the Soviet Un -- the oligarchs, to help rebuild Ukraine. Do you have any new information about that, or concerns? Oksana Markarova: Thank you for this question. First of all, I think it's very just that all this horrible destruction, which only for the first year of the war the World Bank estimated at $411 billion -- just the physical destruction -- has to be compensated and paid for by the Russians. So with regard to the Russian oligarchs and everyone who finances this war, supports this war, thanks to Congress we already have the possibility to confiscate it through the courts and DOJ has already moved forward with one confiscation of malfeasance money -- $5.4 million, and others. It is going to take time. But I think the major question right now to discuss with all the G7 is the Russian sovereign assets. We know that there are at least in the vicinity of 300-400 billion, or maybe even more, frozen by G7 countries. Not only that, but we recently discovered there are about $200 billion that are frozen in the Euroclear system in Belgium. So I'm very glad that there are more renewed talks right now between the G7 Ministers of Finance on how to confiscate and how to better use this money even now. I think we have to join forces there because again, we're very grateful for the American support, we are very much counting on this additional supplementary budget, but at the end of the day, it's not the American, or Ukrainian, or European taxpayers who have to pay for this, it is the Russians who have to pay for their damages. We look forward to working with Congress and we're working very actively with the administration, the State Department and Treasury, on how to better do it. As the former Minister of Finance, I not only believe -- I know -- that it can be done and I know this is a very specific case, that will not jeopardize the untouchability of the Sovereign Money, which is normal in the normal circumstances. This is a very specific case of a country that has been condemned by 154 countries in the UN for the illegal aggression. We have in all three major cases, the cases against Russia on both aggression and genocide and everything else. And it's only natural and just to use the sovereign assets as well as the private assets of Putin's oligarchs to compensate and to pay this. 32:50 Eliav Benjamin: Look at the charter of Hamas, which calls for destruction, annihilation of Jews, of Israel and yes, wants to control everything from the Mediterranean Sea until the Jordan River. 33:00 Eliav Benjamin: That is their aspiration, that is what they want to do, with zero care about civilians, including their own whom they take us human shields. As we're speak now, they're firing rockets from underneath hospitals, from underneath schools, from underneath mosques, from within residential areas, putting their own people at risk and sending them to die as well. This is not what Israel is about, but this is what Hamas is about and has been about. And now once and for all, unfortunately, really unfortunately, it took such a horrific war that they launched on Israel for the whole world to realize what Hamas is really about and what we've been saying for so many years that Hamas stands for. But it's not only Hamas: it's Hamas, it's the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, it's Hezbollah, it's all of these terrorist organizations who have zero care about human beings. This is who we should go after, and make sure they don't do any more harm. 39:10 Jamil Jaffer: It was the single deadliest day in Israel's history, single deadliest day for the worldwide Jewish community since the Holocaust. The equivalent of over a dozen 9/11 attacks on a population adjusted basis. Let me say it again. On the day of the 9/11 attacks, we had about 280 million Americans and we lost approximately 3000 Americans that day. Israel has lost 1400 have their own in a population of approximately 9 million -- over a dozen 9/11 attacks. 41:15 Jamil Jaffer: There's a key connection between these two fights. We know that Iran today supplies all manner of drones to Russia in its fight in Ukraine. We know that Iran has troops on the ground in Ukraine, training Russians on the use of those drones. We know that Iran is considering providing short range ballistic missiles to Russia, in that conflict. Russia, for its part, has provided Iran with its primary source of Conventional Munitions and nuclear technology for the vast majority of the time. Now, the key connection between these organizations is important to note. It's not just Russia and Iran; it's China and North Korea as well. These are all globally repressive nation states. They repress their own people, they hold them back, they give them no opportunity, and then they seek to export that repression to other parts of the globe, first in their immediate neighborhood, and then more broadly across the world. These nations are increasingly working together. We see China and Russia's no-limits partnership. We see President Xi saying to President Putin, in an off hand conversation that the world heard, that there are changes that haven't been seen in 100 years, and Russia and China are leading those changes. We know that for decades, Iran and North Korea have cooperated on ballistic missile and nuclear technology. We know that today in the fight in Gaza, Hamas is using North Korean rocket propelled grenades. So the reality is these globally repressive nation states have long been working together. And it is incumbent upon the United States to stand with our friends in Ukraine and our allies in Israel in this fight against global repression. 41:35 Dr. Dan Twining: It's vital not to mistake Hamas's control of Gaza with legitimacy. There have been no elections in Gaza since 2006. Hamas will not hold them because it thinks it will lose. Polling from September, a month ago, shows that only a quarter of Palestinians support Hamas leading the Palestinian people. Before the conflict, 77% of Palestinians told pollsters they wanted elections as soon as possible. A super majority tells pollsters that Hamas is corrupt. It is a terrorist organization, not a governing authority that seeks better lives for Palestinians. Residents of Gaza suffer poverty, isolation, and violence at its hands. 43:25 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: Israel has just suffered in Iran-sponsored massacre, Ukraine is struggling to repel Russian forces, and Taiwan watches with grave concern as China threatens to invade. America must view these three embattled democracies as important assets. And it must view these three adversaries as a threat to the US-led world order. As we speak, there is a very real possibility of a regional war erupting in the Middle East. The Islamic Republic of Iran has armed and funded Hamas and Hezbollah along with other factions in the region. Recent reports point to the existence of an Iranian-led nerve center in Beirut that is designed to help these terrorist groups target Israel more efficiently. Fortunately, the IDF has thwarted Iranian efforts to create a new terror proxy in the Golan Heights. Israel has repeatedly destroyed most, if not all, of what Iran is trying to stand up there. However, Iran-backed militias do remain in Syria, and Russia's presence in Syria is complicated all of this. Moscow's missile defense systems have forced Israel to take significant precautions in the ongoing effort to prevent the smuggling of advanced Iranian weapons from Syria to Lebanon. These are precision guided munitions. We've never seen a non-state actor or a terrorist group acquire these before and Russia is making this more difficult. The operations to destroy these weapons in Syria are ongoing. They often take place with Russian knowledge. It's an uneasy arrangement and because of that, the Syrian front is still manageable, but Russia's role in the region is far from positive. Moscow continues to work closely with both Iran and Hezbollah. In fact, Russian-Iranian relations have deepened considerably since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This goes beyond the sanctions busting that was the basis of their relationship before all this started. Russia has received UAVs from Iran, which we've heard today, Tehran has sent advisors to train Russian personnel, and since last summer, Russia has launched over 2000 Iranian UAVs into Ukraine. Moscow now wants to produce some of these UAVs domestically and so Russia and Iran are currently working together to increase the drones' range and speed. Iran has supplied other material to Russia like artillery shells and rockets. In return, Tehran wants Russia to provide fighter jets, attack helicopters, radar and combat trainer aircraft, and more. Moscow has sent to Tehran some captured Western weapons from Ukraine. These include javelin, NLAW anti-tank guided missiles, and Stinger MANPADS. Amidst all of this, on top of it all, concerns are mounting about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Beijing has openly intimidated the island nation. Within a 24 hour time span in July, 16 PLA warships approached Taiwan, accompanied with over 100 different aircraft sorties. China's calculus about an invasion of Taiwan could be influenced heavily right now by what the United States does in Ukraine and in Israel. Ihe landscape is clear: China, Iran and Russia are working together. Our policy must be to deny them the ability to threaten our friends and our interests. 47:45 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: It's great news. I was gonna recommend it, but it's already happened: the United States has sent two of its Iron Dome batteries based in Guam to Israel, en route already. 52:15 Dr. Dan Twining: If America's three greatest adversaries are going to actively collaborate in armed attacks on our allies, that's all the more reason for us to ensure that friendly democracies prevail in the fight. Giving Ukraine and Israel what they need to restore their sovereignty and security is essential. Appeasing aggression in one theater only invites belligerence in another. Make no mistake, China is watching our reaction to the wars on Ukraine and Israel with great interest. If we don't show the will and staying power to help our friends win, we only embolden Chinese designs in Asia. Defeating aggression in Europe and the Middle East is central to deterring aggression in Asia. 1:09:55 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: I am going to use the current crisis right now to sort of explain how America can get a win. That attack by Hamas was sponsored by Iran. Hamas is an Iran-back terrorist organization that also enjoys the support of China and Russia. As Israel has now readied to go into the Gaza Strip and to destroy this terrorist organization with the support of the United States, we're now seeing Iran-backed proxies threaten a much wider war. We're watching Hezbollah and Lebanon, Shiite militias in Syria, potentially other groups in other parts of the region. What needs to happen here right now is America needs to determine the outcome of this conflict. And by that, I mean it needs to deter Iran, it needs to deter Hezbollah and any other actor that might intervene, and force them to watch helplessly as our ally destroys Hamas. Watch them look on helplessly as one of their important pieces is removed from the chessboard. If we can do that, then I think we're now in the process of reestablishing deterrence after having lost it for many years. 1:14:15 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Along with Ranking Member [Jim] Risch, I'm the lead on the what we call the REPO Act, which would authorize the President to work with other countries in Europe that are also home to frozen Russian sovereign assets, and create a procedure for seizing those assets and directing them to Ukraine to be used for rebuilding and other purposes. I think there are mixed feelings in the administration about this, but they seem to be moving our way. I'd love to have your thoughts on the value of grabbing those sovereign assets, not just as additional resources for Ukraine, but also as a powerful signal to Putin that his behavior is going to have real punishment and hitting him good and hard right in the wallet, I think, would be a good added signal. 1:15:20 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): The second is simply to make sure that we do a better job of grabbing Russian oligarch assets. We have a predicament right now, which is that if you're a US citizen, and you're driving down the highway and you've got $400,000 in unexplained cash in your car, the police can pull you over and they can seize that. If you are a foreign, Russian, crooked oligarch, and you have a $400 million yacht someplace, you have more rights than that American citizen, in terms of defending your yacht. It's a very simple procedure, it's called "in rem." You move on the yacht rather than having to chase through all the ownership structures. And I would very much like to see us pass a bill that allows us to proceed against foreign oligarchs', criminals', and kleptocrats' assets in rem. 1:16:50 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: The seizing of assets and redirecting them to Ukraine, I think, sounds like a solid thing for the United States to do. I think, though, it would make sense to do this with a coalition of countries. So that the US is not singled out -- Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): That's what the legislation requires. In fact, the bulk of the funds are actually held in European countries, so acting on our own would not be sensible. Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: It wouldn't be effective, correct. So getting the Europeans on board, and by the way, getting the Europeans to chip in a bit more, just as we are, I think is also a very sound policy. As far as targeting the oligarch assets, I fully understand your frustration. When I worked at the Treasury Department trying to track those kinds of assets was never easy. We did work with a sort of shorthand version of, if we're 80% sure that we know what we're dealing with we're going to move first and then adjudicate after it's been done. And by and large, that worked out very well during the height of the war on terror. And there was an urgency that I think needs to be felt now, as we think about targeting Russian assets too. 1:18:00 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): To follow me on my path of in rem Latinate legal terms. There's also qui tam out there, which allows individuals to bring fraud actions in the name of the United States, and if it turns out there really is fraud, they get a share of it. It would be nice to have people who work for, let's say, a Russian oligarch to be able to be paid a bit of a bounty if they come in and testify and say, "Yep, definitely his boat every time we go out, he's on it. Every time the guests come they're his guests and we call him boss." Things like that can make a big difference, so we're trying to push that as well. Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: That sounds like something for the Rewards for Justice program at the State Department. They might be able to expand it. We already have bounties for those that provide evidence leading to arrests of terrorists, why not oligarchs? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Correct. 1:24:40 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: Qatar has, for the last 10 or 12 years, had a an external headquarters. Some of [Hamas's] political leadership has been based there: Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal both call Qatar home. Of course, this is not new for the Qataris. They've also hosted all manner of other terrorist organizations in that country. It's the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS. It's well known at this point that Qatar is a hospitable place. They just don't agree with our definition of terrorism. Fundraising takes place there, all sorts of organizational activities take place there, and people are free to come and go. It is a safe haven for them. It is extremely dangerous that we have bestowed upon that country the label of major non-NATO ally, and that this is allowed to continue. They're offering right now their "good offices" -- I'll put those in air quotes -- to try to negotiate the release of the 302 hostages. This is not in Qatar's is interest. They are advocating on behalf of Hamas, as they have been for a long time. This should not be allowed to stand. 1:28:10 Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: Hezbollah is based in Lebanon primarily, although they've got a significant base of operations in Latin America right now, and of course they've got a lot of operatives running around in Tehran. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the regime in Iran. Just to give you a sense of the threat, right now Hezbollah is threatening to open up a second front with Israel. While the fighting rages in Gaza, in the north of Israel there is a second front that could very well be open. There have been dozens of rockets that have been fired, dozens of anti-tank missiles infiltrations into northern Israel. This is very disconcerting. This is one of the things that I think the President is trying to deter at this moment, to deter a second front from opening. Hezbollah is considered to have an army that is equal in strength to the average European army. It has 150,000 rockets right now facing south at Israel. It's got precision guided munitions that could hit strategic targets, like Israel's nuclear facility, or like its chemical plant. These are things that could create catastrophic attacks, and we could be hours or days or weeks away from watching those threats materialize. And so this is why it is imperative right now that the US mount the deterrence that is necessary to stare down Iran and to stare down Hezbollah and to allow Israel to be able to do what it needs to in Gaza and hopefully end this crisis. 1:31:15 Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX): What does it look like if a Palestinian family of four is being interviewed for safe passage into a neighboring country or nearby country? What exactly does that look like? What does that processing and that vetting look like? Dr. Jonathan Schanzer: I'm going to make a suggestion here. I don't know how that kind of vetting can happen. You know, you're looking at a territory roughly the size of Washington DC, with 2.2 million people that had been subjected to Hamas rule for 16 years. How you start to figure out who's okay and who's not at this stage in the game, who's a threat and who isn't, is going to be really challenging. I wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal with a colleague of mine, Mark Dubowitz, our CEO, on Monday. I want to make this suggestion: I've already identified a number of the countries that have been Hamas supporters over the years, those that have financed and provided the weapons and the training to Hamas. I think there should be significant pressure on those countries to take in the refugees. Have a clear message from the United States that they created this problem, and it is now their problem to take care of these 2 million people. Quite frankly, I don't care who's radicalized when they go to these countries that have been supporting a radical cause for as long as they have. I think this would be justice. October 18, 2023 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Witnesses: Philip Zelikow, Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia Rebeccah Heinrichs, Senior Fellow and Director of the Keystone Defense Initiative at the Hudson Institute Clips 14:35 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): The Russian sovereign assets is a winner in my judgment. If we can tap into the right -- the very people who started this war and this conflict, in my judgment, should be paying for the cost, and not as much the US taxpayer. And that's why I introduced the REPO Act, the bipartisan, bicameral legislation that demands that the Biden administration transfer frozen Russian sovereign assets to the Ukraine effort. It's beyond time that Russia pay for the war that it created. My bill prohibits the Biden administration from unfreezing Russian sovereign assets until Russia ends its unprovoked war of aggression and agrees to compensate Ukraine for the damages it has inflicted. 16:05 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): To be clear, the war crimes and genocide committed by Russia cannot be reversed by money alone. 22:30 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): My approach was crafted to be consistent with US Policy and International Law by amending the International Emergency Economic Powers Act IEEPA, and using its established framework and existing definitions. As a former Treasury official, in my view, this is a better legislative approach. This is consistent with well established international precedent, whereby the United States work with international partners to establish a fund like we saw in Afghanistan in 2022. The Iran-US Claims Tribunal in 1981, the UN compensation fund for Kuwait in 1991, following the invasion by Iraq. 22:40 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): I too have introduced a bill on this topic, HR 5370. And I appreciate the Foreign Affairs staff working with me on that. My bill would give the President authority to seize and transfer title of Russian sovereign assets within the United States jurisdiction into an international fund for the sole purpose of Ukraine's eventual reconstruction and humanitarian relief. I'm grateful to Chairman McCaul and I co-sponsor his bill on this topic, as well for his leadership. 24:10 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Considering most Russian sovereign assets are actually located outside the United States, it's important for our partners and allies around the world to introduce and pass similar companion legislation rather than having the US act unilaterally. 24:30 Rep. French Hill (R-AK): Let me be clear, I consider Russian Federation sovereign assets inclusive of all state owned enterprise assets and those of Russian publicly traded companies, like Gazprom, that are controlled by more than 50% by the Russian Federation. 26:30 Philip Zelikow: Economic warfare is the real center of gravity in this war. Economic warfare is the center of gravity in the war. I know we all watch the daily updates from the battle front lines. You know, this movement here, that movement there. This is a war of attrition. It's going to be decided by economic and industrial staying power as the war continues almost certainly into 2025 and perhaps beyond. 