It’s Tariff Time, Again

Summary

Podcast Summary: "It’s Tariff Time, Again" – The Daily, December 2, 2024

Hosts: Michael Barbaro and Sabrina Tavernise
Episode Focus: Analysis of Donald Trump's tariff strategies compared to President Biden's direct investment approach in revitalizing American manufacturing.

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "It’s Tariff Time, Again," trade reporter Anna Swanson delivers an in-depth analysis of the contrasting trade policies between former President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden. The discussion centers on Trump's aggressive use of tariffs to revive American manufacturing and Biden's preference for direct governmental investments to achieve similar goals.

---

Trump's Tariff Strategy: A Blunt Tool for Protectionism

Overview of Trump's Tariffs

Donald Trump has long advocated for the use of high tariffs as a means to protect and repatriate American manufacturing jobs. As the episode begins, Anna Swanson outlines Trump's recent threats to impose significant tariffs:

• 25% Tariffs on goods imported from Mexico and Canada.
• 10% Tariffs on goods imported from China.

Effectiveness and Impact

Swanson provides a retrospective look at Trump's first-term tariff implementations, highlighting their immediate and long-term effects:

• Increase in Domestic Steel and Aluminum Production:
  Timestamp [07:45] Trade Reporter Anna Swanson notes, "Demand for U.S. steel and aluminum grew, and U.S. steel factories started pumping out more metal."

• Economic Downside for Other Industries:
  The tariffs led to increased costs for industries reliant on steel and aluminum, such as automotive manufacturing. For instance, Ford reported a loss of $1 billion in profits due to higher material costs.
  Timestamp [08:54] Anna Swanson emphasizes, "companies that use steel faced higher prices, their production actually went down by more than the production of the steel industry went up."

Political Popularity vs. Economic Reality

Despite mixed economic outcomes, Trump's tariff policies remained politically advantageous. Regions adversely affected by tariffs showed increased support for Trump, driven by the perception that he was actively addressing manufacturing decline.
Timestamp [09:28] Swanson observes, "people living in areas more affected by Trump's tariffs were more likely to vote for Trump."

---

Biden's Direct Investment Approach: Investing in the Future

Philosophy Behind Biden's Policy

Contrasting Trump's tariffs, President Biden employs an industrial policy strategy focused on direct government investment to bolster American manufacturing. This approach aims to create a sustainable manufacturing ecosystem through substantial financial support.

Implementation and Focus Areas

Biden secured hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies targeting critical industries such as:

• Computer Chips
• Electric Vehicles
• Solar Panels

Anna Swanson details the administration’s pivotal legislation, the Chips Act, which allocates $50 billion to enhance domestic chip manufacturing and research.
Timestamp [13:01] Trade Reporter explains, "This secures about $50 billion of funding to help increase the domestic manufacturing of chips and to invest in things like research and development."

Case Study: The Chip Industry

Focusing on the semiconductor sector, the episode highlights the challenges and progress under Biden’s initiative:

• Intel as a National Champion:
  Despite receiving significant investment, Intel faces operational difficulties, including 15,000 layoffs and delays in factory openings.
  Timestamp [15:47] Trade Reporter notes, "the company is still in rough shape... the company's had to announce 15,000 layoffs."

• Success of TSMC's Arizona Plant:
  Surprisingly, the largest beneficiary is Taiwanese company TSMC, which has established a cutting-edge chip plant in Arizona, enhancing domestic manufacturing capabilities.
  Timestamp [18:36] Trade Reporter states, "the program’s biggest success so far is actually this new plant in Arizona from a Taiwanese chipmaker called TSMC."

Long-Term Prospects

Biden’s investments are portrayed as long-term endeavors, with tangible results expected years down the line. The administration points to the creation of 115,000 chip industry jobs, primarily in construction, with more high-paying positions anticipated.
Timestamp [19:52] Anna Swanson summarizes, "these chip plants are huge. They take many years to construct and to open."

---

Comparative Analysis: Tariffs vs. Direct Investment

Effectiveness in Job Creation

When comparing the two strategies:

• Trump’s Tariffs: Minimal new job creation with significant drawbacks for dependent industries.
  Timestamp [21:32] Anna Swanson remarks, "Trump spent very little money. He used tariffs instead. But that, economists think, did not create a lot of new jobs overall."

