Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
A
Gain insight on the innovators, disruptors and tech driven trends shaping today's complex economy. I'm Carol Massar.
- [00:07]
B
And I'm Tim Stanovec. Wrap up your workday with the Bloomberg businessweek Daily Podcast.
- [00:11]
C
We bring you deeper dives into the stories shaping your world, from the evolution
- [00:15]
A
of AI to the shifting priorities of
- [00:18]
B
global business, plus Silicon Valley power players and the latest tech trends.
- [00:22]
A
Catch up on the conversations you miss during the day.
- [00:25]
B
Subscribe to the Bloomberg businessweek Daily Podcast
- [00:27]
A
on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen to foreign.
- [00:45]
C
Hello and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast hosted by the litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the investment research platform of Bloomberg LP. On the Bloomberg Terminal. Bloomberg Intelligence has 500 analysts and strategists working across the globe and focused on all major markets. Our coverage includes over 2,000 equities and credits. We have outlooks on more than 90 industries and 100 market indices, currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of business policy and law. My name is Elliot Stein. I'm an analyst with BI covering litigation in the financial sector, and I'm delighted today, as I often am, to be joined by several of my BI colleagues. Today is August 6, 2026. It is about 12:30pm here in New York, and this is our weekly look at some of the most important litigation and policy catalysts that our team is watching and that we think will impact companies across a number of different sectors in the coming weeks. As always, you can find all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at BI Go. And you can find all of our litigation and policy research on our dashboard, which is on the terminal at BI Laws Go. All right, with that out of the way, let's get into the content. Let's bring in Nathan Dean, our chief policy Analyst down in D.C. nathan, what's cooking down there in D.C. well, it's
- [02:08]
D
very humid, so it's a soupy whatever it's cooking.
- [02:13]
C
Other than the eggs on the sidewalk, what's cooking down there in D.C. exactly.
- [02:17]
D
So, you know, today is if you were to give 100 senators truth serum, they would, I'd say about 95 of them would come back and say, today is the day that we want to leave town. And as of right now, isn't that every day? It probably is, but today is the day that they're not leaving town because they still have a lot to do before the end of this week. Now, Senate Majority Leader John thune has about 15,000 items on his to do list. He's only going to be able to get a couple of things done. But because we're recording this Thursday at 12:35, let's talk about what they want to try and get done. So when you're listening to this, if they have, we'll talk about the outlook for September. So first thing you want to do is there is this bill to keep the government open past September 30th. It's a continuing resolution that would keep the government past September 30, funds it until December 11. Now, the House has already passed a bill that would just extended to December 4th. But the Senate bill is actually a bipartisan solution coming from the Senate Appropriations Committee that includes a couple of things in there that the White House may not like. Specifically, it includes a provision that would prevent political appointees from approving grants. If I'm the White House, I'm going to say no, I don't want to support that. So if this bill passes and look, you know, it's, we don't think there's going to be a shutdown in September. It's right before an election. People don't want to be dealing with that type of politics. So again, I think you're going to see kick in the can. But the reason why this is important is that if the Senate passes this before this end of this week, there is going to be a shutdown fight in September. But it's going to be between the Senate, the House and the White House because the Senate has a bipartisan solution. The House does not. And the White House may not like the Senate solution. So it's going to be a fight between those entities. If the Senate does not pass its bill and the continuing resolution goes into September, the fight is most likely going to be between Republicans and Democrats. That's a different type of fight. Regardless, we don't think it's going to end up with a shutdown. But again, something to keep in mind because there's only 14 days that the Senate is here in September. And if the Senate can get the government, this government funding bill off of its plate, they opened up a couple of other days for something like the Clarity Act. Now the Clarity act, you know, if you're listening to this and you've listened to us over the past weeks, you know that I've always been at a 6% chance that this was going to pass. Obviously, if it doesn't, I owe clients a lot of Bloomberg coffees, which are great, free in the pantry. But the situation is this, is that as of right now, the Democrats have offered new ethics language as part of this bill. And the White House, as of reported from last night, is trying to respond to that. Now, the response is either going to be like, we hate it. Go away, or maybe there's something we can negotiate on. We don't know. But what Senate Majority Leader John Thune is waiting for is he wants to file cloture and he wants to have a vote before they leave for August