27:00 Philip Zelikow: In that struggle, the economic warfare against Russia has achieved some gains, and will have some more gains over the long haul. Russia's economic warfare against Ukraine has been devastating and is not sufficiently appreciated. Ukraine lost 30% of its GDP in the first year of the war. 1/3 of the population of Ukraine is displaced, half externally half internally. Russia is waging economic warfare on three main fronts. It's destroying Ukraine's infrastructure, and will do another energy infrastructure war this winter, for which it's gearing up, including with North Korean weapons and Iranian weapons. Point two: they've destroyed Ukraine's ability to export through the Black Sea except for a trickle, which was the fundamental business model of a commodity exporting country. Point three: they have destroyed Ukraine's civil aviation. Ukraine has no civil aviation. Any of you who've traveled, as I have, to Ukraine will notice that you can't fly in the country, which makes travel and business in the country now back to the era of the railroads before there were airplanes. So the the Russian economic warfare against Ukraine is devastating. And as time passes, this is going to have deep effects on the ability of Ukraine's economy and society to hold together, which will play out politically. So point one: economic warfare is the true center of gravity in the war. 28:35 Philip Zelikow: Two, the Russian assets are the key strategy to change the outcome. The Russian assets are at least $280 billion. Now, even in our debased day and age, that's a lot of money. It's a lot of money in the context of the Ukrainian economy. Even using very conservative multipliers of how much private investment the public investment can unlock, let's say one to one, the impact of this money on the whole future prospects of Ukraine and its staying power are decisive. Otherwise, they're relying on US and European taxpayers whose readiness you can gauge. So this is potentially the decisive fulcrum of the economic warfare and Ukraine's prospects in the war. 29:25 Philip Zelikow: So, third point, why has this been so hard? First reason was there was a knee jerk neuralgia on the part of bankers and financiers to the actual confiscation of Russian assets in the foreign exchange holdings, with much talk of losing confidence in the dollar in the euro. On analysis, these worries quickly fall away, which is one reason that I worked with my colleagues, Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary, and Bob Zoellick, the former president of the World Bank, who do know something about international finance to debunk those concerns. And I'd be glad to go into more detail about why the concerns about the dollar or the euro turn out to be overblown when they're analyzed. 30:10 Philip Zelikow: The other concern was how do we do this legally? There's been a ton of legal confusion about this. This bill will help dispel that legal confusion. 30:30 Philip Zelikow: What about sovereign immunity? Sovereign immunity is a doctrine that only exists in the context of national courts trying to usurp sovereign authority in a situation where it's sovereign on sovereign, whereas in this bill, there would be an act of state that goes after Russian sovereign property. There is no such thing as immunity; there is no doctrine of sovereign immunity. Ordinarily, under international law, if one sovereign takes another sovereign's property, then the loser is entitled to compensation for that nationalization or expropriation. So why isn't Russia entitled for that compensation in this case? Because it's a lawful state countermeasure. Countermeasures are different from sanctions. And countermeasures -- and this is a well recognized body of law -- you are allowed to do things that would ordinarily violate your sovereign obligations to a fellow sovereign, because that sovereign has committed such extreme outlaw behavior, that the countermeasure is a lawful recourse. And that is exactly the extreme case we have here. There is a well codified body of law on this, and Russia has hit every one of the marks for a set of lawful state countermeasures that deprives them of any right to compensation when states take their money and then use it, putting it in escrow to compensate the victims of Russia's aggression. 37:35 Rebeccah Heinrichs: The United States directly benefits from Ukraine's battlefield successes as Russia remains a top tier adversary of the United States. These are the weapons that Americans made and designed specifically to go after the kinds of things that the Ukrainians are destroying in the Russian military. 39:55 Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX): The EU has a plan just to tax frozen assets and send those proceeds to Ukraine. Our Treasury Secretary, Miss Yellen recently claimed that transferring sovereign assets to Ukraine was not legal. Do you agree with that, and if not, what is your opinion from a legal standpoint? Philip Zelikow: I think Secretary Yellen has now revised her view of this matter, having had a chance to be informed by some of the legal work that's been done since she first made that impromptu remark. There is the legal authority both under domestic law and international law, and the bill this committee is considering would reaffirm, consolidate, and elaborate that authority. So legally, this can be done. 40:55 Philip Zelikow: What the EU came up with in May was the idea -- they were encountering a lot of resistance to actually taking the Russian money, so they said, Well, can we come up with something, since a lot of these as the securities have now matured and are in cash and Euroclear, mainly -- the clearing house in Brussels -- is now managing the cash on behalf of Russia, because Russia is no longer able to manage it. So can we do something with the interest? And by the way, the EU couldn't get that through in June. Ursula von der Leyen couldn't get that adopted over, principally, French and German opposition at the time. So they're talking about just taking this interest. As a legal matter, if you have the legal right to take the interest, you have the legal right to take the principle. This was a cosmetic idea trying to overcome the opposition they had there. It's kind of a situation where, as one of my colleagues in this effort, Larry Tribe, has put it as well, instead of crossing the Rubicon, they're kind of wading in. From a legal point of view, it's actually clearer to do the transfer for Ukraine than to try to expropriate the money using tax authorities, which makes it look like you're expropriating it for your country, rather than for the benefit of the victims, which is a much cleaner, legal way to do it. So they ended up, for political reasons, with a half measure that takes only a tiny fraction of what they should and does so in ways that are actually legally awkward. I understand why they are where they are, but as they process this, I think they're just going to have to step up to going ahead and crossing the Rubicon. 50:20 Philip Zelikow: The whole argument that I made in an article with Summers and Zoellick in Foreign Affairs is that actually, this is a strategy for victory. You put this enormous war chest and the multiplier of private investment into play. And what you can envision is a whole new European recovery program, anchored on the rebuilding of Ukraine that not only saves Ukraine, revitalizes it, but links it to the EU accession process, to the enlargement of the European Union. In other words, to the victory of the whole cause of freedom, in a way almost regardless of where the final battle line ends up being in Ukraine, Ukraine will be growing with bright prospects, part of a Europe with brighter prospects, because of its alignment with the free world. 51:25 Philip Zelikow: When people worry about the significance of this in foreign exchange, I ask them to just remember two numbers 93 and three. If you look at the percentage of foreign exchange holdings held in the world today, 60% United States, 23% Euro, 6% yen, 4% Sterling: that's 93. The percentage of foreign exchange holdings in Chinese renminbi: three. And the Chinese were really encouraged that it's gone up from 2.5 to 3 in recent years. So when you look at 93 to three, that's what you get when we work with our allies in a concerted economic strategy. We can move on the Russian assets, and there's really no choice except to stick with the currencies of the free world because they're still the only basis for being a participant in the world economy. 54:20 Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI): Who actually has the authority to take possession of it? Because as you point out, if you've got the legal right to the interest, you got the legal right to the principal. Who is granted that authority? And then who is granted the authority to distribute that? Philip Zelikow: So the theory is that the national governments can transfer any of the Russian state assets in their jurisdiction into escrow accounts for the benefit of the victims, as a state countermeasure to Russia's aggression. So the way that would work is under the President's IEEPA authority, he could transfer all this -- and there are precedents for this -- into an escrow account held in the States and then an international escrow account, with this limited purpose of compensating the victims of Russian aggression, then you need to create an international mechanism, which the US would participate in creating, to then manage that distribution, which needs to have a proactive urgent speed of relevance. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI): That was what I was afraid of. If it just simply takes one participant to bog the whole thing down, guess what? It's not going to work, in my humble opinion. Philip Zelikow: When they're debating this in the EU, some people say we should have a new EU directive to govern this, but under our Common Foreign and Security Policy, one member like Hungary, for example, could botch that. So if you create something perhaps managed by the G7 Donor Coordination Platform, that is a relatively simple instrument in which the United States could play a part. One thing that you've done in the bill you've drafted, Mr. Chairman and Congresswoman Kaptur, is you're creating mechanisms in which Congress has insight and some oversight into how the United States participates in that process, and what the mechanism does and how the money is spent, which I think is an appropriate role for the Congress. There are precedents for how to do this. The design of this international mechanism I'm discussing is both policy driven, but also has a reactive claim side, but can have some conditionality on reform and the EU accession process. That's a heavy lift. Building that mechanism will be the biggest job since we built the Economic Cooperation Administration to run Marshall Plan aid 70 years ago. That serious work has not really begun, because we're just working on the preliminary phase of mobilizing and using this money. 58:25 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA): You believe the Administration, even without this bill, has authority right now to transfer the frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. Philip Zelikow: Yes, it does. It has it under the existing IEEPA authorities that the President has already invoked. The Renew Democracy Initiative has put out a really extensive legal brief that goes into great detail about this. I think actually the administration's lawyers are coming around to the view that yes, they do have the authority under existing law. What the REPO Act does is, one, it reaffirms that, but two, it makes Congress a partner in this with regulation and oversight that's an appropriate Congressional role. So by both reaffirming the authority and getting Congress to join the executive and doing this together I think it makes it a truly national effort with an appropriate Congressional part. 59:20 Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA): How would you respond to critics who say this would make it harder for other folks in the future to want to invest in the United States? Philip Zelikow: You can look at the numbers. After we froze Russian assets, everybody understood the political risks that might be involved with putting their money into dollar holdings. The Chinese called in all their bankers and asked them, "Do we have any other options?" That happened last year. You can just simply track what's happened in the international financial markets and see how folks have now priced in that political risk. But the result is still very strong demand and interest in the dollar. But here again, to come back to Congressman [Gregory] Meeks point, by working with the Euro and the yen and Sterling, we give them no place to go. If they want to participate in the world economy, then they're just going to have to invest in assets like that. 1:00:30 Rebeccah Heinrichs: The other thing that's very interesting and good in the REPO bill that is different is this provision, Section 103, that would prohibit the release of blocked Russian sovereign assets. I think that's an incredibly important element of this bill. That would remove the temptation for any kind of sweetener for the Russians to have access to these funds and leave Ukraine in a lurch whenever they have to rebuild their society. That's a very important part of the bill. 1:01:10 Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX): Why would it be better to transfer these assets for Ukraine's direct benefit than to use them for leverage in negotiations and ending this conflict at some point? Rebeccah Heinrichs: It comes back down to the fundamental question at the end: who's going to foot the bill for rebuilding Ukrainian society? Somebody's going to have to do it. It should not be the American people primarily. They're footing a pretty significant bill. I think that benefits American industry and benefits our own military, but this particular piece should be carried out by the perpetrators of this act. So I think that it'd be a mistake to hold that out as a sweetener to get the Russians to come to the end or the conclusion. 1:01:55 Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-TX): Mr. Zelikow, you mentioned earlier in response to one of my colleague's questions that it looks like that under current law under the IEEPA authorities, the president can do this activity now. Do you know why the President is not doing that? And if he chose to do that, could he do it immediately? Or is there any delay in that? Philip Zelikow: They could act immediately. They've delayed a long time, partly, to be very blunt -- because I've been talking to a lot of people about this -- they had very deep interagency disagreements inside the administration over how to proceed and they found that their bandwidth was totally overwhelmed by other Ukrainian-related concerns, and they didn't give this heavy attention until fairly recently. And now that they have given it sustained attention, I think the President has actually settled, at a fundamental level, those interagency disputes and they are now moving forward to try to find a way to make this work. 1:02:50 Philip Zelikow: I think the point you raised a minute ago about whether we want to hold this back as leverage was one factor in the back of the minds of some people. I think as the war has continued on through this year, hopes of a quick settlement of the war have dissipated. I think they realize that this is going to be a long war. That sobering realization has kind of sunk in. Also, from a legal point of view, if you want to, you could credit the Russians in any peace negotiation. You can basically say this is a credit against your liability for the for rebuilding Ukraine. 1:04:55 Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA): As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have been to many European nations. To a nation, they say the United States is the indispensable partner here, and they say that with all humility and not blowing smoke. We visited the Hague and sat with lead prosecutor Khan, and everyone is talking about waiting us out. Not just waiting out Congress's support, but waiting out the outcome of the next election. They asked us specifically about that. Mr. Putin is clearly waiting for the outcome of the next election in hopes that it will not be the reelection of Joe Biden, who I'm really proud is in Israel right now. Timing. How does this work? You already said it's going to be into 2025. How do we use this leverage, this economic warfare as the center of gravity in this conflict, to bring the timing tighter to a successful conclusion for Ukraine? Philip Zelikow: So that's a great question. And this is why action on this issue is so urgent now, because the operational timeline to stand this up on a massive multi 100 billion dollar scale is if we move on this in the next couple of months and mobilize the money. We could get an enormous operation up and running with a relatively secure source of funding by next year. If we get that up and running by the middle of next year, we then insulate ourselves, to some extent, against the kind of electoral risk to which you gently alluded. 1:07:55 Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. (R-NJ): If the United States did transfer Russian sovereign assets to Ukraine, how could Ukraine best use these in the near term? Philip Zelikow: In the near term, what they would do, I think, is begin undertaking a comprehensive program to shore up their infrastructure, withstand the coming Russian campaigns to further damage that and begin to rebuild the basic transportation infrastructure and other things that can then begin to unlock a really bright future for the rest of the Ukrainian economy. There are things that can be done then to move Ukrainian industry into new sectors. I think the Ukrainian goal is not just to restore what they had five years ago, but actually to use this as a way to build back better, to imagine a brighter future in partnership with Europe. And then if the money is managed well, this gives leverage to encourage the Ukrainian reform process as part of the EU accession. Putin's whole effort here is, "if I can't conquer Ukraine, I will wreck it and make it ungovernable," and we'll show decisively that that objective cannot be achieved. 1:10:35 Rebeccah Heinrichs: If I may, sir, another principle that has been misunderstood throughout this conflict is this notion of escalation. Escalation is not bad. It's only bad if it's the adversary who's escalating to prevail. We want Ukraine to escalate to win, to convince the Russians to end the war. If you do not permit the Ukrainians to escalate, then you only have a long protracted war of attrition that none of us can afford. 1:12:05 Philip Zelikow: Whenever you do a large thing in international affairs, there are going to be unintended consequences from that, and rather than be dismissive about that concern, I'll say if you embark on this, then people will be tempted to try to use these sorts of precedents against us. They'll be limited in their ability to do that because of the fundamental places where money is held in the world economy. A lot of people don't do business with the United States because they love us; they do business with us because they think it's necessary. If they could expropriate our property with no penalty, they would. Venezuela tried that. Most of the world doesn't want to follow Venezuela's example. So yes, there are some potential unintended consequences of people trying to use this precedent. But one reason we've tried to set this under international law is to use the standards of international law to govern this countermeasure. International law allows these countermeasures, but it says you can only do this if the target country's outlaw behavior is extreme, and there's a standard for that. It turns out Russia totally meets that standard. This is the most extreme case of international aggression since the Second World War, bigger than Korea, bigger than Kuwait. But by setting that kind of standard, it makes that slippery slope a little less slippery. 1:14:25 Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ): There are some concerns that if we were to transfer these assets, use it for the benefit Ukraine, would there be an impact on the US dollar? Just get your thoughts on that? Philip Zelikow: Yeah, that's why we got in some of the best people we could on international plans, just to do the analysis on that. 93% of the foreign exchange holdings are held in G7 countries and only 3% in renminbi. Running to the renminbi because they're worried about the dollar is something people would do if they wanted to do it already. They've already priced in the political risk of dollar holdings after they've seen what we've done. And you can see their asset allocations. Now, the dollar is involved in 88% of all foreign commercial transactions on one side of the transaction or another. So it's hard to run away from it, especially if the Euro, Yen, and Sterling are in there with you. There's really kind of no place to go if you want to participate in the international economy. Working with Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary, Robert Zoellick, with Brad Setser, who studies international finance, we ran some numbers about worst case scenarios and so on, and we think that concern, which sounds good as a soundbite, it turns out on analysis, it fades away. 1:16:10 Philip Zelikow: The US only holds a fraction of the relevant Russian money because the Russians tried to get their money out of our jurisdiction. But when you go to Europe and ask them what's holding them up, they all say "We're waiting for the American lead." So even though we may only hold a fraction of the money, we hold a lot more than a fraction of the relevant clout, and we need to go together, exactly as you imply. September 28, 2023 House Committee on Foreign Affairs Witnesses: Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, United States Department of State Christopher P. Maier, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, United States Department of Defense Caroline Krass, General Counsel, United States Department of Defense Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Adviser, United States Department of State Clips 33:00 Victoria Nuland: First with regard to the Taliban, we've been very clear we're going to judge the Taliban by their actions. It is our assessment that the Taliban have partially adhered to their counterterrorism commitments. We've seen them disrupt ISIS-K, for example. But there's obviously plenty more to to do to ensure that Afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven, or return to safe haven, or persist as a safe haven. That said, I would note that the director of the National Counterterrorism Center Christy Abizaid recently said publicly that al Qaeda is at its historic nadir in Afghanistan, and its revival is unlikely. 34:20 Victoria Nuland: Iran is obviously a state sponsor of terrorism; it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Music by Editing Production Assistance

Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley Chief Global Economist, and Mark Cabana, Bank of America Head of US Rates Strategy, break down the US Treasury's refunding announcement. Dom Konstam, Mizuho Securities Head of Macro Strategy, previews the Federal Reserve's rate decision. Win Thin, Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. Global Head of Currency Strategy, expects Japanese yields to continue to rise after the BOJ's decision. Jennifer Flitton, Invesco Head of US Government Affairs, discusses the latest in Washington on US aid to Israel.Get the Bloomberg Surveillance newsletter, delivered every weekday. Sign up now: https://www.bloomberg.com/account/newsletters/surveillance      FULL TRANSCRIPT:     This is the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene, along with Jonathan Farrow and Lisa Abramowitz. Join us each day for insight from the best an economics, geopolitics, finance and investment. Subscribe to Bloomberg Surveillance on demand on Apple, Spotify and anywhere you get your podcasts, and always on Bloomberg dot Com, the Bloomberg Terminal, and the Bloomberg Business app. Where this seth Carpenter at, the chief global economist at Morgan Stanley. Is this just about in our start? Are we all John Williams this morning and we're readjusting? I clared it with me last week at a Bloomberg event. At two point zero percent is not two point six percent? I mean, are we really talking, as Mike aludes tou there about a new inflation regime? I think you want to separate out a couple of things. One is the new inflation regime, and there if you're comparing it to where we were from the financial crisis through COVID to say, yes, right, the FED was consistently missing it's inflation target to the downside. I call it a quarter percentage point. We're above, clearly above target now and over the next several years they want to bring it down, but I'm not sure they want to go back to the old days of you know, being below two percent on a regular basis. So if they're going to be averaging a little higher during expansions, call it a tenth or two above. You know, you're talking about twenty five to fifty basis points high inflation, so that's got to be there. I don't think we're talking about the difference between two percent inflation and three percent of I want to tell you on radio on television where we're heading here, what half are we have. We have Dark Carpenter with this on the broader economics of this moment. Ira Jersey schedule to join us just exquisite here on fixed income dynamics, and then we do even better. Mark Cabana is going to darken the door. Who's just expert on your world about you know, the different tranches of the auctions. I want to dig into what the implications are of this announcement sas and to me, I'm looking at the idea that they're really going to force the front end to a lot of the heavy lifting here. Does that pose a greater risk than people realize. So my view is no, the way I would think about it. There was a speculation that back and forth a little bit earlier, did the Treasury just react to the market. And I think you want to remember that the folks there at Treasury, Josh Frost, the assistant secretary, the career staff in debt management, they have a structure now, they have a framework for how to think about what to issue, and they're looking at what is the market saying about where the market wants to pay up and where the market's demanding a discount, and at the margin, they'll lean a little bit more to where the market wants the paper and lean a little bit away from the place where the market's pulling back. And we've seen over the past several months a big sell off in the long end. It showed up, you know, in models speak and the term premium, and they're paying attention to that. It's not that one week to the next, or one month to the next, or even one quar to the next, is it sustained. What we are seeing is very much a strong move on the long end in that thirty year yield plunging back below five percent. As we were talking about do you think I think that this indicates that really what we're seeing in yields is entirely a supply driven story more than anything in terms of an economic read on strength and inflation in the US. So no, it's so hard depending on any single thing. When I talk to our clients here in New York, in London, around the world who are trading in treasuries, there are a whole set of different narratives, one of which has been supplied. People have been worrying about the deficit, which is exactly why Secretary Yellen came out and said it's not the deficit. People are worrying about stronger growth. Q three GDP data was very strong, There's no two ways about it, and so that contributed to it. Other people are worrying about is there going to be a pullback from risk by global investors. Other people are looking at the back of Japan. We just had that meeting right where they effectively de facto got rid of yield crop control. So it's not just one single thing, it's everything coming together. So what's your compass at a time where we're expecting the FED to come out today too in varying shades of we have no idea and we will see just along with you, what is your guiding loadstar. So we're trying to figure out, along with the Fed, sort of what's going on with the economy. The strong Q three data and notwithstanding there are some signs of the economy slowing down. The last jobs report super strong, but if you look at the trend over the past eighteen month, clear downward trend. If you look at the GDP data, consumption spending holding in, but a lot of the strength was in inventories. Capex was not very strong at all, and so we are seeing that slowing. And so what we think is the Feds look in the same data we are. They're driving by feel a little bit and they're not going to hike today. We don't think they're going to hike in December because inflation just keeps undershooting their own forecast for where they thought inflation was going to be this year. What does the job dynamic look like with an ellen Zetner's sub one percent Q four GDP, Well, I think there This is where we want to keep in mind that there's so many swings from one quarter the next to some of the spending data. Like I said, the inventory, the numbers, that was never going to be the primary driver. So she starts giving you gloom on the job economy. Not at all. I will say that we have a Morgan Stanley Ellen and I and the rest of the team have been consistent from the beginning of this hiking cycle to say, the Fed's gonna hike, They're going to bring down inflation, but we are not going into recession. It is not doing gloom. Well, she's expert on the American consumer. What is Zenner when she gets fired up? You know she does. When Zender gets fired up about the American consumer, what is she saying? Lots of things, but in particular, one of the key risks that maybe people are overlooking for why there should be a slowdown in the fourth quarter is student loans. Right, there is a moratorium on student loans that's been lifted. We're starting to see that payback starting to happen, and that has to crimp consumer disposable incomes. That matters durable goods. Right. Interest rates are high, credit card rates are high. People financing cars and other things, it's just costing more and so they'll pull back on the spending. It just extraorded her. Seth Carpenter, thank you so much, really really appreciate it. With Morgan's stay, he writes piercing notes for Bank of America. There's no other way to put it. Out of US rates strategy, He's aged in the last ten minutes. Mark Cabana joins us this morning. So I'm like refunding, so what, I don't care. Everybody's in a ladder. It comes out, and to me it was sort of I don't you know, I really don't care. Jenny Allen said, we're gonna do short paper. Yeah, we're gonna do long paper. But we're the United States. Our listeners are viewers who are not sophisticated. Do they need to fear the fiscal system of America? No, you shouldn't fear the fiscal system because the US economy is still going to be very robust. There will be buyers for treasury paper. It's just a matter of at what level will they step in, And we've had a relative lack of buying recently, but that's meant that yields have had to adjust, and as they've adjusted, that should incentivize more investors to think about owning bonds and we do think that rates are going to keep rising or they're going to stay elevated. Really, until you see one of two things. Number One, until you see the macro data slow, we don't think that you've really seen that yet. Or two until you see d risking, until you see investors who think, you know what rates are kind of high, really yields almost a two and a half percent at the tenure point. That's a decent own and maybe I should think about de risking in my portfolio. This is such a valuable conversation. Then I got to get to what we see on balance sheets right now, mark to market and the rest of it in bonds. But let's stay on this theme right now of our new higher yield regime. How far out are you in the longer? I mean, if take any given yield, any given spread, is there a cabana one year, is it a cabana three years? How do you see the regime of longer? Well, we just think that rates are going to have to stay higher for longer. Not to reiterate the Fed mantra, but we really believe it because we've seen an economy that's been so resilient in the face of relatively elevated interest rates. And as long as that happens, that just is going to mean that the f it doesn't have to cut for a while. Now, when I think about longer, I personally think about five years plus. Oh wow, okay, my attention, just because you know, most investors who really focus on liquidity and liquidity management, they think generally two years, three years. But when I think about intermediate to long end, I think about five years plus. Okay, And I'm going to invent this phrase right now. I haven't seen it anywhere else. I want to copyright on this if you use it. Is it normal for longer? Is that really what we're talking about, is we're back to a normal rate regime. Well, it's certainly we're back to a regime that looks a lot more similar to the pre financial crisis than the post financial crisis. You've got a five year window on that. So what maturity do you buy? I'm in cash, I'm really comfortable at Bank of America. What maturre do you buy given a five year normal for longer view? Well, it really depends upon what your overall investment horizon is and where your preferences are. We think that if you're focused at the front end, you probably we want to be neutral to slightly overweight your benchmark. And if you're a more long term investor, we think that you at best want to be neutral right now, and you want to stay neutral until you see those signs of feedback that tell you that higher interest rates are finally slowing the economy, not just one data point here or there, but in the tier one stuff in labor more clearly an inflation. You want to stay neutral until you see those signs, or until you believe that there's a clearer and more definitive negative feedback from risk assets, which I don't think that we have really seen sufficiently yet. I love to bust Brian moynihan's chops because he, like no other CEO, quotes his research staff and I'll go blah blah blah about Bonzi and his own Cabana says, So let's get the report from Cabana that you would give to Brian moynihan right now. I got balance sheets, nationwide, mark to market I get, and I got everything else with massive bond losses, priced down, yield up. Should our listeners and viewers be afraid of this non marked market garbage on balance sheets. Well, I think you're talking about bank balance sheets, and we do appreciate that. Brian reads our research. He's a staunch supporter, and we really do appreciate that. We think that what banks are doing right now is that they are really prizing liquidity. They really want to hold as much liquidity as possible. They're choosing to hold cash, they're keeping reserves with the FED, and they're not buying bonds, they're not buying treasuries or mortgages, and they're prizing liquidity because they know that they need to meet their outflow needs. They know that their securities book is not particularly liquid because it's so low in value. You don't want to sell and realize the loss. We saw what happened with some of the regional band. So what do you do? This is the key thing. So what do you do if you're a bank? What do you do if your bank? If you've got all this out there and you don't want to sell, just like you said, but things can happen, things can change. How do you process that reality? If you're a bank, what you're doing right now as you're holding that is the game. That's why the Fed shrunk their balance sheet through QT by a trillion dollars, and you've seen bank cash holdings not move down very much at all. They are bidding up on the liability side of the balance sheet. They're issuing CDs, time deposits, etc. To take in more money because they're seeing retail outflows. And then they're holding cash and they're going to continue to do that until they see signs that the economy is turning, until they know that their loan growth is really slowed down and maybe negative on a year over year six month average or whatnot. And they're gonna wait until the economy slows more meaningfully to extend out the curve and buy those bonds. Right now, banks are not buying duration. They've been shrinking their treasury and agency holdings, and they're going to wait to add duration until they see definitive signs that the economy is turned. And so again, what banks are doing right now, it's holding out liquidity because that is the most valuable thing that they seem to believe that what does holding out liquidity mean for mere mortals that can't hold out liquidity? Small business? Torsten Slocke at Apollo talks about ten percent small business loans as well. I saw a thirty one percent charge card the other day. It wasn't Bank of America, of course, thirty one percent charge card interest rate the other day. What does the public do given price down, yield up banks saying I'm scared stiff, I got a whole cash. Look, it's a tough time to be a borrower. I think we know that, right. It's tough time to move, it's a tough time to buy a home, it's a tough time to be a business if you need a loan. And that's exactly what monetary policy is trying to do, right, It's trying to slow down activity by reducing demand for loans and borrowing. And so if you're a small business and you do need a loan, well you need to think about, Okay, what other liquidity sources do I have? Can I draw on any other type of liquidity? And then you've got to ask yourself do I really need to expand? Do I need to make that next investment? And you got to make sure that you can clear a much higher hurdle rate in order to justify those costs. That's how monetary policy works. It should slow down activity through the lending channel, and to some extent we're seeing that, but it hasn't happened, I think to the extent of the FED, like Mark Commander, thank you so much. With the Bank of America joining us now to begin strong on this day of a Federal Reserve meeting is Dominic Constem. He's head of macro strategy at Mosile Americas. For years literally iconic Credit Suite were thrilled that doctor Constem could join us today. Dominica, I give you the phrase super restrictive. Is Jerome Powell's FED combined with market action a super restrictive FED. Well, yeah, in the context of the sustainability of the US consumer, and if you like the overhang of debts refinancing in the corporate sector really beginning in twenty twenty five, you know, clearing the front end is super restrictive, and it's going to have to get first quite aggressively. As some stage that the issue is a timing, and you know that timing has been pushed out because the consumer who's got great balance sheet, has decided that even as they spent all their fiscal excess that they were given after COVID, they're deciding to leverage up even with interest rates as high as they are, but they can do that because of the balance sheet, So that kind of delays the impact of this super restrictiveness, which is kind of a bit of a conungrum for the Fed. So that's the price for longer, not higher for longer, but just longer. What is the cost did your own power of a longer strategy at these levels? Well, I think what's happened in the last couple of months really has been that the Fed has decided that, you know, because effectively they are super restrictive, they didn't want to keep on pushing up short rates, you know, don't not quickly go to six percent. So they've emphasized this idea that they're just going to hold at a high level for that much longer. But ironically that directly feeds into a sell off in the back end, the idea that what we call term premium, this risk premium that's short rates you end up being higher than the equivalent tenor of a longer dated treasury. That's term premium that gets priced into the market, which is why you've had this enormous sort of bare steepening going on with the tens going up to close to five percent thirties, nifiing the corter, et cetera. And in a way that that's not a bad thing if you want to slow the economy, but because that will undermine and is undermining risk assets, and it will help to tighten financial conditions overall. So that's the impact of what the Fed is doing. There is a risk though, that they run because you get people concerned about the as you mentioned earlier, the refinancing of the Treasury. You know, when they decide to issue longer dated debts that now it is coming in at much higher interest rates, and you start worrying about a vicious circle where if you can't reduce a debt so through spending cuts, well you've got another problem because your interest service costs are going up at the same time. And that's kind of get people worried about this idea that Treasury isn't going to be able to sustainably fund itself down the road, particularly when you get those sort of you know, bigger issues coming up, the structural issues coming up that will mean higher deficits. There's always been a sort of uncomfortable tension, especially now between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, especially because the Treasury Department is helmed by the one and only Janet Yellen who used to head the FED. How much is a treasure you're going to try to game out the market and kind of give a helping hand to the Fed by not concentrating some of those debt sales in the longer end, sell tea bills and hold a pad and wait for things to normalize. Well, I mean, it's obviously a great question and issue. I mean, strictly speaking, I don't think Treasury really should gain things too much. You know, they're not really traders as such, and if they were, then you know, maybe God help us. I mean, the idea I think is is, you know, you do have rollover risk, so you know, no one really knows how quickly long term rates might might reverse, even if we go into some slowing you know, where is this sort of mutual rate It might you know, might be higher and maybe ten years trading around you know, five percent is the sort of new norm. So I think it wouldn't be appropriate for the Treasury to really try and game the markets or a near term and sort of second guests that short term rates are going to come crashing down and they'll be able to refinance themselves down the road by extending maturity later. So I think they'll they'll probably extend the duration. I think the estimates are kind of you know, you know, seem about right, this sort of one hundred and fourteen billion and putting it in coupons. And because of the announcement we had earlier in the week, they can cut bill supply bits. So that's our expectation and no gaining of it. Basically, a lot of people expect this to be a boring meeting, sibad or Jappa calling it a placeholder, Steven Linder saying, how many ways can you say we'll see? I mean, this is basically going to be a holding kind of pattern. And yet we see a dissonance growing where the market sees and escalating's chance of excelling, reaccelerating inflation. At the same time that the Feds kind of seeming to subtly agree with Janet Yella and saying that yields are going to go back down. Do you think they're going to bridge that gap today? Well, they could do. I mean they've always got the option to. I mean that there are a couple of interesting things going on. I mean, obviously this sell off in the long end is