• Biden’s Investments: Greater potential for job creation through direct investments, albeit at a higher fiscal cost.
  Timestamp [21:32] Swanson adds, "Biden has spent a lot of money to start quite a few new factories, and that has created a relatively small number of jobs."

Policy Coexistence and Future Implications

The episode underscores that both policies are likely to coexist, regardless of the administration in power:

• Continuation of Tariffs: Many of Trump’s tariffs persist into Biden’s tenure and are expected to remain in future administrations.
  Timestamp [22:38] Trade Reporter notes, "these policies are definitely going to exist side by side."

• Ongoing Investments: Biden’s direct investment plans are set to extend beyond his presidency, potentially benefiting Trump’s future policies.
  Timestamp [22:38] Swanson explains, "Biden's investments will outlive him into the next Trump administration."

---

Conclusion: A Shift Towards Protectionism

The episode concludes with a reflection on the broader shift away from free trade towards protectionist policies in the United States. Both administrations have embraced measures to safeguard domestic industries, signaling a departure from the era of unfettered globalization. The long-term effects remain uncertain, with potential outcomes ranging from a manufacturing renaissance to increased economic inefficiencies and inflation.

Timestamp [23:24] Anna Swanson asserts, "the era of unfettered free trade is over," highlighting the enduring nature of protectionist trade policies shaping the U.S. economy for years to come.

---

Notable Quotes:

• "[...] the country hasn't seen since the 1950s." – Trade Reporter [01:46]

• "Steel is steel. You don't have steel, you don't have a country." – Unnamed Industry Expert [04:39]

• "This is not merely an economic disaster, but it's a security disaster." – Unnamed Industry Expert [04:54]

• "Companies that use steel faced higher prices, their production actually went down by more than the production of the steel industry went up." – Trade Reporter [08:54]

• "The supply chain begins in America." – Unnamed Industry Expert [14:16]

---

This comprehensive analysis by Anna Swanson provides listeners with a nuanced understanding of the evolving trade policies under Trump and Biden, their immediate impacts, and the potential long-term trajectory of American manufacturing and the broader economy.

Transcript

[Narrator]

At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more from the New York Times.

[Michael Barro]

I'm Michael Barro. This is the daily weeks before taking office, Donald Trump is doubling down on tariffs as the way to bring back the millions of American manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the past 30 years. Today, trade reporter Anna Swanson brings us a reality check on whether tariffs worked in Trump's first term and how they compare with the alternative approach used by President Biden. It's Monday, December 2nd.

[Anna Swanson]

So Anna, the world has spent the past few days absorbing Donald Trump's threat to impose enormous tariffs on America's three biggest trading partners. 25% tariffs on goods coming in from Mexico and Canada, 10% tariffs on goods coming in from China. And in doing so, Trump said very loudly and very clearly that his approach to protecting American jobs and American manufacturing is back.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. And these are really large levels of tariffs. So this action is going to raise tariffs on some of America's closest allies, like Canada and Mexico, to levels that the country hasn't seen since the 1950s. Trump has tied this round of tariffs to goals for stopping immigration and drugs entering the United States. But typically he sees tariffs as his primary tool for bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States and helping the U.S. economy.

[Anna Swanson]

Right.

[Trade Reporter]

And he has really extensive plans to impose them around the world with our trading partners in order to do that. And that is a sharp contrast with the current President Biden, who really thinks that the way you keep jobs in the United States is by directly investing in American industry.

[Anna Swanson]

Right. Trump tariffs, Biden direct investment. And it seems like an interesting moment to be having this conversation with you because we have an incoming president who is articulating a plan for tariffs so vividly and forcefully while the sitting president is still applying the approach you just described. So that really gives us a chance to kind of evaluate them side by side. How do you think about them?

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah, it's a really interesting moment in trade policy where we're shifting from one tool to the other. Trump sort of having a big stick. Biden maybe offering a carrot. So Biden is trying to incentivize companies to manufacture in the United States. And in order to do that, he's giving them money.

