Joe Weisenthal (2:12)

All right, let's just kick it straight off that jobs report that we got last week in your view, with your Fed hat on, Maybe is a 50 basis point rate cut in play for the next meeting?

Robert Kaplan (2:25)

I think 50 basis points is still unlikely. I think we've been of the view for the last few months. The job market was weak. This latest report was a little weaker. Having said that, the reason 25 is more likely than 50 is the jobs market is not falling off a cliff. We didn't get shrinkage and inflation is running at 2 and 3/4 to 3% above target. And so it sort of puts a little bit of a headwind on doing more than 25 basis points.

Tracy Alloway (2:59)

I mean, I take your point, but the report was still a huge surprise. So if you were in the newsroom when that number came out, just 22,000 jobs added, there was a sort of collective gasp because it was way below basically the entire range of expectations for that particular month. If you're at the Fed and you see a number like that, what does 22,000 actually tell you? Or are you sitting there going, well, maybe I'll wait for the revision until I really make up my mind.

Robert Kaplan (3:27)

I don't know that the weakness in the jobs market was a big surprise to the Fed. They didn't know exactly what the number would be, but they expected to be anemic. The reason that the unemployment rate has stayed low is we are not. We've shut down undocumented immigration, we have not ramped up legal immigration. And as you well know, we are deporting some number of workers and chilling 10 to 15 million undocumented immigrants who are in the workforce and some percentage of them are not going to work. And so supply is anemic. We've thought for the last few months that hiring was kind of, we said at stall speed. You should assume if GDP growth is 1, 2, 5, 1.5%, hiring is going to be anemic. So we could debate the number, but I don't think it was a big shock that it was weak. And I think it wouldn't surprise me to see the next number also lethargic. So why aren't we falling off a cliff? We still are running a large deficit. We have tax incentives coming. We're in the middle of an AI data center power boom as you just heard about in the previous session, and I think that's still bolstering the economy.

Joe Weisenthal (4:43)

Well then let me take the flip side of Tracy's question because, okay, maybe setting aside reasons for concern, the flip side, as you mentioned, inflation still running above target by most measures. The stock market. I haven't actually, I don't know what it's doing today, but it's very close to all time highs. Regardless of what it's doing today, all kinds of people are having a really nice time on the beach in Southern California. We're what is the evidence that as currently standing that Fed policy is actually restrictive? Clearly the FOMC has come around to this view of cuts. It seems like cuts are locked in, but you don't have to have the FOMC view anymore. Like, is it obvious that cuts are needed at this point?

Robert Kaplan (5:22)

Yeah, I think if it were not for the weakness that we've seen in the labor market, the Fed would want to stand pat because we are, it's One thing to be above your inflation target. We're not moving toward the inflation target.

Joe Weisenthal (5:36)

Right.

Robert Kaplan (5:37)

We're going sideways to backing up. But with this weak labor market, I think it brings the fact you need to cut into play now. What's the neutral rate? I think the neutral rate today you got a 2 1/3% inflation rate. 75 basis point real fed funds rate means the neutral rate to me is around 3.5%. We don't have a lot of space to cut to get to neutral, but I think you've got 75 to 100 basis points. I think the goal of the Fed will be cut in September. Stay restrictive and if the labor market stays weak, keep going. If it stabilizes, then, then you have the option to hold off and I think that's what they'll do.

Tracy Alloway (6:21)

Just going back to financial conditions and stock markets at all time highs. I mean if the Fed cuts at this current juncture, call it an insurance cut or whatever, but if the economy re accelerates after that.

Robert Kaplan (6:33)

Which it may.

Tracy Alloway (6:34)

Yeah, which it may. Would you be worried about that side of the outcome given that, as you said, inflationary pressures seem to be going sideways to possibly up.