very interesting, and I think they can definitely address that in the conference call and basically say that's doing some of the work for them and be a bit more optimistic. They can also be actually, even though inflation has been a bit sticky on the very latest prints, they could be a bit more optimistic on that. We've done some background analysis on that, and the reason why inflation has been a bit stick is it's really been on the demand side, less on the supply side type thing. And I think that's encouraging because that's something a little bit more understandable and sort of indicative that, you know, the underlying trend lower is still in place for inflation, and obviously the global inflation picture has been looking a bit better, so I think they can basically, you know, I don't think it'll be an uninteresting meeting or press conference. It's just really a question of how far power wants to go down the road and try and sort of reassure markets. One interesting thing I always think is that you know, to what extent to the FED really anticipate or understand that their actions at the September meeting was going to lead to this sort of you know, near one hundred base on itseel off in the long end. I mean, it's been quite dramatic, And did they really expect that way? Yes, this is a question dominic and why this is outside your remit. But we've known each other for years, So I'm going to go from the macro of constant to commercial banking. Bernanky taught us at Princeton that financial structure and strength matters. I'm looking at the technical construct of the American banking system and I don't like what I see. Should the FED fold in what's happening to the banks right now? Should they today pay attention in their meetings to the weakness that we see in commercial banking equity prices? Absolutely? And I think the thing that so many people miss is they think that banks are kind of less important now than they were before because of alternative banking, you know, fintech, private equity, you know, other forms of leverage if you like, in the system that they people think seem to think, you know, credit is created elsewhere. Credit is that there's something called outside money, which is a central bank, and they start the credit creation process there's in something called inside money, which is the banking system, and they continue the credit creation process. And to be honest, that pretty much is where how credit is created. Money it can only be created by the FED and the banks to the bank multiplier. It cannot be created by private equity. They have to get their leverage from somewhere. And so I think you always have to go to the banking system, and you always have to focus on if the banks are kind of doing their job, even if the leverage overrule in the system is getting higher and higher, and the relatives of the banks, they're the ultimate ones who if they pull the plug, let alone the FED putting the plug, then the whole kind of system can start to implode. So I do think it's very important what's happening in the banks, and I think it's a big concern that obviously lending is slowing down. There is obviously regulation and there's some credit some cattle restrictions taking place, but that's all part of the cycle. And as long as the FED is there to pick up the pieces at the end of it, we're fine. But those pieces will need to be picked up. You sound like Alan Meltzer, the late Great Alan Meltzer, lender of letters. Who are dom I got thirty seconds? Are you concerned the massive shift from deposits to money market funds? Is that going to destabilize the system. Well, it's been a challenge, but to be fair, that TGA build up that the Treasury has done has actually come at the expense a lot of the money market funds and the repo there. So I think, you know, the Fed has actually managed this process relatively well with the help of the Treasury rebuilding TJA with all that bill issuance, so you know, you know, it's it's a relatively orderly process, but it's obviously something that you've got to keep watching. You don't want excess reserves to get too low in the banking system. Is that to Constant? Thank you so much, Dominic Constant with the Missouri Are they just a terrific brief Therey joining US doctor Wynn Thinn, global head of Currency Strategy around brothers Harriman win Thin. You were at the altar of Robert Mundel at Columbia who invented our international currency dynamics. Is there a theory to what Japan is doing? Are they making up original theory? Well, first of all, thanks, thanks, as always a pleasure to appear here with you guys. To me, it's an experiment, it's an ongoing experiment. You know, Japan has been fighting deflation for decades and they've thrown everything at the wall to see what sticks. The latest iteration was negative rates and he locor control and by hooker, by crooked, it's it's finally getting out of deflation. It's obviously the positive makers are very nervous there getting you know, starting these poses is the easy part. Getting out of them is always the hard part. We saw the FED struggle with getting out of q back after a great financial crisis. So what we've been seeing unfold over the last year is just a really haphazard so again throwing stuff at the wall to see what works. It's been again more out of fear and concern than anything else. They don't want to upset the opera card that the recovery is, by many measures, you know, quite modest and vulnerable, and so that's what we're seeing. I do think that that Japan will exit accommodations fully in early times, and by that I mean a ray hike. Why should our why should our viewers and listeners care in the Western world, it just seems to be removed and over there. For example, comparing the yuan the ren menbi in China to Japanese. Yeah, and even with we you want versus a dollar, it's studying how weak the Japanese yen is versus ren memby. Why do I care in America? Well, I think, as you guys pointed out just earlier in the segment, Japanese investors have been have been basically leaving Japan and chasing yield and returns elsewhere. And that's because of the zero rate interest policy and heal com control. Domestic eiels aren't attractive enough. So we've seen massive capital outflows of Japan over the last years, if not decades. If we get that infection point where things change and actually rates are allowed to go back to market based levels, I think the fear of at least in Japan and others, is that that wave of capital will come back from crashing back. And already seen announcements some of the Japanese life insurers that they planned the second half of this fiscal year to underweight foreign investments, foreign bonds and overweight jgb's in anticipation of normalization. So there's also the capital flow stories that I think, you know, coming in a time when we don't know what the Fed's doing, we don't know what's going on in Europe with the Middle East. It's just another sort of added uncertainty that Marcus had that jests and I think that's what I think investors in general are worried about. It's almost deliberate ambiguity. Is deliberate ambiguity by the Bank of Japan going to actually create some sort of soft gradual increase in yields and some sort of controlled departure from yaled curve control. Yeah, yeah, at least I think that's what we're seeing. In fact, in my opinion, Yeald curve control is dead. It's deader than Elvis right now, as far as I can tell, they've they've introduced this ambiguity where it's now one percent is now reference point. Who knows what that means. So the market will will prod and tested the Bank of Japan not just on heels but also on the dollary in and it's gonna be a cat and mouse game. But really, for all intents and purposes, jgbills are going up. They have been going up. They will continue go up. We'll go above that one percent sort of reference point within days, and you know the upside I think natural sort of target for the markets. Where we go from there well dependent what's going on in other global market, especially US treasuries. But again, this is normal. This is you know, we've been it's very what I would say, an abnormal period. And it's been going on for decades in Japan of zero rates, negative rates, year clear control and it's abnormal. And I think that they're trying to exit that, but are obviously very very scared of the ramification at least some moments ago, the d X y unraveling. Right now one oh six point ninety one, we're really buttressed up here against the one oh seven on DXY and is clearly yet led by en dynamics. And this goes like the banking stocks. I'm sorry, you just have to look at the Bloomberg screen and it's screaming a certain level of tension out there this morning without being you know, a toxic brew of gloom. I mean, it's just the markets are speaking before this FED meeting, and it's not all the managed message of the elites. When to that point. How disruptive is the fact that the dollar has continued to strengthen and not weaken as so many people thought this year. Well and for the for the US, it's good because the stronger currency helps to limit important inflation. What we were seeing particularly stress is with emerging markets, especially in Asia, that's being double whemmed by the yen, n by the dollar. But basically we've seen many many emerging market center banks intervene to help support their own currency. We've seen surprise rate hikes, we saw that from Indonesia last month, and we've also seen countries that are cutting weights slow. They're easy because the currencies are coming under pressure. So it's to me it's really a toxic root for emerging markets. That is a height height money conditions in the US, slowing global growth slow in China, and easing cycles in emerging markets, and that's all to be a very toxic row for emerging market currency. You should have seen Tom King's face when you said toxic brew. His ears perked up and he was fully into Robert Mondel used to say, Robert Mandel would be in a lecture and he say, look, you know the Mundell triangulation and in partically ununified currency. It's one big time. This is a difficult time because people have been throwing around people have it thrown around where it's like toxic brew for quite a while. And yet we have been in a sort of uneasy equilibrium all year that's really been tapped off by a US dynamism. You go, what do you mean? I don't think it's been an an easy equilibrium. I think the markets are talking here. You know, I'm going back and forth, Doug cass here on the banks, you can rationalize us all you want. Yen one Fifty's why we're talking to win thin so win way in on that. Are things breaking down in a more material way that'll lead to more traumatic moves in effects. Well, I think was the main driver that's really taking anyone by surprise. This is the continued strength of the US economy and by that extension the US dollar, the FED and all that. I'm of the opinion that the Fed will probably get us into a recession next year. But I don't look for anything quote unquote break by break, we mean like a financial crisis, banking crisis some sort. We had to scare back in March with SVB but we found that was, you know, to me, an idiosyncratic situation with SVB and signature. So to me, you know, all the stress tests suggest that that the global financials remains fairly resilient. Now look, that's like we all know that. That doesn't mean you know, a whole lot when when when push comes to show. But I do think that we are sorting this post gred financial crisis uh so situation where yes, the institutions and and overseers and regulators are all sort of on the same page and and hopefully uh willing and able to head off a crisis. Now, well we see pockets of stress. You know, we've had frontier markets blowing up, emerging markets or Canade remain in the stress look UK, uh Europe or into recession. But you know, nothing again, nothing sort of broken. This is sort of a normal thing. I used. I'll leave this, you know with the final thought is that, let's say, normal sort of situation terms of down town going too faster in the US, that's hiking, We're gonna slow, we maybe go into recession, but then the whole cycle starts over. It's not something to worry about. I've got to leave it there. Doctor, Thank you so much, he says Brown Brothers Harriman. There's been an issue in the US side of things, first of all how deeply the US troops will get involved, but also how much aid can actually get passed to go towards supporting both Israel and Ukraine, which no one is talking about. Jennifer Flytt and covering all of this fantastic guests to really analyze it for US head of US Government Affairs at INVESCO, Jennifer, what do you make of this split that we've seen with the House proposing a separate bill to fund Israel that yesterday President Biden said, Vito right, he issued a veto threat. That's correct. Yesterday. We're going to see what the House can do. I think it's still an open question if they have the support because they have paired the Israeli funding with an offset that directly sort of impacts that Inflation Reduction Act and of the irs, and so they will lose the vast majority of Democrats. Could they gain a couple while they lose a few of their own Republicans? I think that's the question, and we'll see that play out on Thursday. What does it tell you about the nature of funding agreements. If funding Israel comes at the expense of cutting the agency served with collecting taxes, well, first, I would say this is an opening salvo for the House because they will have to negotiate no matter what with the Senate. Schumer has the majority leader in the Senate, has already stated that this is dead on arrival, so there is an expectation that there will be further negotiation. But when it comes to offsets, this is a reflection of what is happening in America right now with regard to our own domestic debt our, own deficits that we're running right now. And that's what Republicans and their districts really feel a need to answer to. Jennifer. I believe it is November first. Count it down sixteen days to November seventeenth. It's been left in the debris. We've forgotten about November seventeenth. Give us a brief of the importance of November seventeenth inside the Beltleigh, it is coming upon us very quickly. That is an excellent point and it is not lost on most members. Also, most members that want to get Ukraine funding through the House, Republican and Democratic members and the Continuing Resolution, which is that stop gap that runs out on November seventeenth that has to be extended. The Ukraine funding may have to ride on that continuing resolution. However, they work it out and we'll see that over the next week. They're currently drafting another continuing resolution in the House. Jennifer, there's real dissonance and a headline Stiffe been reading and I am trying to square them. I'd love your help. Basically, on one side, you see the fight that's escalating in Congress, it's escalating with the White House over how to get financing to back these efforts. And then on the other hand, we're talking about US troops potentially being in Gaza indefinitely after the war to keep some sort of peace. What is the appetite in the United States to have a protracted role in some of these conflicts that seem pretty intractable right now? That's right. I think there are a number of steps though that we have to get to first, right because US troops are in the region, of course, they are in Iraq there in Yemen. This was discussed a little bit at the hearing yesterday with Secretary of Blincoln and Secretary of defense Austin. They have been attacked over the last week two weeks. They have had to retaliate in those attacks, and the expectation is to deter further escalation. That I think is the immediate issue before we get to the longer term issues in Gaza. Israel is able to contain that area. There's also a really short term kind of issue with respect to President Biden's approval rating in some of the swing states. And there was a poll that recently came out that more than fifty percent of Muslim Americans used to support President Biden and now a fewer than twenty percent currently do. How significantly is this going to color the entire debate next year? That's an excellent point. I think the tension there within the Democrat Democratic Party and seeing some of those polls, but even seeing the streets right, I mean, we've seen the protrust across America, not just among Arab and Muslim Americans, but also with young people, young progressives on college campuses, and they do see that as a threat. So how they're going to diplomatically work within their own party and their own voters. I think we're starting to see that play out. Jennifer Thank you so much. Jennifer flintne with this with Invesco there on Washington and the war in the Eastern Mediterranean. Subscribe to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Listen live every weekday starting at seven am Eastern. I'm Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app tune In, and the Bloomberg Business app. You can watch us live on Bloomberg Television and always I'm the Bloomberg Terminal. Thanks for listening. I'm Tom Keen, and this is BloombergSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Your morning briefing. The news you need in just 15 minutes. On today's podcast: 1) US forces conducted strikes on two facilities in eastern Syria it believes were used by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and affiliated groups, in response to attacks on American troops in the region. 