[Anna Swanson]

Got it. Let's explore each of these approaches one by one. And I think because he's about to become president and because he's articulating these huge tariff plans already, we should start with Trump. And of course, we have a useful place to look to, which is his first term, which was filled with tariffs. So take us back to that first term and how that went and whether it worked.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. So I covered trade during President Trump's first term. It was a very wild time for trade policy. He put tariffs on all kinds of things. He put them on solar panels, washing machines, hundreds of billions of dollars of goods from. But I think a helpful example for us to look at is his tariffs on steel. So steel was an industry that the United States had been pretty dominant in until it was gradually outsourced to cheaper places like China. And so China began flooding the market with cheap steel. It now makes over half of the world's steel. And Trump thought that was unfair.

[Unnamed Industry Expert]

Steel is steel. You don't have steel, you don't have a country. Our industries have been targeted for years and years, decades in fact, by unfair foreign trade practices leading to the shuttered plants and mills.

[Trade Reporter]

He also thought this was an issue of national security.

[Unnamed Industry Expert]

This is not merely an economic disaster, but it's a security disaster. We want to build our ships, we want to build our planes, we want to build our military equipment with steel, with aluminum from our country that the.

[Trade Reporter]

United States needed to have its own steel mills in the case of war to be able to produce its own metals.

[Unnamed Industry Expert]

So in 2018, today, I'm defending America's national security by placing tariffs on foreign imports of steel and aluminum.

[Trade Reporter]

He imposed tariffs of 25% on foreign steel and 10% on aluminum. And those tariffs didn't just go on China or American rivals. He put them on countries globally. So even allies like Mexico and Canada.

[Anna Swanson]

And just explain the logic of that in his mind.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. So it might be helpful to remember what a tariff is here. So it's a tax on a good when it comes across the border. And the goal of that is to raise the price of foreign goods. And that means that consumers domestically have less incentive to buy that more expensive foreign good, and they have more incentive to buy the American made good, which can now compete more easily.

[Anna Swanson]

Right. It's basically a message to American consumers and American corporations to use the domestically made thing, which makes sense because it's going to be significantly cheaper once the tariffs raise the price of the foreign good.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah, that's right.

[Anna Swanson]

And what is the reaction from those countries when this universal set of tariffs are imposed.

[Trade Reporter]

So other countries were not thrilled about this. They were quite angry. They responded by putting their own tariffs on American products. And they targeted some quintessentially American goods like blue jeans, Harley Davidson, motorcycles, whiskey. Suddenly, those products were going to get much more expensive in foreign markets because of those tariff, and that would mean US Exporters would lose out. And American allies were also really upset by the concept that their exports of metals actually threatened US national security. So particularly countries like Canada, which supplies metal for the US Military, thought it was pretty outrageous to be labeled a national security threat to the United States.

[Anna Swanson]

So clearly, there's an immediate diplomatic as well as economic frustration. But when it comes to the central goal of these tariffs, which is to strengthen the US Domestic steel business, does that happen?

[Trade Reporter]

So it definitely worked. Demand for U.S. steel and aluminum grew, and U.S. steel factories started pumping out more metal. And there was a government study that showed that by 2021, US steel production had increased by $1.5 billion a year.

[Anna Swanson]

Wow. So this very much does do what it's supposed to do. This blunt force of a trade tool. It does make America's steel production bigger and more profitable. It sounds like it did.

[Trade Reporter]

But it also had a downside for other industries, because there are a lot of industries in the United States that use steel and aluminum to make other things like cars or food packaging. So for those companies, they had to pay higher prices for the steel that they were buying to make into other products, and that ended up hurting them. If you look at it from the perspective of car manufacturers, for example, you had the Ford CEO saying at one point that the metal tariffs had already cost the company $1 billion in profit.

[Unnamed Industry Expert]

Wow.

[Trade Reporter]

So the same study showed that as a result of those higher steel aluminum tariffs, companies that use steel, because they faced higher prices, their production actually went down by more than the production of the steel industry went up.