Robert Kaplan (6:44)

Yeah. So a lot of people look at financial conditions and see it as a reason the Fed shouldn't act. I actually come at it from someplace different. The economic statistics are reflective of what's going on right now. In fact, even more than that, what has gone on, not even what's going on right now. The stock market and other financial markets are a assessment of what's going to happen for the next three to five years. As we know, we're in the middle and the early innings of an AI data center power boom. I don't think it's showing up yet in product, in a lot of productivity, but I think a year or two from now it will. The stock market, rightly or wrongly, I think is making that bet. It's betting that productivity is going to improve, corporate earnings are going to get better. You're not seeing it show up in the current economy. The Fed's job is to look at financial conditions but. But adjust policy based on the current economy, not the bet the market's making for two or three years.

Joe Weisenthal (7:46)

I'm glad you brought that up about the AI boom, the power, the data center boom and so forth, and that it's not showing up yet in productivity, but it may be showing up in greater strain on the grid. It may be showing up in greater strain on certain electrical gear that's necessary. That's been in shortage for all manufacturers for years now.

Robert Kaplan (8:06)

That's right.

Joe Weisenthal (8:07)

As of right now in September 2025. Could we say that if anything, the AI boom is like sort of having a crowding out effect or slightly inflationary where the costs right now just on a static stand setting aside the bet are a bit of a drag.

Robert Kaplan (8:22)

There are two big structural initiatives that are being pursued by this administration. One is regulatory review and regulatory relief because they want to ease the speeding to adoption of AI and get more capital available and. But the second thing is there's an extensive re review of the power grid. We are behind China in having enough power to fund the AI explosion. We've got to invest more in geothermal, more modular nuclear. We need to make it easier to run a refinery, make it easier to do transmission. And I think you're going to find there's going to be enormous efforts because we are behind. And in some states, to your point, there is a crowding out and I think people are afraid at some states, the leaders are afraid to take more data centers for fear it's going to crowd out individuals. So this is a big structural initiative that isn't getting in the press a lot, but it's a big initiative going on in this country. That's a dramatic change and it's needed.

Tracy Alloway (9:25)

What does that actually mean for Fed policy? Because if I think about this crowding out idea and all the demand for databases and the things that power them, we have seen electricity prices start to go up. The Fed's preferred inflation measure is X energy and food prices. But on the other hand, electricity prices feed into the cost of pretty much everything. And also this doesn't seem like a bottleneck that we're going to be solving within the next two or three years or even 10 years, to be frank. If you're at the Fed right now and you see electricity prices going up, how are you thinking through that pressure?

Robert Kaplan (10:02)

So let me put it in context. There are cross currents. I mean real cross currents. You just mentioned one. On the one hand you've got the government is trying to reduce government directed spending and replace it with more incentives, tax incentives. Obviously the tariffs have been put in place. Those are slowing growth and they have a tendency to raise costs. They might be one time and the labor force, as I just mentioned, we are actually decelerating and reducing labor force growth because of immigration policy. That's actually helping us be at full employment. And the Fed's been taken by that, but also makes prices stickier, wages stickier. At the same time, you just said you've got these booms in AI and the grid and you've got we need more labor, we need more power. And that actually stresses prices. So when you're at the Fed, when you've got this kind of confusion, I think that's one reason why they've done nothing so far this year. But I think the labor market is forcing their hand where if it gets even weaker, they really don't want that. And that's why they're acting.

Bloomberg Host (Amy Morris / Karen Moscow) (11:33)

This message is brought to you by Nuveen. How would you invest if you knew the future was watching at Nuveen? This isn't a theoretical question. It's a perspective that comes from navigating 125 years of market cycles, using foresight to innovate and adapt to the changing needs of investors around the world, and remaining steadfast in the pursuit of lasting performance for clients, communities and the global economy. Nuveen Invest like the Future is watching. Visit Nuveen.com future to learn more. Investing involves risk, principal, loss as possible. You can get the news whenever you want it with Bloomberg News Now. I'm Amy Morris. And I'm Karen Moscow, here to tell you about our new On Demand News report delivered right to your podcast feed. Bloomberg News now is a short 5 minute audio report on the day's top stories. Episodes are published throughout the day with the latest information and data to keep you informed. Yes, there are other products like this from a variety of news organizations, but they usually rerun their radio newscasts throughout the day. That's not what we do. We create customized episodes that can only be heard on Bloomberg News now. And we don't wait an hour to publish breaking news. When news breaks, we'll have an episode up in your podcast feed within minutes. So you're always getting the latest stories and developments. Get the reporting and the context from Bloomberg's 3,000 journalists and analysts. We're all over the world. Listen to the latest from Bloomberg News now on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen.