2) Taylor Swift's Eras tour has generated as much money as the economies of small countries. The movie version is ruling the box office. Her new recording of a nine-year-old album, 1989, is expected to be one of the hottest-selling records of the year. 3) A massive manhunt is underway in Maine for a suspect in a mass shooting that left 18 people dead and 13 injured at a bowling alley and a restaurant in Lewiston, the state's second-largest city. 4) Amazon Chief Executive Officer Andy Jassy gave investors much of what they wanted this earnings season: robust sales and profit growth along with a hint that the cloud division earnings machine is regaining momentum.5) The Buffalo Bills beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in Thursday Night Football     Full Transcript:     00:02Speaker 1Good morning. I'm Nathan Hager and I'm Amy Morris. Here are the stories we're following today. Amy, we begin with breaking developments in the war in the Middle East. The US has now conducted military strikes, and we get more from Bloomberg's Rosalind mathieson the US has struck two targets, they say inside Syria. They say they were aiming at Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard and basically a warning again to some of these proxy groups that are operating in the region potential on behalf of Iran, because what we've seen is an escalation the pattern of attacks or targeting of US military assets in the region. Bloomberg's Rosalind Mathison says Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is characterized in the US strikes as separate and distinct from the Israel Hamas war, and Nathan the strikes come as Iran's born minister warned the US won't be spared if the war between Israel and Hamas spreads. Born Minister Hossain Amir abdo Lahi and delivered the threat in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. We do not welcome to expansion of the war in the region, but are you all If the genocide in Gasse continues, they will not be spared from this fire. The comments by Iran's foreign minister comes as Israel says it sent troops on a limited raid into Gaza for the second straight night. Now amy to the latest on the deadly mass shooting in Maine, an intense search continues for Robert Card, the forty year old Army reservist accused of killing eighteen people inside a bowling alley and bar in the city of Lewiston. The city's mayor, Carl Shalen, is telling people to stay off the streets. This is the time for action, solidarity and support. Please take note the shelter and place order issued by the Lewiston Police Department remains in effect. Please stay at home and be safe. Lewiston Mayor Carl Shalen says much of the focus has been one of cards relatives' homes in the rural town of Boden f Behind. Other agents surrounded the property, ordering anyone in Scientist surrender after several hours, though state police said it was not clear if anyone had been there. The newly anointed Speaker of the House is commenting about the latest deadly shooting. Mike Johnson does not think it's a gun problem the end of the day, it's the problem is the human heart. It's not guns, not the weapons. At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves and that's the Second Amendment and that's why our party sends show strongly for that. Speaker Johnson made the comments in an interview with Fox's Sean Hennity and said that now is not the time for new gun laws. I Meanwhile, Amy the House passed its first major piece of legislation since Johnson became Speaker, and it flies in the face of President Biden's emphasis on energy efficiency. Bloomberg zed Baxter has the story. It cuts into the Inflation Reduction Act, which incentivized homeowners to switch to more energy efficient appliances, and into money that helps stage craft more stringent building energy codes. The effect of this which strip billions of dollars put aside for consumer rebates. Speaker Mike Johnson in the past has criticized the spending on climate and clean energy measures as green energy slush funds. It's not expected to pass the Senate or get a Biden's signature ad Baxter Bloomberg Radio, Thank you ed Now. An update on the trial of Sam Bankman Freed. The FDx founder, spent almost three hours trying to convince a judge to allow him to testify to a jury about the role lawyers played in the collapse of the crypto exchange. Bloomberg's Bob van Vories is covering the case in Lower Manhattan. He spent the entire afternoon on the spand but he was previewing testimony that he wants to give relating to advice that he got from lawyers. So Judge Kaplan is listened to the testimony. It's going to rule in the morning. What the jury gets to hear. They got sent home after lunch. Bloomberg's Bob van Voris says, Bank and Freed's team is trying to show many of the transactions are the subject of criminal charges conducted in the full view of lawyers. Turning to markets, Amy Watch and shares of Amazon, they are hired by more than five percent in early trading. The company gave investors a lot of what they wanted this earning season, robust sales and profit growth, along with a hint that the cloud division earnings machine is regaining momentum. Matthew Bloxham is a tech analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. They are the leader in cloud, so there's a huge number of corporates who already use them for cloud, and those corporates are all scrambling to get into the genes of AI space, so they're kind of looking to train models and use them in applications. Bloomberg Intelligence, as Matt Bloxham says, cloud unit sales increase twelve percent. More than twenty three billion dollars. Shares of Intel also on the move, up nearly eight percent. The chip maker is predicting a return to sales growth in the fourth quarter. Intel says it's being fueled by an improving personal computer market and a more competitive product line. Turning to the economy, Amy Janet Yellen says the surgeon treasury yields is tied to the strength of the economy rather than the widening fiscal deficit. We spoke with the Treasury Secretary in Washington. We're seeing yields go up in most advanced countries. Part of the increase in yields, I think is simply a reflection of the strength of the economy the notion that interest rates will be higher for longer. Secretary Yellen says the trends that had produced low levels for yields before the pandemic are still there. For the full conversation, head to our Bloomberg Talks podcast feed find it wherever you get your podcasts. And right now we find the tenure treasury yield at four point eight six percent, the two years at five point zero four, and futures are surging. This morning, this is Bloomberg Time now to take a look at some of the other stories making news in New York and around the world. For that, I'm joined by Bloomberg's Michael Barr. Good morning, Michael, Good morning, Nathan. Representative George Santos's scheduled to be a rain this morning on more charges filed earlier this month. According to prosecutor, Santos allegedly stole identities and made purchases on the credit cards of his donors. Meanwhile, there is a push from New York Republicans to expel Santos from Congress. Representative Anthony Desposito says Santos is not fit to serve as constituents. As a United States representative people have seen over the last ten months what a fraud he is. I mean, you know, you read either indictment, there's a clear outline that lays out the fabrications, the lies, the manipulation of donors and others that he has committed over the last year or longer. Audio courtesy of Forbes. D Esposito's resolution would need two thirds of the House to expel the Long Island Congressman. Meanwhile, Santos, who says he will not step down, responded on social media saying that he is entitled to due process and not a predetermined outcome as some are seeking. The NYPD is on high alerts in case the suspected main mass shooter tries to enter the tri state area. While there is no evidence that suspect Robert Card is coming to New York, it comes at a time when already counter terrorism officers are on the streets because of the crisis in the Middle East, and MYPD Commissioner Rebecca Winer, we don't see any neccess to New York City with this incident, tragic as it was, but we've been saying this a lot over the last couple of weeks, and we always do we urge all New Yorkers to continue to go about your business, but to remain alert to your surroundings. Commissioner Winer join Mayor Eric Adams at a news conference to discuss safety in the city. Amid the active search for card There will be more than one hundred car free streets to keep trick or treaters safe in New York City this Halloween. The Trick or Streets Initiative is being expanded to give access to pedestrians for safe spaces across the five boroughs. The initiative that kicked off October fourteenth at fifteen locations, where we expanded starting tomorrow, Global news twenty four hours a day and whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now. I'm Michael Barr. This is Bloomberg Natha Tricker Streets. That's a great idea. Thank you, Michael. Now great news because we do bring you news throughout the day here on Bloomberg Radio. But now you can get the latest news on demand whenever you want it. Subscribe to Bloomberg News Now to get the latest headlines at the click of a button. Get informed on your schedule, Listen and subscribe to Bloomberg News now on the Bloomberg Business app, Bloomberg dot com, plus Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. Time now for the Bloomberg Sports Update, brought to you by tri State Outy. Good morning, John stash Hour, Good morning. Eighth in this world series with two unlikely teams begins tonight. Both Arizona and Texas lost over one hundred games just two years ago. Both snuck into the postseason as a wild card, but are nine and three allthough. The Rangers are one and three at home eight no on the road. Ain't arly. They start Nathan Evaldi, who's four and oh in the postseason. The Diamondbacks start Zach Gallon. The Bills are four and oh. In Buffalo, they never trailed, beat the Bucks twenty four to eighteen. Josh Allen threw for two touchdowns ran for another. The Jets and Giants first played each other in nineteen seventy Sunday's game only the fifteenth regular season meeting ever. Giants lead the series eight to six. Jets have won the last two. Last Giants win was twenty eleven. They won the Super Bowl that year. Here's Jets coach Rob Sala. I'm excited about You said it's once every four years. Maybe there's a crossover now at the seventeenth game. But you know, I think it's really cool for the fans. I think it's great for sports talk radio and all the different newspaper outlets and all that. But you know, it's a championship opportunity. You know, a lot of respect for them. They've got a tremendous history of Salla's backup running back is veteran Dalvin Cook plays behind Breeze Hall. Cook says he's frustrated being the backup, might want a trade before next week's deadline. A five game road trip for the Rangers. They won the first three and of a lot only two goals the shutout for Jonathan Quick and Edmonton. Rangers won three nothing. Islanders beat Atawa three two. Damian Lillard's first game for the Bucks in Milwaukee port in thirty nine points and a one point win over the Sixers. The Lakers, bree Phoenix Nixon Nets began with losses at home. They're on the road tonight, Nicks in Atlanta. Nets are in Dallas. They'll face the X next. Tyler RD Johns, Dashawl Bloomberg Sports Nathan. All right, John, Thanks. Bloomberg Sports is brought to you by Audi. Don't let someone else drive off in the Audi model you've always wanted. Visit your local Tri state AUDI dealer to get behind the wheel of yours today, or visit audioffers dot com for more information. A debrief on the Israel Hamas War. Next, we're gonna check in with Bloomberg's Israel Bureau chief Ethan Brunner in Tel Aviv, from coast to coast, from New York to San Francisco, Boston to Washington, DC, nationwide on Syrias XAM, the Bloomberg Business app in Bloomberg dot com. This is Bloomberg Daybreak. Good morning, I'm Nathan Hager. The world is watching for the next phase in the Israel Hamas War. Israel has carried out ground rates in Gaza for a second straight night, and now the US is targeting are striking targets in Syria that it says have been used by Iran and its proxy groups for the latest We are joined by Bloomberg's Israel Bureau chief Ethan Bronner in Tel Aviv. Ethan, good morning. What more can we say now about this latest military activity, not just by Israel but now apparently the United States. Yes, well, I mean, what we can say is that these are a small piece of evidence of the risk of a spreading conflict, of the fact that Iranian proxies around the region, not just Hamas in Gaza, are at work, and that a combined force of Israel in the United States seeking to sort of keep them in their place, as it were, as opposed to letting it get truly out of hand. The Americans have absolutely heightened their military profile in the region. The Eisenhower is on the way to the Eastern metag should be here by Monday. There's a whole bunch of Patriot missiles, a whole bunch of troops as well, and Israel is trying to decide what it's going to do in Gaza. I think it's become an increasingly anguished decision because of those two hundred plus hostages, because of the concern that victory is hard to define, and because even though people are humiliated and furious about what happened in October seventh, the question of how many casualties Israel truly wants to take in this far from clear. And to that point, Ethan there has to be some thinking on the Israeli part about how to continue to keep Allied support given how fierce the response has been on the Israeli side following that October seventh attack by Hamas. Look, I think that's true, I mean absolutely. I wrote a story a couple of days ago about the sense that Israel has that it is increasingly alone in its view of the legitimacy of what it's doing. It's not alone alone, and that the United States has been a standing shoulder or shoulder with it. The Europeans have come through and have said, we feel your pain, we understand, we agree AMAS is a terrible organization needs to be dismantled. But what does that really mean? And at what cost? And what about these seven thousand dead people in Gaza? And I think even the United States feels a way, and even people in Israel to some extent are beginning to ask what does it mean to do? What is the right thing to do? And I don't think they've figured it out. There is a sense here that unless AMAS is ultimately dismantled, that that life here will not be tolerable, that people will not stay, people not live along the border, and that is not something that's acceptable. But what does it mean on what time and what time frame Israel needs to do this, I think is the key. In addition to the concern that Hisbella and other Iranian back groups could enter the frame and at the same time, Ethan, we've heard from Israel that the strikes that have been carried out have continued to take out HUMAS leadership. I think one of the latest reports was that a deputy director of HUMAS has been killed in one of the latest strikes. Is there a sense that taking out the leadership is achieving some of the objectives that Israel is setting out here? Well, I mean, I don't know that we're there yet. That's absolutely Israel's contention. And they've set up, in fact, within the security system a kind of a squad that's going to take it upon itself over the next year or two or three to take guys out who've led HUMAS, whether they're in Gaza or in Katar, or in Lebanon or in Turkey. There's a kind of assassination squad that's been set up, and they're also going after them inside. Does it make a difference, It must make a difference, But you know, they're spread around. There are a lot of them, and it's very hard to the impression one gets at the moment is that it's sort of middle management that they've been able to get, not the top guys. So I don't know how big a difference it's making. Appreciate you coming back on with us, Ethan, and keeping us up to speed on all the developments that have been happening in the Israel Humas War now with these US strikes into Syria as well. Ethan Browner are Israel bureau chief for Bloomberg News, joining us this morning from Tel Aviv. And now we want to turn to a conversation with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. She joined Bloomberg Washington Bureau chief Peggy Collins for a wide ranging conversation after we saw a third quarter GDP in the US grow at its fastest pace in nearly two years. Secretary Yellen talked about that blowout economic figure as well as rising bond yields and geopolitical risks. Let's go to part of that discussion. Now, it's a good strong number and it shows an economy that's doing very well. Let's remember it is just one quarter's number, and I'm not expecting a growth at that pace to continue. But we do have good, solid growth. You know, probably the year will come in close to two and a half. I wouldn't be surprised if we see that we have solid job creation, a low unemployment rate, increased engagement in the labor force, inflation's coming down, and you don't really see any sign of recession here. I have to say, I've been saying for a long time that I believed there was a path to bring inflation down in the context of a strong labor market. Frankly, it's only it's about a year ago since I believe a Bloomberg model predicted that by October of twenty twenty three. Now, namely that you saw at the odds of recession at one hundred percent. I don't think we have that. You know, what we have looks like is soft landing with very good outcomes for the US economy. So I think there's a lot to be pleased to beat. And you see good strong consumer spending. Consumers still have substantial wealth. I think it's supporting good strong spending and the economy is doing well, and I think US growth is making a contribution to stronger global outcomes as well. So I want to ask you a little bit about the rise in yields that we've seen. We've seen yield surging over the last few weeks. The ten year treasury rose above five percent earlier this week. What's your view on what is driving that surgeon yields and how much of it is connected to investors' concerns about the US deficit. Well, I don't think much of it is connected to that. This is a global phenomenon in advanced countries where seeing yields go up in most advanced countries of the world largely, I think it's a reflection of the resilience that people are seeing in the US economy, that we're not having a recession, that consumer spending and demand continue to be strong, The economy is continuing continuing to show tremendous robustness, and that suggests that interest rates are likely to stay higher for longer. And so part of the increase in yields I think is simply a reflection of the strength of the economy, the notion that interest rates will be higher for longer. Now, whether or not that's really true if we look at five or ten years, what are interest rates likely to do? Honestly, for a very long time, we've felt that interest rates over decades had been coming down real interest rates, and there were deep structural reasons for that, in part relating to demographics and those underlying trends. They're still there, they're still in force. So I think it's perfectly possible that we will see longer term yields come down, but nobody really knows for sure. But I see the higher yields as certainly importantly a reflection for stronger economy. I know you took a trip to China in big to Beijing this summer. You've been talking about how our policy should really be around de risking or diversifying rather than decoupling. But what do you think is the current status of that. Do you think the Chinese have adopted that and feel like they can trust us on that front, or do you think they still really think that we're in a competition with them first and foremost. So, I mean we've articulated a strategy. As you said, it involves de risking in some areas where we're overly dependent on China, and clean energy is a good example. We also intend to focus on national security. That's an area that we're not willing to compromise on, and so we have We do have export controls. We continue to review them with We're working on a set of restrictions on outbound investment to China. We've discussed this with them and put out a proposal that's in the public domain. I think comments just closed on it. But our objective there is to target what we do as narrowly as possible so that it really focuses on national security, that it is not an intention in that to harm the prospects of Chinese economic development and the welfare of the Chinese people. With the Israel Hamas war happening in the Middle East, I think there's a concern by some that the war could spread or expand to broader in the region. I know that that's not your base case, but if that was to happen, could you walk us through your wrist scenario for what that might mean to the global economy. My focus is, I look now at what's happening to the Middle East. Really is the tragedy, the human tragedy that's taking place with the Israelis have suffered, and of course we're worried about casualties in Gaza as Israel pursues its war against Tamas. So far, I would say we've not yet seen much that has global consequences. What could happen if the war expands. Of course, there could be more meaningful consequences, but I think it's premature to speculate against about those, and I think our focus should be keeping this contained and not spreading. And that was the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, speaking with Bloomberg's Peggy Collins from our Washington newsroom. You could hear that entire conversation on the Bloomberg Talks podcast. Download the show in all of our high profile discussions wherever you get your podcasts. Finally, amy more proof that the Taylor Swift era is alive and well. Taylor Swift's eras tours generated as much money as the economies of small countries. The movie version is ruling the box office. New recording of a nine year old album, nineteen eighty nine, just dropped at midnight tonight and is expected to be one of the hottest selling records of the year. Now Taylor Swift's net worth has catapulted her past the billion dollar mark. The calculation by Bloomberg News takes into account the following, the estimated value of Taylor Swift's music catalog and her five homes, as well as earnings from streaming deals, music sales, concert tickets, and merchandise. This is Bloomberg Daybreak Today, your morning brief on the stories making news from Wall Street to Washington and beyond. Look for us on your podcast feed by six am Eastern each morning, on Apple, Spotify, and anywhere else you get your podcasts. You can also listen live each morning starting at five am Wall Street time on Bloomberg eleven three to zero in New York, Bloomberg ninety nine to one in Washington, Bloomberg one oh six to one in Boston, and Bloomberg ninety sixty in San Francisco. Our flagship New York station is also available on your Amazon Alexa devices. Plus listen coast to coast on the Bloomberg Business app, serious XM Channel one nineteen, the iHeartRadio app, and on Bloomberg dot Com. I'm Nathan Hager and I'm Amy Morris. Join us again tomorrow morning for all the news you need to start your day Right here on Bloomberg day BreakSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