recess. Now, if you have that vote and enough Democrats say, yes, we're okay for continuation of negotiations, et cetera, then you're going to get positive momentum going into the August recess. If you have that vote and the Democrats say no, we're out, that essentially is the death knell for, I think, the Clarity Act. So we'll know probably within the next 24 to 48 hours where this goes. I wouldn't be surprised if Senator Thune decides to keep the folks here in office or in town maybe through the rest of this weekend to get that out. And then the last thing is this reconciliation bill. So the reconciliation bill, this $95 billion bill that President Trump really wants to get done, and if he does get done, probably is the last major legislative assignment before the end of the congressional term, includes a lot of money for the defense industry, includes about $11 billion worth of farm aid. It also includes the Save America Act. Now, this is before the Senate parliamentarian is going to look at it. Senate parliamentarian is going to say the Save America act doesn't belong here. But Senator Thune is really struggling to get the votes, because if you have a reconciliation bill, one that does not include any offsetting measures, so this is going to be very much detrimental to the deficit. Also would allow Democrats to have a vote of Rama right before the election. So if you're Susan Collins in Maine, you don't want this. As of right now, I don't think he has the votes. So we are at a 30% chance this bill passes. That's a little bit lower than, I think, consensus. Obviously, things change. Like, if they get the government shutdown funding issue resolved and they can, you know, lower, maybe narrow the scope of this bill, those odds would rise. But, you know, President Trump wants $350 billion for the defense industry. He's only getting about 67 billion right now. There are some senators out there saying that's not enough. And as you remember, any type, you're talking about this right now, this money for the Iranian conflict, outside of appropriations, this is for munitions. This is for counter drone technology. So think Northrop Grumman, rtx Lockheed Martin. The appropriations money will be something we'll talk about in September at a future votes and verdicts.
- [07:26]
C
I look forward to it. Did you want to say anything about the Russia sanctions bill? I was just reading about that beforehand, and among other things, it sounds like there's. It's going to give the president additional authority to impose tariffs on at least a few countries. And then also I want to ask you about the, the Main Street Capital Access act, which I know you wrote about this morning with the headline that says bill to ease bank mergers, comma capital Regulations faces long odds. So I'd love to just get your thoughts on that, too.
- [07:56]
D
Yeah. So let's, let's start with Russian sanctions. So this bill's been floating out there for a while. It was actually Lindsey Graham's biggest bill, and I think they've renamed it the Lindse Graham Bill. This has overwhelmingly bipartisan support in the Senate. I mean, it passed a cloture vote 82 to 16. What this bill does is it gives the President Trump, or at least the President, a new tariff authority, a new tool. So if you listen to our podcast, you've heard Holly Fromm talk about things like section 122 or section 338. This provides another tool to essentially allow any country that imports Russian oil to face new tariffs. So who are we talking about? China, India, Turkey. Those are the top three countries. And so under this bill, President Trump can say, you know what? I don't like how President Putin talked to me. As a result, I'm gonna slap up to 100% tariffs on China or 100% tariffs on India until they say that they're gonna separate their oil and no longer import oil from Russia. So will this bill pass? It really comes down to whether or not President Trump wants it to pass or not, because President Trump viewed this bill as a negotiation tool. And he doesn't want to actually have this bill pass because it's going to upset the Russians until he thinks he can't get anything else out of it. So we've always been telling our clients, look, if this bill were to pass, or at least if President Trump wanted this bill to pass, it would pass. And if the bill passes, just be careful of that headline risk where, you know, you wake up on a Monday morning, say 3am Eastern time, when a lot of these announcements come out, you could see additional headline risk and volatility risk tied to associated tariffs. And then finally on the Main Street, Capital Access Act. This is for those of you who have investments tied to the regional banks. So think of PNC, Truist, Capital One, I almost said SunTrust, that's the now Truist US Bank. Go all the way down to about the $5 billion publicly traded banks. Now we don't cover those all that much, but maybe $100 billion bank like Zion. These are the banks that it's important to keep in mind. Now there's a lot of stuff here that helps the community banks in terms of the leverage ratios. But the one thing I want to focus on is this idea of tailoring regulatory thresholds. So if you are a bank in the United States and your asset size hits 100 billion, 250 billion or 700 billion, you then become get in what's known as enhanced prudential standards or additional regulation based off of your asset size. And I don't know why. I'm making a lot of motions with my hands at the moment, considering this is an audio only podcast.