Joe Weisenthal (13:10)

Let's talk about AI in China a little bit more. You mentioned the power elements and there are a lot of people anxious about the constraints on the US grid and all these big capex numbers. And can the grid even support that? What else is different besides the electricity component? Because some people we've talked to talk about there's a very different attitude towards the tech diffusion, particularly out of China or supply chains that run through China.

Robert Kaplan (13:35)

So and I just got back from Asia and I was in China last week. When we talk about AI, we tend to look at the hyperscalers, these big giant companies that make up a disproportionate share of the s and P500. And they're spending hundreds of billions of dollars. They're making a lot of money. When I'm in China and we talk about AI, they talk about the word used, diffusion. They talk about regular businesses. The McDonald's of China, Luke. And coffee in China.

Joe Weisenthal (14:09)

Regular. We have them in New York City right now. And I tried one and it's very good actually.

Robert Kaplan (14:13)

Yes, but those companies are actively using AI to lower costs. And so why is that happening? I'd say we're further along, China's further along than we are. Why? Their margins are lower. They're doing it out of necessity. Our margins in the US and our companies are higher. And so they're not as much pressure to lower costs and make AI experiments in China. They don't have a choice. It's so competitive. They need to lower costs. But the thing that struck me, there's a lot to learn from what they're doing in China. Normally if we were a little more globally integrated, we would learn those things and bring those learnings back to the United States. And it reminded me that globalization is not dead. The United States is choosing to play a different role in it and stepping back. But I gotta tell you, the other thing I saw there is there's more coupling going on between China and other countries that are aggressively. Canada is much more aggressive in trying to form new partnerships. So I think globalization and the AI story go together. And I gotta tell you, globalization not going away. And the US is going to have a choice in the years to come how much of a role we want to play in participating. But it's going to happen with us or without us.

Tracy Alloway (15:37)

So we can sit here and ask you what you saw in China and what your thoughts were about China. But I am very aware that when you go on that type of trip, you have Chinese clients who are asking you your thoughts on the US and what's going on here. What are the type of questions that you're getting from Chinese clients at the moment? What are they interested in?

Robert Kaplan (15:54)

So the biggest item I'd say of discussion is, and I used to be in Asia for the first part of my career and what I found in Korea, Taiwan, China, to a large extent, their whole effort was to go from low value added manufacturing to high value added manufacturing. And they tried to wean off of lower value added manufacturer. What's an example? T shirts and Sneakers used to be made in China, today they're made in Vietnam. Why China wants to move up the value chain? Because their feeling is they're going to raise the standard of living to higher value added manufacturing. The question sometimes I get when I'm over there is if you're going to reshore to the United States, are you going to really reshore lumber, aluminum, some of these other lower value added manufacturing wouldn't solidify in the relationship with, with Canada and Mexico makes sense where you can get cheap natural resources from Canada, cheap labor from Mexico and solidify North America. And so I'd say they're not critical of us, but they're scratching their heads a little bit to say what's the strategic rationale? Because you're tight on labor, you normally want to move up the value chain. And I think they realize that some of these tariffs are also intended to help generate revenue and reduce the deficit. They understand that. They're just questioning how strategic it is.

Joe Weisenthal (17:32)

Well, let me ask you a question on the question of what are we going to bring back in the United States, if anything, just from your perch at Goldman, do you see any private money that's come into the US for fresh sort of, I don't know, greenfield capital investment in either in something low margin or high margin because the terrorists have changed the math and made that investment economical.

Robert Kaplan (17:57)

So I will say there, yes is the answer. I think there are US companies that will do more on the margin manufacturing here. I've talked to overseas companies including, I won't mention the name of one contract manufacturer in China. They are building more in the United States. And so the thing is, I don't know how long it will take, what the magnitude will be, but yes, it is happening. The flip side of that is there are many companies in the US that benefited from access to lower cost goods.

Joe Weisenthal (18:35)

Yeah.