US government officials from President Biden to Secretary Yellen think the US can fund endless wars, but the American people are suffering in reality. Original Article: No, We Cannot Afford to Fund Yet Another War

US government officials from President Biden to Secretary Yellen think the US can fund endless wars, but the American people are suffering in reality. Narrated by Millian Quinteros.

US government officials from President Biden to Secretary Yellen think the US can fund endless wars, but the American people are suffering in reality. Original Article: No, We Cannot Afford to Fund Yet Another War

US government officials from President Biden to Secretary Yellen think the US can fund endless wars, but the American people are suffering in reality. Original Article: No, We Cannot Afford to Fund Yet Another War

On today's Macrocast, Ylan, John Fagan, and Brendan are joined by John Dick of Civic Science. The group chats about the latest consumer data from the ESI, which indicates  that consumers might be "coming back to reality" as some are trading down for purchase categories like going out to eat. Despite the decrease in the overall consumer sentiment in the ESI reading, the group notes that some retailers had very positive second quarter earnings calls.Later in the episode, they also discuss the minutes from the latest FOMC meeting, the biggest challenges currently impacting China's economy, and Secretary Yellen's recent trip to China. You won't want to miss this one!Check out more information about the ESI and this week's update here.

Credit ratings agency Fitch this week issued a surprise downgrade of the U.S. government's once vaunted AAA credit rating. Recent political brinksmanship surrounding the debt ceiling helped prompt the move. But broader concerns about the size and sustainability of the national debt itself also figured into the downgrade. | Do you own precious metals you would rather not sell, but need access to cash? Get Started Here: https://www.moneymetals.com/gold-loan

In this episode of the ChinaPower Podcast, we are joined by Professor Meg Rithmire to discuss U.S.-China economic relations and Secretary Janet Yellen's recent visit to Beijing. Professor Rithmire explains that the main goal of Secretary Yellen's visit was to convey the United States' willingness to discuss difficult issues with Beijing and that the United States does not seek to contain or decouple with China. She explains China's internal economic challenges and details that, in China's perspective, its economic challenges can be tied to U.S. trade restrictions. The future of U.S.-China economic relations is still fragile and a long way from stable, Professor Rithmire argues, but both sides are attempting to make improvements by having more frequent meetings.  Professor Meg Rithmire is an associate professor in the Business, Government, International Economy Unit at the Harvard Business School. She is also a faculty associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, the Fairbank Center for East Asian Studies at Harvard, and the Harvard Faculty Committee on Southeast Asia. Professor Rithmire's primary expertise is in the comparative political economy development with a focus on China and Asia. Her work focuses on China's role in the world, including Chinese outward investment and lending practices and economic relations between China and other countries, especially the United States. 