- [10:30]
C
I see you. I find it very, very helpful.
- [10:32]
D
But you get the idea here is that there's a threshold at 100, there's a threshold at 250 billion, and then there's a threshold at 700 billion. This would require the Federal Reserve every five years to go back and rethink those thresholds, index them to something else, most likely nominal gdp. This is something the Fed is considering doing anyway. We think a proposal is coming out next year, but that $250 billion level is statutorily put into law and you need Congress to give the Fed the authority to change the $250 billion threshold. If not, then next year you will see the Fed say, okay, we're going to move that $100 billion threshold to 250, and then you'll have that $700 billion threshold to 950. Where this means is that if you are a bank and you need to grow, whether it's organically or inorganically, there's open up for more MA activities, there's open up for greater deposit growth. There's a lot more growth opportunities here for the regional bank system. If this bill passes now, will it pass? No, it's not going to pass.
- [11:31]
C
Why not?
- [11:32]
D
It did get 55 Democrats to go on board with it in the House, but they just run out of time. There's not enough time to get it done before the end of the Congressional term. And if the Democrats take the House of Representatives, you're going to be under the control of the House. Financial Services can be under the control of Maxine Waters if she decides to Retain that seat and you're not going to get a type of this bill. So the Fed will continue to do it anyway, but it's only going to relieve that $100 billion and that $700 billion threshold. That $250,000 remains the same.
- [12:03]
C
Got it. All right, well, that makes sense. All right, well, that was a lot. Never any shortage of things in D.C. nathan, thank you.
- [12:11]
D
Thank you.
- [12:12]
C
Let's stay in D.C. just a couple seats over from you, actually. Bring in Matt Chettenhelm, our TMT policy and litigation analyst. So, Matt, let's talk about the FCC and TV broadcaster ownership caps. I got a headline I think just like an hour ago saying that the FCC voted to ease those ownership caps. I know you've written a lot about this. You anticipate litigation. So tell us what your thinking is on what the likely outcome is here.
- [12:44]
B
Yeah, this is a big deal for broadcasters. The fcc, Republican side of the FCC has been working to ease this cap for over a decade. And it just, as you said, happened a little over an hour ago. The FCC, 2 to 1, as expected, voted to remove the cap. What this cap is is it said no U.S. broadcaster could reach more than 39% of U.S. households. And so for companies looking to consolidate nationwide and really grow large, this was a huge impediment. You can only reach 39% of the US with some, some math around the edges of that. Now the FCC with this vote, scraps that rule entirely. It's off the books. It doesn't mean that every deal is automatically cleared at the FCC. The FCC still reviews it, but there's no 39% bar. It's just sort of a case by case public interest review instead. And so it's great news for the broadcasters if this sticks. It featured prominently on both nexstar and Sinclair's earnings calls over the last two days because, because it is such a big deal. The question is, does this stick? And, and I think litigation is inevitable on the point. And so what I put out on the terminal this morning is sort of a comprehensive look at what does that litigation look like and what is the timing look like for, for all of that big picture. I, I view this as an, as an extremely close case. You both sides have a compelling argument that the FCC either has or lacks the power to change this limit. I think when you think about the likely forums here, you think about the D.C. circuit as the most likely landing place for this. And I think more likely than not, I think the D.C. circuit would be tough on. The FCC would give the FCC a hard time on whether it has the power to do this. Seven of the 11 active judges are Democrat appointed. Democrats tend to be more skeptical of these deregulatory actions. And I think there's enough in this statute to let those judges grab ahold and say, no, you need Congress to do this. If so, if that's correct, then then we go to the Supreme Court, very likely after that. And here now we're talking probably 2028, maybe 2029. And there, you know, the makeup of the court is different. It's leaning in a more deregulatory direction in terms of the makeup of the judges. And even though they've been hard on agencies, they've been mostly hard on agencies when they're regulating aggressively, not when they're easing rules. And so I still think it's a close case there, but I think more likely than not, the FCC might be able to salvage this at the Supreme Court. So that's big picture. Yeah.