[Anna Swanson]

Hmm. Which would seem to make it hard to consider an overall success. If the goal Is to improve U.S. manufacturing and U.S. manufacturing overall decreases because of this, then that sounds a bit more like a failure than a success, depending on your goals.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. So you could say, you know, yes, it accomplished its national security goals. Yes, it helped the steel industry. But in terms of overall US Manufacturing, the impact in the years right after the tariff was negative. But as it turns out, the tariffs were politically popular. So one study showed that people living in areas more affected by Trump's tariffs were more likely to vote for Trump in 20. And I think that stems from the feeling that even if tariffs didn't actually benefit these people, they felt that at least Trump was trying to do something about US manufacturing. And so when Biden comes into office in 2020 and has his chance to create a trade policy, he keeps some of the Trump tariffs, but also decides to try something fundamentally.

[Anna Swanson]

We'll be right back.

[Narrator]

At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more. This podcast is supported by Tomorrowist, a new podcast from shrm, the trusted authority on all things work. Disruptions like AI and automation, demographic shifts and geopolitical instability are challenging business leaders like never before. Each episode of Tomorrowist explores one of 12 critical trends impacting businesses, featuring practical insights you can apply tomorrow from guests like CNN's Van Jones, the Council on Foreign Relations, Michael Froman, and IBM's Martin Keen. Visit shrm.org tomorrowist to learn about the 12 tomorrowist trends and subscribe to Tomorrowist on all major podcast platforms.

[Anna Swanson]

Okay, so let's turn now to President Biden's approach to protecting American manufacturing jobs, which ana you have called this more carrot based direct investment tactic.

[Trade Reporter]

So Biden does choose to keep some of Trump's tariffs, but he has a different philosophy of the best to protect American jobs. His approach is all about industrial policy. So using government dollars to help nurture manufacturing industries in the United States, Biden got Congress to approve hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies that could be given out in direct investments in cash to American companies. And that's a level of direct investment in corporations that we haven't seen since the Eisenhower administration.

[Anna Swanson]

Right. And the impetus for that, as I recall, is the pandemic. Right. Biden persuades Congress to do this at a point in the pandemic when supply chains are clogged and disrupted and fears about the state of the US Economy are growing.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. And then he really directs this cash at targeted industries, industries that he sees as the businesses that we want for the future. Things like computer chips, electric vehicles, and solar panels.

[Anna Swanson]

So of those, which industry seems worth zeroing in on to see whether this Biden approach actually worked.

[Trade Reporter]

So let's focus on computer chips. Chips are in every technological thing that we use. Everything with an on off switch phones, cars, dishwashers, sophisticated military equipment, all are powered by chips. And the supply chain issues during the pandemic exposed a big problem, which is that US Companies design a lot of the world's chips, but we don't actually manufacture them.

[Anna Swanson]

Right. Most of them are made, as we've said many times on the show, in Taiwan.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. Taiwan is a bit insecure because Taiwan is so close to mainland China. And Taiwan, which China claims is its own and has threatened to invade.

[Anna Swanson]

Right. Which means that suddenly China could control most, if not all, of the manufacturing of computer chips that are pretty essential to American computers and technology.

[Trade Reporter]

Exactly.

[Unnamed Industry Expert]

These chips were invented in America. Let's get that straight. They were invented in America.

[Trade Reporter]

And so in 2022, the Biden administration works with Congress to pass the Chips Act.

[Unnamed Industry Expert]

We used to make 40% of the world's chips. In the last several decades, we lost our edge. We're down to only producing 10%.

[Trade Reporter]

And that secures about $50 billion of funding to help increase the domestic manufacturing of chips and to invest in things like research and development.

[Unnamed Industry Expert]

We're going to make sure the supply chain for America begins in America. The supply chain begins in America.

[Trade Reporter]

Essentially, this, over the longer run, transforms the government into kind of this venture capital firm that is looking at chip companies around the United States and deciding which ones of them to invest in, which ones of them deserve more money to grow.

[Anna Swanson]

So the government is putting itself in the pretty unusual position of kind of reaching through the free market system and trying to reshape an industry by choosing which companies get direct subsidies of taxpayer money with the goal of protecting and ultimately increasing the manufacturing of computer chips here in the United States.