Are your China investments safe? Three witnesses at a House hearing reveal the pitfalls of doing business in China. Curious about the real risks of doing business in China? One of the most connected businessmen in the country shares his biggest lessons. Secretary Yellen gets back to traveling, with India and Vietnam trips planned after her recent return from Beijing. And the battle against fentanyl: what's the biggest obstacle? U.S. officials reveal a hidden force behind the deadly crisis. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

Newt Gingrich- Biden Admin ‘Enormously Dangerous' to the Survival of U.S. and Say Goodbye to the Crappy Little Ships   Biden admin is ‘enormously dangerous' to the survival of America: Newt Gingrich Watch this news clip at- https://youtu.be/dB8YNrfbD_E Fox News 10.5M subscribers 242,367 views Jul 9, 2023 #foxnews Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute Gordon Chang discuss Secretary Yellen's controversial trip to China in an effort to ease tensions. #foxnews Subscribe to Fox News! https://bit.ly/2vBUvAS Watch more Fox News Video: http://video.foxnews.com Watch Fox News Channel Live: http://www.foxnewsgo.com/ FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most-watched television news channel for 18 consecutive years. According to a 2020 Brand Keys Consumer Loyalty Engagement Index report, FOX News is the top brand in the country for morning and evening news coverage. A 2019 Suffolk University poll named FOX News as the most trusted source for television news or commentary, while a 2019 Brand Keys Emotion Engagement Analysis survey found that FOX News was the most trusted cable news brand. A 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey also found that among Americans who could name an objective news source, FOX News was the top-cited outlet. Owned by FOX Corporation, FNC is available in nearly 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre. Watch full episodes of your favorite shows The Five: https://www.foxnews.com/video/shows/t... Special Report with Bret Baier: https://www.foxnews.com/video/shows/s... Jesse Watters Primetime: https://www.foxnews.com/video/shows/j... Hannity: https://www.foxnews.com/video/shows/h... The Ingraham Angle: https://www.foxnews.com/video/shows/i... Gutfeld!: https://www.foxnews.com/video/shows/g... Fox News @ Night: https://www.foxnews.com/video/shows/f... Follow Fox News on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/ Follow Fox News on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/ Follow Fox News on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/foxnews/   https://youtu.be/vhvV21P_ygc Say Goodbye to the Crappy Little Ships Bill Whittle 187K subscribers 17,670 views Jun 26, 2023 In the early 2000's the Littoral Combat Ship looked like the future for the US Navy: small, relatively inexpensive, and designed for 'brown-water' operations close to shore. But it soon became ever more apparent that the LCS was not able to survive in the modern naval environment, and so in the face of a growing Chinese navy the USN has decided to retire some three dozen of what many of their crews referred to as the Little Crappy Ships. Their replacement, while little, does not seem to be very crappy at all. Join our elite squad of anti-elitists by becoming a Citizen Producer today: https://billwhittle.com/register/ Please ignore the following search engine terms: LCS Littoral Combat Ship Crappy Little Ship Constellation Frigate Burke Destroyer Freedom Independence Brown Water Blue Water US Navy China Chinese Navy.   Also watch - Kelly Meggs Is Being Housed In Solitary Confinement By The Absolute Truth with Emerald Robinson, 30 June, 2023 https://frankspeech.com/video/kelly-meggs-being-housed-solitary-confinement

It's an important week overseas, as 31 world leaders, including President Biden, head to Vilnius, Lithuania to attend a NATO summit. As the war on Ukraine surpasses the 500-day mark, the group will likely focus on how they can continue effectively aiding Ukrainian allies and potentially increasing the group's military spending to defeat Russia. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has returned from a trip to Beijing, where she bowed several times to a Chinese official — a move many condemned, claiming it demonstrated subservience on behalf of America. House Intelligence Committee Chairman and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Congressman Mike Turner, has been heavily tuned into everything happening overseas. He joins the Rundown to discuss what he believes the key topics will be at this week's NATO Summit, why there's broad bipartisan agreement that the U.S. should continue aiding Ukraine, and his reaction to Secretary Yellen's recent “disappointing” trip to China. Kelsi Sheren enlisted in the Canadian Army at just 19 years old and eventually reached her goal of serving her country in Afghanistan. Her service experience in the Middle East left her with post-traumatic stress disorder and battling suicidal thoughts after being sent home because of her deteriorating mental health. Sheren says she still has her struggles with PTSD every day, but she has turned her pain into passion. On the Rundown, she shares the details of how her mental health journey led her to create a successful jewelry business, her advocacy on behalf of veterans for better support and resources, and talks about her new book, Brass & Unity: One Woman's Journey Through the Hell of Afghanistan and Back. Plus, commentary by FOX News contributor Deroy Murdock. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On "EWTN News Nightly" tonight: Pope Francis has named 21 new cardinals. They will be installed at the Vatican at the end of September. EWTN Vatican Correspondent, Colm Flynn has more. Meanwhile, as the war in Ukraine continues with prospects for peace appearing dim, President Joe Biden is in Lithuania for a NATO summit looking to crank up the pressure on Moscow and Vladimir Putin after 16 months of a grueling, horrific war. And US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has wrapped up her trip to China. Secretary Yellen said the US will listen to Chinese complaints about curbs on US technology imports and concerns on Washington's actions. Author Gordon Chang joins to share his thoughts on Secretary Yellen's trip. President Biden is continuing to trumpet Bidenomics. It is his term for the Administration's help for families to improve their financial situation, but a recent major poll shows less than 40% of Americans approve of the president's handling of the economy. Finally this evening, in Kansas, a judge has ruled that on driver's licenses the only option for gender are male and female. Opponents say the ruling will cause immediate harm to the transgender community. Director of the Independent Women's Forum's Center for Progress and Innovation, Julie Gunlock, joins to share her thoughts on that decision. Don't miss out on the latest news and analysis from a Catholic perspective. Get EWTN News Nightly delivered to your email: https://ewtn.com/enn

It's an important week overseas, as 31 world leaders, including President Biden, head to Vilnius, Lithuania to attend a NATO summit. As the war on Ukraine surpasses the 500-day mark, the group will likely focus on how they can continue effectively aiding Ukrainian allies and potentially increasing the group's military spending to defeat Russia. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has returned from a trip to Beijing, where she bowed several times to a Chinese official — a move many condemned, claiming it demonstrated subservience on behalf of America. House Intelligence Committee Chairman and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Congressman Mike Turner, has been heavily tuned into everything happening overseas. He joins the Rundown to discuss what he believes the key topics will be at this week's NATO Summit, why there's broad bipartisan agreement that the U.S. should continue aiding Ukraine, and his reaction to Secretary Yellen's recent “disappointing” trip to China. Kelsi Sheren enlisted in the Canadian Army at just 19 years old and eventually reached her goal of serving her country in Afghanistan. Her service experience in the Middle East left her with post-traumatic stress disorder and battling suicidal thoughts after being sent home because of her deteriorating mental health. Sheren says she still has her struggles with PTSD every day, but she has turned her pain into passion. On the Rundown, she shares the details of how her mental health journey led her to create a successful jewelry business, her advocacy on behalf of veterans for better support and resources, and talks about her new book, Brass & Unity: One Woman's Journey Through the Hell of Afghanistan and Back. Plus, commentary by FOX News contributor Deroy Murdock. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's an important week overseas, as 31 world leaders, including President Biden, head to Vilnius, Lithuania to attend a NATO summit. As the war on Ukraine surpasses the 500-day mark, the group will likely focus on how they can continue effectively aiding Ukrainian allies and potentially increasing the group's military spending to defeat Russia. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has returned from a trip to Beijing, where she bowed several times to a Chinese official — a move many condemned, claiming it demonstrated subservience on behalf of America. House Intelligence Committee Chairman and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Congressman Mike Turner, has been heavily tuned into everything happening overseas. He joins the Rundown to discuss what he believes the key topics will be at this week's NATO Summit, why there's broad bipartisan agreement that the U.S. should continue aiding Ukraine, and his reaction to Secretary Yellen's recent “disappointing” trip to China. Kelsi Sheren enlisted in the Canadian Army at just 19 years old and eventually reached her goal of serving her country in Afghanistan. Her service experience in the Middle East left her with post-traumatic stress disorder and battling suicidal thoughts after being sent home because of her deteriorating mental health. Sheren says she still has her struggles with PTSD every day, but she has turned her pain into passion. On the Rundown, she shares the details of how her mental health journey led her to create a successful jewelry business, her advocacy on behalf of veterans for better support and resources, and talks about her new book, Brass & Unity: One Woman's Journey Through the Hell of Afghanistan and Back. Plus, commentary by FOX News contributor Deroy Murdock. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us for a special edition of the Macrocast! On this week's episode, Ylan and Brendan are joined by Neil Irwin, chief economic correspondent at Axios and author of "The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire" and "How to Win in a Winner-Take-All World: The Definitive Guide to Adapting and Succeeding in High-Performance Careers."The trio discuss the latest jobs report, the recent ADP National Employment Report, Secretary Yellen's recent visit to China, and more. Tune in!Read Penta's latest Jobs report.For more insights check out Neil's books,  "The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire" and "How to Win in a Winner-Take-All World: The Definitive Guide to Adapting and Succeeding in High-Performance Careers."

How would she feel about the first-ever U.S. default? How does she feel about high inflation? My guest, Jon Hilsenrath, a senior correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, tells us exactly how Secretary Yellen feels about inflation (a stain on her record), and would feel about the first-ever U.S. default (heart attack!). And he also explains how she was compelled to take this job — a job she initially declined. “These are fucking people!” shouted Janet Yellen as she pounded the table. But it was not vulgarity. It was passion about the plight of people, people who are more than numbers, people who deserve better policies. Secretary Yellen has been worried about a potential U.S. default for at least two years now. And she is determined to get inflation under control. But Janet Yellen has been here before — speaking about and dealing with America's economy. So her story, as told by Mr. Hilsenrath, is really the story of America's economy and its economic thoughts and policies. And in this story, her husband, Dr. George Akerlof, who is a recipient of a Nobel Prize in economics, plays a big role (as she does in his professional life). Yellen, Akerlof and their son, who also has a doctorate in economics, talk shop “all the time” at home. They live and breathe economics. In this episode, Mr. Hilsenrath tells us the many sides of Yellen's personality, and explains how they have in the past and may now influence her decisions — decisions with profound impacts on our economy. You'll hear about (1) Yellen's compulsive preparation (which, at least once, got in the way of swift decision-making), (2) her transition from the regimented and methodical approaches of the Fed to the hustle and bustle and politics of being a member of the U.S. President's cabinet, (3) her and her husband's moral purpose, (4) their desire, from early in their lives, to solve the unemployment issue, (5) their humilities versus the hubris of economists in general, (6) her legacy, and (7) her desire to do good, to do the right thing, in a town in which right and fairness aren't easily defined or attainable. You will also learn and laugh about many important figures in the U.S. economy, and their quirks. You will hear about a family who talks economics all the time — at the kitchen table and on vacation. You can learn more about Mr. Hilsenrath by clicking this link. And here is an Amazon link to his recent book, Yellen: The Trailblazing Economist Who Navigated an Era of Upheaval, which we discuss in this episode. Also, to about the history of the US dollar and its dominance, you can listen to my conversation with Dr. Barry Eichengreen of U.C. Berkeley here: HbN-S2E26. I hope you enjoy these episodes. Adel Host of the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Behind News⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcast ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SUPPORT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Click here⁠ and join⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ our other supporters in the news peeler community. Thank you.

Secretary Yellen joined in a live interview, saying she can't rule out a recession but doesn't think it's the most likely path for the US economy. She also said there are no good options if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Markets ended the session little changed. Miller Tabak's Matt Maley and Cantor Fitzgerald's Eric Johnston break down the market action. Earnings from PayPal, Palantir, Lucid. Unlimited CEO Bob Elliot on the latest developments in the regional banking crisis. Our Julia Boorstin previews CNBC's Disruptor 50. 

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Yale President Peter Salovey discuss one of the driving themes of the federal administration's economic agenda: modern supply side economics. Modern supply side economics has vast implications for American policy from climate, innovation, tax policy, and infrastructure to workforce training, housing, health, and childcare. Secretary Yellen and President Salovey's … Continue reading Secretary Janet Yellen on Modern Supply Side Economics and the Tobin Center →

This week, I talk about the banking crises, the Fed's interest rate decision, and why Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had the last say on Inflation vs. Banking Crises. I also talk about the multiple cost pressures facing Indian automakers and why it's time to look at Ferrari as not just a Formula One team. P.S: If you have a Indian or U.S. stock for the doctor to diagnose and dissect, do tweet me @uthamvinay or email me on thestockdoctorpodcast@gmail.com. Thank you for listening and see you again next week! Until then, stay safe and make some money!

US equities were higher this week, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq gaining for the second straight week, and growth continuing to outperform value. This week's gains came despite a big bout of volatility in Treasuries amid the Fed meeting and ongoing global banking turmoil. The March FOMC meeting ended with a unanimous 25 bp rate hike, though the policy statement changed language around future increases. Meanwhile, Secretary Yellen sent mixed messages around bank deposit guarantees and FDIC insurance.

Joint Statement by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDICThe following statement was released by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell, and FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg:Today we are taking decisive actions to protect the U.S. economy by strengthening public confidence in our banking system. This step will ensure that the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles of protecting deposits and providing access to credit to households and businesses in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth.After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer.We are also announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed today by its state chartering authority. All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer.Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.Finally, the Federal Reserve Board on Sunday announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors. The U.S. banking system remains resilient and on a solid foundation, in large part due to reforms that were made after the financial crisis that ensured better safeguards for the banking industry. Those reforms combined with today's actions demonstrate our commitment to take the necessary steps to ensure that depositors' savings remain safe.