Robert Kaplan (18:35)

And I won't mention their name, but you can, you know, some of them and they are, their margins are being squeezed. And then I talked to a number of small businesses that don't have the leverage to manage these tariffs and some of them will actually go out of business or considering it by the end of the year.

Tracy Alloway (18:52)

This is a little bit of an unfair question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. If you had to choose one right now, would you say that tariffs are more effective at bringing back manufacturing to the US or more effective at raising income for the US Government at a time when people are worried about the deficit? It.

Robert Kaplan (19:10)

I think we'll start with the second part. Tariffs raise revenue but they slow growth. And so for every dollar of tariff revenue, you have to, you have to accept, you may give some back and a little bit lower growth. I think that trade is very much worth it if you're bringing back high value added manufacturing. I don't know if it's such a good trade if you are pushing to bring back lower value added. I think this administration knows that and I think they'll be more strategic. I think you can do both. I think you could level the playing field, get, get more tariff revenue, some level of tariff revenue. I think we were thinking they were going to be closer to 10% than 20%. You mean the high teens? A little higher than we expected. And you can also. Yes, on semiconductors and other strategic areas. You can redomicile those. I think the question is, you sure you want to go down the road of lumber and aluminum or do you want to let Canada do it? Is that a good strategic trade? I'm not sure.

Joe Weisenthal (20:21)

Since you mentioned it, why is the neutral rate of interest, to the extent that we can form some educated guess as to what it is, why is it so much higher than it was in say 2019 in your view?

Robert Kaplan (20:34)

So the fact of the matter is, I think if you go way back in the stone age to 2019, it.

Joe Weisenthal (20:43)

Does seem like forever ago.

Robert Kaplan (20:44)

It does. I think if we had not had Covid, I think right before COVID hit the 10 year Treasury, I think it was in the neighborhood of maybe one and three quarters to two. The fed funds rate was in the mid ones. I think we would have inched our way up a little higher.

Joe Weisenthal (21:04)

Know how good we had? All those people complaining, oh yields are so low and then now they all wish they could go back there.

Robert Kaplan (21:10)

Yeah, listen, the inflation rate today is stickier. Back in 19 it was probably 1 1/2, 11 3/4. I still think even then the neutral rate real rate was 3/4 of 1%. So the neutral fed funds rate back then I think was two and a half ish. Today it's closer to three and a half. But there's only one reason for that. The inflation rate's higher. If inflation got back down to two, I think you'd see the neutral rate back down to two and three quarters.

Lucas Shaw (21:53)

Join Bloomberg in Los Angeles or via livestream on October 7th. For the future investor finding the opportunities, this 2025 event series will examine how companies are investing in their businesses to create efficiencies, innovating their products and services and improving the customer experience. This series is Presented by Invesco Q. Q. Q. Register@Bloomberglive.com FutureInvestorLA that's Bloomberg live.com Future Investor.

Tracy Alloway (22:22)

LA since you mentioned sticky inflation, there's one other thing that seems to be top of mind at the moment, which is Federal Reserve independence and we should talk about that. But I guess we can get your thoughts on, you know, that specific idea in a second. But one thing that seems surprising so far is that we're having this debate about what happens to the Federal Reserve with what seems to be a more activist Trump administration that seems to want to have a heavier hand in monetary policy. We haven't really seen much, much response from the market. If you look at the long end, it doesn't seem like there's a big risk premium building there.

Bloomberg Host (Amy Morris / Karen Moscow) (22:58)

What's going on?

Robert Kaplan (22:59)

So let's make two comments. So regarding political independence, let me just make sure I frame this. Regulatory policy at the Fed is not underlying, not politically independent and hasn't been for a number of years. What do I mean by that? You get a new president, they pick a new head of supervision and it's very much has been influenced for the last many years by whoever is in office. The balance sheet I would argue is maybe a little bit in the gray air on setting the fed funds rate though the Fed has been politically independent. Why is the market, you said we're not reacting more to this. I mean the reality is the stock market likes the idea of lower rates. I think the thing it's not that the markets aren't reacting. The stock market likes it. So it's starting now to take into account makes the real acceleration you talked about more likely. The gold market is very much taken note of it and gold is up more than 35% year to date. I see it's up another 1% today. So it has and I actually think duration on the long bond. While the tenure is rallied because of slow growth, I still think we have an issue. We've got 37 trillion of debt to sell on our way to 40 trillion. I think that the bond market may pay at the long end. We'll pay attention to how this current situation works out.