- [15:53]
C
Yeah. So I mean, it's sort of one of those ironic, potentially ironic cases where, you know, judges appointed by Democrats, which are the majority in the D.C. circuit, maybe cite to things like the major questions doctrine or similar doctrines.
- [16:08]
B
It's fascinating that, you know, there's been so much action in the courts in constraining agency actions like this, and that really does work against the FCC here. Now the FCC will push back and say, look, this isn't a major question. We clearly have authority over broadcasters. It's beyond dispute. And this is just adjusting something that Congress left us power to adjust. They said put 39% in your rules. We did that 20 years ago. But now that rule no longer makes sense. We can adjust. But the count is Congress in 2004 when it said we want a 39% cap in your rule, it also said it in four other clauses in the statute. And it didn't just say the FCC set cap, it said the 39% cap. And if you have that written into the law five times, can the FCC change all five of those things written into statute? It gets at least awkward for the FCC to make that case. So it's really an interesting legal.
- [17:17]
C
Yeah, so it just comes down to the context for the references to the 39% in the statute.
- [17:24]
B
That's basically what it's going to come down to. The FCC is going to emphasize, look, Congress knew how to limit our ability to update our rules. It didn't say anything about that. We still have our pre existing statutory modification power. We're just using that. The other side Comes back and says, you can't use that here because if you do that, you create a big mess of this law because Congress said 39% four other times. And so if you make the cap 78% or whatever you're doing with it now, repealing it, you know that. What is the other four other references to 39%? That doesn't make any sense. When you read those four other references, that clearly implies that Congress didn't intend for you to use your modification power to change the cap level.
- [18:10]
C
Right. Why, why would Congress be so specific back in 2004 in setting a cap at 39%? It seems a little bit random and, and outside of the scope of what Congress usually does.
- [18:23]
B
Yeah, there was a big back and forth when you look at the history of this, of the FCC setting it at different levels. And then there was political pushback and Congress got involved. I think the FCC was. I'm not going to have the specifics.
- [18:37]
D
Right.
- [18:37]
B
But was FCC was at 45. And then Congress said, no, no, let split the difference. There you go to 39%. So it has its own whole long history of the FCC historically. Yes, adjusting this level. And so the FCC points to that. Look, look, clearly we used to adjust this all the time and Congress never said stop doing that. But the implication is when Congress said 39% and then said it multiple other times, that it wanted the end of the FCC tinkering with this statute and it's Congress's thing going forward, is the argument interesting.
- [19:16]
C
And just in terms of timing, this was a final rule or proposal.
- [19:20]
B
This is a final rule. So this takes effect 60 days after it's published in the Federal Register. And so the FCC has been going really fast with Federal Register publication. That could happen in a week or two. And then so you're looking at this cap being off the books in the fourth quarter of this year. And so broadcasters, even if the FCC loses this, assuming there's no stay of this change in the courts, broadcasters might try to race ahead and say, look, let's get these deals done. It's going to take a year or two for this whole thing to be litigated. And if we can get these deals done, maybe courts can't unscramble the eggs later. Even if the FCC ultimately loses.
- [20:04]
C
Right. And the litigation can get filed as soon as it's published in the Federal Register.
- [20:09]
B
Yeah. So there's a real possibility that there's a lottery between the courts of appeals 10 days after federal Register publication. Anyone who files in that window could Try to qualify these courts for a lottery. And that might be some of the gamesmanship we see to try to get this out of the D.C. circuit, which I said might be a tough forum for the FCC and for broadcasters. They might prefer a forum like the 5th Circuit to litigate this instead. So you could see some early gamesmanship that could really play an important role in this whole story. So that's what we'll be watching this month and next.
- [20:45]
C
Right. Although it's hard to see why any other circuit court other than the D.C. circuit would be a natural place for this.