[Trade Reporter]

Exactly. So the government is making a bunch of investments in dozens of companies, and the single biggest recipient is a company called Intel. So Intel, a lot of people probably know of them, but there's been an issue with awarding this money to intel, which is, it's a company that lately seems like it's just a bit past its prime.

[Anna Swanson]

Explain that.

[Trade Reporter]

So intel used to be this absolute powerhouse. They were the primary chip maker behind the personal computer computer boom. And in the 80s and 90s, they were a huge and successful company. But they've gradually lost that perch for a couple reasons. They missed the boat on some major tech innovations. At one point, they turned down a deal with Apple that could have given them a piece of the smartphone market. And they never really got back into smartphones, which are obviously a huge use of computer chips.

[Anna Swanson]

Right.

[Trade Reporter]

And then they also missed the boat with the kind of chips now that power artificial intelligence, which are made by companies like Nvidia. And as they lost that technological edge, they also started to outsource some of their own manufacturing to factories in Taiwan. So this is a complicated situation. The US Government wants Intel to be its national chip champion. Intel wants to get back on top. But the company is still in rough shape. And it's an open question whether this government money can help turn it it around. So we're at this moment where the government really wants intel to be expanding its factories and hiring new people. But instead, the company's had to announce 15,000 layoffs.

[Anna Swanson]

Wow.

[Trade Reporter]

And has said it needed to delay the opening of a big factory in Ohio. And we heard this very telling moment in our reporting where earlier this year, at this gathering of tech executives and billionaires in Sun Valley, Idaho, Gina Raimondo, who's the Commerce Secretary, was meeting with chief executives from Microsoft and Google and other firms and encouraging them to order their chips from Intel's US Factories. And many of these companies have said no, they're not convinced that Intel's technology is there yet.

[Anna Swanson]

Which I have to imagine gives the government some real pause when it thinks about just how much to invest in intel. Because the whole point of this direct investment is to pick winners and losers. And it's not sounding at the moment like the rest of the tech world sees intel as a winner or as a place it even wants to order computer chips from.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. So what should be a mutually beneficial partnership is proving to be quite tricky for the government. And the administration has tried to hedge its bets. It's been trying to give money to a lot of chip makers. And maybe surprisingly, the program biggest success so far is actually this new plant in Arizona from a Taiwanese chipmaker called tsmc.

[Anna Swanson]

Huh. So one of the biggest beneficiaries of this program so far is a company not owned by an American corporation, but by a Taiwanese corporation. Is the Biden administration okay with that? That some of these investments may end up favoring foreign owned companies? Is the idea that a US Manufacturing job is a US Manufacturing job, even if the ownership is overseas, or is that a disappointment to the Biden people?

[Trade Reporter]

So I think they think it's a great thing that TSMC is here. This is the world's most advanced chipmaker, and now the United States will have cutting edge chip manufacturing within its borders. It's still a little bit tricky because some in the US Government say we still shouldn't trust a foreign headquartered company to make the most sophisticated military chips. So you know, that's why the US Government, after all of this, is still very interested in backing intel as well.

[Anna Swanson]

Got it. So back to our original question. Is this approach working just as we asked with Trump and tariffs? What can we say about whether or not this program and plan for direct investments to increase U.S. manufacturing under Biden has been effective?

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah. So it's a very long term project. These chip plants are huge. They take many years to construct and to open. But stepping back, we already see that factory construction is up a lot under President Biden. You see these chip and electric vehicle battery factories and other factories sprouting up around the United States. The Biden administration is also pointing to 115,000 jobs created in the chip industry. A lot of these are construction jobs, but other high paying manufacturing jobs should be on the way in the coming years.

[Anna Swanson]

So slow moving, but overall it sounds like, and please correct me if this characterization is wrong, a modest success.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah, it's got some momentum, but it's going to take a while before we really feel its effects. And you've seen Trump also come out and criticize it as wasteful, saying you don't need to give wealthy companies all this money, you just need to put a big tariff on them and then they'll move their manufacturing back to the United States. States.