Joe Weisenthal (24:30)

What is going on? How much more gold talk is there these days than there were a few years ago?

Robert Kaplan (24:37)

Well, actually I've gone back over, looked back over the last 50 years. When's the last time we got a rally in gold like this? Yeah, I think in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Remember the Great Recession, the Fed took its balance sheet from 800 billion to 4 trillion okay, and stopped. And we started to run it down a little bit. In response to Covid, we went from 4, 4 trillion to 9 trillion and we authorized $6 trillion of extraordinary spending in a $27 trillion economy. And the GDP, the net debt to GDP went from mid-70s to over 100%. When you've got leverage in the United States and to some extent in the developed world, getting much higher in response to Covid, that's where people start to look at gold, bitcoin, other alternatives to paper currency, because they're worried that this leveraging is just keeping going on and on and on. And so it's understandable.

Tracy Alloway (25:43)

Wait, is it though? Because one of the weird tensions of our current market situation is we have US stocks at all time highs, but also gold making new records almost every week. It feels like those two things are incompatible, at least in the long run. You know, maybe we could do it for a few weeks or a few months, but someone's got to be wrong here.

Robert Kaplan (26:05)

I spent a lot of time talking to big institutions and about asset allocation. I think, and this is our view also, we think there could be a reacceleration into 26. We think the AI boom is for real. We think we're going to get a lot of productivity out of AI. Okay, that is a good environment for corporate earnings and for stocks. What we don't know is how successful we're going to be on bending the curve of debt to GDP. Are we going to run another $2 trillion deficit even with tariffs? Is it going to be higher? And in that regard, I think people can buy stocks and buy gold and be very careful about buying the 10 year and the 30 year treasury and, and I think that's kind of what we're seeing actually.

Joe Weisenthal (26:54)

I want to go back to your point about sort of globalization is happening with us or without us. There's a different approach to AI diffusion out of China than there is in the us but when you go around the world, are the American providers of tech, whether it's cloud tech or whether it's Microsoft, et cetera, are they going to win? Even if the US isn't part of that globalization wave, will US tech still be part of the story? Because so much is riding on the ongoing earnings power of seven companies.

Robert Kaplan (27:25)

So I'll make a general comment about US companies generally. A typical CEO in the United States that runs a global company has probably been to Europe in their careers 75 times or more and has been to Asia 75 times, has been to China multiple times, has built relationships and has been doing it for years. And I think that's true of tech. No doubt many of the tech leaders you see are overseas regularly. Our political leaders and some of our leaders in certain governmental positions maybe have not been to China or overseas quite as much as. And that's why you see during periods like this, the corporate world is continuing to chug along and build relationships globally even though at national level we're sort of reorienting and trying to bring more to the United States and in fact de globalize. So we've got a kind of a dichotomy and it stands in sharp relief. This is the same way even eight years ago where we withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. And yet companies in the United States, to my eye, did not slow down at all in trying to build LEED certified buildings and focus on greenhouse gas emissions and sustainability.

Tracy Alloway (28:53)

You talked earlier about the difference between how China and the U.S. the corporate sphere is actually using AI. When you're looking at the U.S. and you're looking for signs that AI is actually having a definitive needle moving impact on U.S. productivity, what are you looking for here? What are the signs?

Robert Kaplan (29:11)

I'm looking for adoption in a broad set of industries. Because here's how this works. First, your company gets you to try it. Okay. And you adopt it. Second thing you try is various use cases based on that adoption. And then third thing you figure out which use cases work and which use cases don't work. We're kind of in that phase right now in the United States. When I say China's a little farther ahead. I think they've already tried and proven some of the use cases in more industry. We'll get there too but. But you'll know when we look back 10 years from now. My guess is maybe not as fast as other parts of the world. We will have gone through all that. We'll know which use cases work, which don't. We'll adopt them. We're going to get a lot more efficiencies. There may be as many or more jobs, but they're going to shift and we're going to have to redeploy people to where the open jobs are. But we have to go through that whole cycle and I would say we're early, we're early in that we just.