Earlier today, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on the debt limit. Congressman Blake Moore was in the hearing where he questioned Secretary Yellen on adoption tax audits and small business taxes. He joins Boyd to discuss his takeaways as well as what conversations we should be having about the debt and the President's budget. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Last Friday afternoon, amidst the lengthening shadows of a winter sun, the Treasury Secretary delivered an ominous warning: By this Thursday, the U.S. federal debt will reach its legal limit, requiring her to take extraordinary measures just to keep paying the bills. Secretary Yellen's warning was, perhaps, a little premature and she suggested that, with some adjustments, our real rendezvous with disaster might be postponed until June.  But even this date is considerably earlier than many assumed in the middle of last year, due, in large part to the budgetary effects of the Federal Reserve's aggressive tightening.   

Secretary Yellen and inflation.....Another court said no to college loan bailout....Rail strike......Iranians cheer for US team.....Arizona election......Gaylord Perry (1938-2022)......And other stories.... Check our blog.........and follow our friend Carlos Guedes...........

Stephanie Ruhle sits down with Secretary Yellen to discuss the latest concerns about a looming recession. Plus, secret service agent, Clint Hill, shares his memories of Jackie Kennedy and discusses his new book “My Travels with Mrs. Kennedy” in an exclusive interview with Jacob Soboroff. And, Ina Garten makes overnight mac and cheese and easy goat cheese toasts.

Thoughts on Secretary Yellen, Kari Lake, and the recent murder of a reporter in Las Vegas. Dan Carroll has it all! Tune in right here.

Thoughts on Secretary Yellen, Kari Lake, and the recent murder of a reporter in Las Vegas. Dan Carroll has it all! Tune in right here.

Ties between the world's two largest economies may be starting to improve. That's after years of heightened tension due to the hostile policies by former US President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden's top economic lieutenant, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, has spoken to Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. According to Beijing's readout of their phone conversation, the two senior officials discussed tariffs that both sides have placed on each other's goods. The White House says those additional levies have made wide range of products imported from China more expensive. Last month, Secretary Yellen also said some of those tariffs don't make any strategic sense. We spoke to Danni Hewson, who is a financial analyst at AJ Bell in the UK. #Tariffs #China #Biden

* The following is a portion of remarks as prepared for delivered by Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen during a visit to the Rosebud Reservation, home of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, in South Dakota on June 21, 2022. The text was provided by the Department of the Treasury. Thank you very much for that introduction. And President [Scott] Herman, thank you for your generosity and hospitality. It's great to be here. This is my first visit to Indian Country, and it's meaningful to me to see first-hand the beauty of the Rosebud Reservation and to hear about your Tribe's rich heritage. It's also been illuminating to listen to you discuss the deep challenges that you and Tribal nations around the country face, and hear your thoughts on how we can partner together to accelerate the economic recovery for all Tribal citizens. I've spent my entire career thinking about economic policy and how it can help people during hard times and create longer-term opportunities. I see a great deal that policies can do to support Tribal communities. Tribes are the backbone of local communities, and Tribal governments are often the largest employer of their citizens and residents in surrounding areas. Simply put, reservations can be centers of economic opportunity for millions of Tribal and non-Tribal members and they merit deep investment by the federal government and our private sector partners. Yet, despite the efforts by Tribal governments to develop their economies, significant inequities exist. Many have their roots in prior federal policy. According to the US Commission for Civil Rights' Broken Promises Report, over 25 percent of Native Americans live in poverty. In certain Tribes, over half of their citizens live in poverty. For Native Americans living on reservations, the unemployment rate is around 50 percent. Those numbers are unacceptably high. The last two years have been hard for everyone, but they've been especially difficult for Native American communities. Tribal communities have had some of the highest COVID mortality rates in the country, and the data shows that few suffered more than Native American workers and enterprises during the pandemic. In addition to the pain the pandemic caused Tribal families and communities, this disproportionate impact resulted in the loss of critical Tribal revenue that supports governmental services for Tribal citizens in need. The American Rescue Plan, signed by President Biden in March 2021, provided much-needed relief, injecting billions of dollars into Tribal communities across the country. This legislation has led to a historic investment in Indian Country. Our flagship program, the Fiscal Recovery Funds, provided $20 billion to Tribal governments to help fight the pandemic and help Tribal households and businesses recover. Tribes across the country, including right here, used these funds for vaccination efforts to protect their Tribal citizens. Some places – like Rosebud – are using the funds for affordable housing projects. Others, such as the Quechan Indian Tribe, are providing assistance to Tribal members who own small businesses that have been negatively affected by COVID‐19. To date, 99% of this fund has been distributed, benefitting 2.6 million Tribal citizens across the U.S. Other programs have also helped Tribal nations recover. Take the Emergency Rental Assistance program. Tribal citizens faced acute rental challenges pre-pandemic, and these conditions rapidly worsened after March 2020. This program allocated $800 million to Tribes to help prevent evictions and keep Tribal citizens safely and stably housed. Early reports show that thousands of low-income Tribal citizens have received housing assistance across Tribal nations. Here, Rosebud has spent $6.3 million to serve 700 low-income households in need of emergency rental assistance. FULL REMARKS: https://www.indianz.com/News/2022/06/22/secretary-yellen-delivers-remarks-on-first-visit-to-indian-country/

June 8, 2022 ~ Chris Renwick tells Kevin and Tom about Secretary Yellen's testimony yesterday.

Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, last week admitted that she was wrong last year when she said that inflation was transitory. Doc Holliday has on several shows criticized Secretary Yellen for not preparing our nation for its fight against inflation. Now, as she admits she was wrong, just how much does she blame this administration for […] The post Yellen Admits she Was Wrong and a D-Day Remembrance appeared first on WebTalkRadio.net.

Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, last week admitted that she was wrong last year when she said that inflation was transitory. Doc Holliday has on several shows criticized Secretary Yellen for not preparing our nation for its fight against inflation. Now, as she admits she was wrong, just how much does she blame this administration for […] The post Yellen Admits she Was Wrong and a D-Day Remembrance appeared first on WebTalkRadio.net.

Janice Mays shares her takeaways from this week, looks ahead to Secretary Yellen's testimony next week, and explains why companies should be vocal about Section 163(j) now. She also answers the question that she received most this week: Is Build Back Better still in play?Presenter:Janice Mays, Managing Director, PwC's Washington National Tax Services Practice

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen spoke recently at American University about digital assets. The speech look at the intersection of innovation, policy and regulation. John and Elliot discuss key points in the speech including how innovation in the financial sector often out strips policy and regulation and how the Yellen's remarks create a good framework for the discussions and activities in the digital asset space.

A webinar session, The Future of the Global Economy: US and Irish Perspectives, featuring major keynote addresses by: Janet Yellen, U.S Secretary of the Treasury; and Paschal Donohoe T.D., Minister for Finance of Ireland & President of the Eurogroup. Following their addresses, both Secretary Yellen and Minister Donohoe will then participate in a moderated conversation with Dan O'Brien, Chief Economist of IIEA. About the Speakers: Janet Yellen was sworn in as the 78th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States in January 2021. An economist by training, she took office after almost fifty years in academia and public service. She is the first person in American history to have led the White House Council of Economic Advisors, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department. Paschal Donohoe TD is Minister for Finance of Ireland, a position he has held since June 2020 having previously served as Minister for Finance & Public Expenditure and Reform from 2016 to 2020. Minister Donohoe has also served as President of the Eurogroup since July 2020. He represents the Dublin Central Constituency and previously served as Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport and Minister of State for European Affairs.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen joins the program from the G-20 conference in Rome, to discuss inflation, the Biden agenda, and the state of the supply chain. Plus, Apple and Amazon both disappointed on earnings. Wedbush's Joel Kulina joins to discuss whether investors should be worried. And the CEO of CNX Resources joins to discuss the global energy crisis and what Americans should expect this winter.

On "EWTN News Nightly" tonight: At the White House, President Joe Biden held a virtual vaccination summit where he stated, "The United States is buying another half billion doses of Pfizer to donate to low and middle income countries around the world." The Democrat-run House has passed a measure to keep the government open and raise its borrowing limit. Senate Republicans are expected to block it. Meanwhile, progressive Democrats are pushing back on the $3.5 trillion Human Infrastructure Bill. Republican Representative Mike Gallagher joins to share his thoughts on the House passing a budget bill on party lines to raise the debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said failing to raise the debt ceiling would produce a "widespread economic catastrophe" that would permanently weaken the US. Director of the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at the Heritage Foundation, Matt Dickerson, shares his reaction to Secretary Yellen's comments. Finally this evening, Medair is a Swiss-based humanitarian organization inspired by the Christian faith to save lives and relieve human suffering around the world. The organization has more than 1,200 team members in a dozen countries. Engagement director at Medair, Jean-Bernard Palthey, joins to tell us more about his organization and their mission. Don't miss out on the latest news and analysis from a Catholic perspective. Get EWTN News Nightly delivered to your email: https://ewtn.com/enn

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urged countries in the G7 group of richest nations to quickly implement a global tax reform aimed at curbing tax avoidance.The Treasury says G20 finance ministers backed the deal in July, followed by 134 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries representing more than 90 per cent of the world's GDP.Treasury in a statement following a meeting of G7 finance ministers held virtually says Secretary Yellen expressed support for ongoing efforts to improve the international tax system and the importance of swift implementation of the new system. Yellen says the policy will generate funding for a sustained increase in critical investments in education, research, and clean energy.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen urged countries in the G7 group of richest nations to quickly implement a global tax reform aimed at curbing tax avoidance.The Treasury says G20 finance ministers backed the deal in July, followed by 134 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries representing more than 90 per cent of the world's GDP.Treasury in a statement following a meeting of G7 finance ministers held virtually says Secretary Yellen expressed support for ongoing efforts to improve the international tax system and the importance of swift implementation of the new system. Yellen says the policy will generate funding for a sustained increase in critical investments in education, research, and clean energy.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told lawmakers that the US is running out of money, which will probably trigger a fight over the debt ceiling before the October deadline. But that's not the only financial fight happening in Congress. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

FSB Chair Quarles and Treasury Secretary Yellen push for development of climate-related risk disclosure. Secretary Yellen says consensus is near on international corporate tax agreement. DOJ and Federal Maritime Commission to cooperate on antitrust enforcement. OFAC authorizes petroleum gas transactions involving Venezuelan Government, PdVSA.

Karen Kerrigan, SBE Council, on Treas. Secretary Yellen's refusal to testify before House Small Business Committee, and SBA Admin. Isabella Guzman's testimony; how Biden tax increases will hurt small business; update on Innovation Act & INFORM Act.

In this episode of Berkeley Talks, Adewale "Wally" Adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and UC Berkeley alumnus, delivers the keynote address at Berkeley's commencement on Saturday, May 15."The Berkeley community is made up of people that show up in all the places where decisions and history tend to be made," said Adeyemo. "In fact, when I received the e-mail with the subject line “Cal Graduation speaker, ” I assumed it was a polite request for me to forward the speaking invitation to my boss, Janet Yellen — Secretary Yellen, the towering economic mind who has helped us weather the economic crises of the past 20 years — and a long-standing member of the UC Berkeley faculty.""I only have one advantage over Secretary Yellen today," he continued, "and that is: I graduated from Cal. I know there is no better place on Earth to get an education."Listen to the episode and read the transcript on Berkeley News. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Carl Quintanilla, Jim Cramer and David Faber led off the show with breaking news: Facebook's Oversight Board has ruled to uphold the social media network's decision to ban former President Donald Trump from the site. But the board also ruled it was not appropriate for Facebook to impose an indefinite suspension, adding the company must review the matter within six months. The anchors explored the ramifications of the ruling, including what it means for the social media landscape and Facebook's stock. Also in focus: What's next for tech stocks after Tuesday's sell-off, Treasury Secretary Yellen backtracking her remarks about hiking interest rates, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon slams Bitcoin, sources telling David that Equinox is in talks to go public via a SPAC backed by venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya, plus earnings winners and losers. UBS CEO Ralph Hamers appeared on the program in his first U.S. television interview since taking the top job at the Swiss bank. He discussed his company's loss related to the Archegos hedge fund scandal, as well as his growth strategy for UBS.

1. Today is a much more subdued trading session after yesterday's wild action. yesterday, the market came roaring back into the closing bell. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) actually finished positive by the close. Today, we are back to a much lighter volume session, so it will be important to see the charts by the close.  2. Now this should be the talk of town right now. Yesterday, news was released that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that rates might need to rise to keep the economy from overheating. Last night, she walked back that comment when speaking to the Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit. She said, “so let me be clear: That’s not something I’m predicting or recommending.”  This should tell every investor that the central bank knows it's the only game in town keeping these markets up right now.  3. Gold/Silver Nick Nailed it yet again. He sold out of GDX options yesterday for a 29% gain, just before Secretary Yellen's scary words on interest rates.

A conversation on the tools to build back after the pandemic with the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce & remarks from Vice President Kamala Harris & Secretary Yellen. We only have 28,000 days on the planet if we are lucky. This podcast chronicles the life lessons in my entrepreneurial journey of my #28,000days​#entrepreneur​ #motivation​Subscribe & also, FOLLOW me in English:INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/hectorhlopez​​FACEBOOK: http://on.fb.me/lopezhh​​TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/hectorhlopez​​CLUBHOUSE: @hectorhlopezYOUTUBE: https://YouTube.com/hectorhlopez​Subscribe & also, FOLLOW me in Spanish:INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/hectorhlopez_es​CLUBHOUSE: @hectorhlopez_esYOUTUBE: https://YouTube.com/hectorhlopez_es​————————————Written by:Hector H. LopezDirected by:Hector H. LopezProduced by:beNeXT Global

In this February 7 stimulus update I go over what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said about stimulus checks, what Bernie Sanders tweeted about the same issue, and the latest news about COVID-19 vaccines and school reopenings.4 Free Stocks: http://go.moneydoneright.com/Webull