[Anna Swanson]

Hmm. So just to step way back and compare these two approaches, is it possible or even fair? Because I know how complicated these questions could be to ask, which of these is more effective at doing what it sets out to do? It seems just on paper, based on everything you're saying, like the Biden approach just numerically has the edge here in creating overall more manufacturing jobs, admittedly at a pretty significant cost to the taxpayer, than the Trump program. Is that right?

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah, I think that's right. Biden has spent a lot of money to start quite a few new factories, and that has created a relatively small number of jobs. And Trump spent very little money. He used tariffs instead. But that, economists think, did not create a lot of new jobs overall. So it really depends on your willingness to spend government money, how much you're willing to spend to get those new factories and that manufacturing work.

[Anna Swanson]

Well, it strikes me that we have been talking about these as separate strategies, tariffs and direct investment, when it feels like both are going to coexist side by side to a degree for quite some time. Right. I mean, if the Biden administration is putting all this money into these companies, that's going to probably come to fruition during President Elect Trump's presidency. And likewise, Biden kept, as you said, some of Trump's tariffs. So aren't we going to kind of see these buttressing each other and interacting with each other?

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah, and that's important. So many of Trump's tariffs have extended into the Biden administration. Many of Biden's investments will outlive him into the next Trump administration. Trump may be the one going to the opening ceremonies, getting the credit, potentially, as these investments come online. So these policies are definitely going to exist side by side. And I think one thing is clear, that they're both protectionist. They're both setting up more barriers around the US Economy to try to protect factories inside the country. So the question is, is that enough to counteract these longer run for that we've seen that have been taking manufacturing jobs away from the U.S. economy.

[Anna Swanson]

Right. And we may not know the answer to that for quite some time, but what we clearly do know is that for the last eight years and the next four, so 12 overall, we're going to be operating under some very strong protectionist trade policies. And that it really does feel like the era of unfettered free trade is over. And it's kind of hard to imagine how and when we would ever go back.

[Trade Reporter]

Yeah, absolutely. It's pretty remarkable that it was only a few decades ago that US Presidents were welcoming China into the world economy and everyone was proclaiming that the world is flat and that free trade should be the highest goal. And there's just been this big paradigm shift, and the only argument now is about which approach tariffs or industrial policy works better and has bigger upsides and fewer downsides. So we don't know exactly yet what all this will mean for the US Economy. Will these policies lead to this manufacturing renaissance, or will we see more inefficiencies, higher prices, inflation? Can we go too far with this approach? But even before we have all those answers, there's no sign yet that this is turning around. We're clearly headed for even more tariffs and more protectionism in the years to come.

[Anna Swanson]

Well, Anna, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

[Trade Reporter]

Thanks for having me.

[Michael Barro]

On Friday night, in a sign of just how much America's trading partners fear Trump's tariffs, the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, traveled to Mar a Lago. There, he sought to discourage Trump from following through with a 25% tariff against Canadian goods. Both Trump and Trudeau described the conversation as productive. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know. Today, in an extraordinary use of his powers, President Biden has issued a full and unconditional pardon of his son, Hunter Biden, something that President Biden has repeatedly pledged he would not do. The pardon cast aside years of his son's legal troubles, including a federal conviction for illegally buying a gun and a guilty plea for tax evasion. Biden said he issued the pardon because, in his telling, the prosecutions of his son had been politically motivated and designed to hurt him politically. In a state statement, Biden said enough is enough. And over the weekend, Donald Trump said he wants to replace the current leader of the FBI with Cash Patel, a hardline critic of the bureau who has called for shutting down the agency's entire Washington headquarters and firing its leadership. Patel Hill's radical views could make him a difficult pick to confirm in the US Senate, but Trump is intent on replacing FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom Trump himself appointed during his first term. Wray's 10 year term does not expire until 2027, so for Trump to replace him, Wray would either have to resign or be fired. Today's episode was produced by Shannon Lynn, Ricky Novetsky and Rochelle Banja. It was edited by Lisa Chow and Maria Byrne, contains original music by Marian Lozano and Sophia Landman and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsferk of Wonder. That's it for the Daily I'm Michael Bar. See you tomorrow.

[Narrator]

At Schwab, how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own, plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at Schwab. Visit Schwab to learn more.