Joe Weisenthal (30:12)

Have a couple of minutes left. Here's something that's been on my mind a little bit lately that I would like. Your take on. How levered to the stock market is the real US economy. How much? When you look around does it feel like things are dependent on these companies continuing to deliver year after year and positive asset returns?

Robert Kaplan (30:30)

So it's a great question. So I would say the U.S. is 75% a service economy. It is a very heavily consumer driven economy. This, which makes our economy different from many in the world. And if you break down the consumer here, half the workers in this country, let's take it 80, 85 million, make $50,000 a year, are unlikely to have financial assets, have lost 25% plus purchasing power and, and they're struggling to make ends meet. They're spending every dollar they make. But if you're a business that serves them, you're seeing they're being very careful. Yeah, there's another 80, 85 million. Consumers tend to be, I'm exaggerating, I'm generalizing. 55 and older own their home, have financial assets and they've made a lot of money in the markets, to your point. And they're spending because they're getting wealthier. And we've got a tale of two consumer groups. I think part of what this administration, I believe is trying to do is help lift up this first group so that they can be more affluent and do better. Because right now we're very heavily dependent on this second engine based on the stock market.

Tracy Alloway (31:45)

All right, I'm going to sneak in one more question and go back to where we started this conversation, which is on rate cuts. I know you said 50 basis point, probably not on the table, but your gut instinct, is this going to be the start of a rate cy cycle, a rate cut cycle that goes into the next year, 20, 26, or is this something that, you know, maybe you got one rate cut, maybe you get two rate cuts, but it's not going to go on for much longer than that.

Robert Kaplan (32:13)

I think it will be. If it's a cycle, it's going to be a halting cycle. What do I mean by that? Cut 25 in September. I think that's going to happen. Wipe the slate clean for the next six weeks. Fed meets every six weeks. Wipe the slate clean. Make sure that you're condensed. Still the labor market is weak. Check inflation. If it's continued to be weak and inflation is least moderate, you may do another one. The issue I'm pointing out is I don't think we have more room to get to neutral than 75 to 100 basis points. So might we wind up doing two or three this year? Maybe. Are we going to wind up doing 150, 200 basis points? It means you would want, you would have to decide, which I don't see a justification for running a very stimulative monetary policy. And I think the Fed, as it's currently configured, will be enormously reluctant to be below restrictive or modestly restrictive as long as inflation's running above target.

Joe Weisenthal (33:16)

Rob Kaplan, thank you so much for doing this live.

Robert Kaplan (33:19)

Thank you.

Tracy Alloway (33:20)

Thank you so much. So that was our episode with Robert Kaplan, recorded live on stage at the Future Proof Conference. I'm Tracy Alloway and you can follow.

Joe Weisenthal (33:40)

Me at Tracy Alloway and I'm Joe Eisenthal. You can follow me at the Stalwart. Follow our producers Kerman Rodriguez at Kermanarmondasho, Bennett at Dashbot, and K. Kale Brooks at Kalebrooks. For more Odd Lots content, go to bloomberg.comoddlots where the Daily newsletter and all of our episodes and you can chat about all of these topics 24. 7 in our Discord, Discord, GG Oddlots.

Tracy Alloway (34:03)

And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you like it when we do these live episodes, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.

Bloomberg Host (Amy Morris / Karen Moscow) (34:15)

Free.

Tracy Alloway (34:15)

All you need to do is find the Bloomberg Channel on Apple Podcast and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

Lucas Shaw (34:53)

Bloomberg Screen Time is where creators and capital connect with entertainment experts from Netflix, Twitch and Meta. Step behind the screen to shape the strategies, stories and innovations that power what the world watches next. Join Managing Editor of Media and Entertainment Lucas Shaw live in Los Angeles October 8th and 9th. Get your tickets now at bloomberglive.com screentime that's bloomberglive.com screenTime.