- [20:53]
B
The statute lets challengers sue either in the D.C. circuit or in their home venue. So statutorily, there is a justification to sue there. What I'm not sure about is whether they have really a basis to sue. It's supposed to be aggrieved parties who can file lawsuits. And for example, nexstar is in the fifth Circuit, its home base. So. But it really doesn't. It got everything it wanted here. So it's going to be interesting to me to see whether it tries to sue the FCC claiming, hey, you know, there's something we don't like about this, just to try to qualify a favorable venue for this whole court case to play out. I don't know. That's likely, I think, to see some gamesmanship there. Still, the D.C. circuit, I think, is the most likely forum for this. That's where earlier stages of the nexstar Tegna issue were litigated. Most likely, we land there.
- [21:51]
C
Right. Although it's a lottery, though. So if challengers do file in multiple circuits, it's not like they'll figure out which circuit court makes the most sense.
- [21:59]
B
Right.
- [22:00]
C
It's just. It's actual lottery.
- [22:02]
B
And I think that's what broadcasters are thinking. Like, if we file in one of these favorable courts and that court wins the lottery, more often than not, those courts hang on to the cases. And so no doubt challengers will say, look, transfer this to the D.C. circuit. There will be motions filed making that argument. But the courts don't have to do that, and they often don't. They often keep the cases. So the lottery could be a big deal in this overall story. So we'll be watching that closely.
- [22:31]
C
Otherwise, say it may be somewhat moot because you expect the Supreme Court to side with the FCC ultimately anyways.
- [22:38]
B
Ultimately, I mean, but it's a really close call. So winning along the way is important. So no one wants to take a loss on this when the Supreme Court might stay out of it at the end of the day.
- [22:52]
C
Gotcha. All right, so interesting. Well, I'm sure we're going to get a lot of updates from you in the coming weeks and months on this. All right, well, thanks, Matt. Andrew Silverman, let's bring you in to talk tax. This is where I need to talk to our producer so we can get that Beatles music with Tax man playing. But until we do that, we'll just have me talking about it. So Andrew, there's two issues I know you want to talk about. One is data centers and another has to do with domestic film tax credits. Why don't we start with the film tax credits first, Something called the Create act, which you've written about as potentially saving roughly $450 million collectively for media companies. You want to talk about what that is?
- [23:39]
A
So there are actually two proposals at issue. The first is a deduction that could be doubled and that's what you had mentioned with the Create Act. The second is a far more generous Perk. It's a 10% film production credit. And maybe the main reason that I thought it would be fun to talk about this is so that I can make a distinction for everybody between tax deductions and tax credits. A tax deduction reduces the amount of money that a business is going to be taxed on. A tax credit reduces the tax bill itself. So that's why businesses generally prefer credits to deductions because the deductions value depends on, on the taxpayer's tax rate. But, but a credit is, is worth, worth its full face value. And, and incidentally they're both tax expenditures which, which maybe, maybe I'll get into a bit here too, which means that it's, it's government spending, but it looks like a reduction because it's a tax cut, but it's a reduction in the amount that companies would otherwise have to pay. So, so on the one hand we, we talk about the, the Create act is this, this, this deduction is already in place, although it's expired at the end of 2025 is probably going to come back again. And, and then the 10 film production credit, one much more generous than the other. So, so I guess I should say like, why are we even giving film companies tax cuts in the first place? Well, it's become sort of a political football and if you remember last year President Trump said that he wanted to put a 100 tariff on US studios foreign produced movies. Right. So, and the reason for that is it's a heck of a lot less expensive to make a movie in Tbilisi, Georgia than it is to make a movie in Atlanta, Georgia. And a lot of that is because of tax incentives. Right? So, you know, getting back to the issue at hand, the Create act would double the film production tax credit in section 181 that expired last year from a maximum of $20 million movie to a Maxim $40 million movie. And as you said, treasury estimated that that credit, the original credit, is worth about $450 million a year to US studios. So if you double it from 20 million to 40 million, hypothetically, that would double the deduction from 450 million to actually 900 million. And then the second proposal was one that was put forward by, by the Midnight Cowboy, the actor Jon Voight, also known as Angelina Jolie's father. And his proposal is called Make Hollywood Great Again, exclamation point. And the idea is, is pretty simple, which is why I think he thinks that it'll appeal to Congress. It's just this, you know, 10% credit. But, but it's worth, like I said, it's worth a heck of a lot more than the 181 deduction. We estimate that Paramount, Disney, Netflix, and Warner Brothers Discovery alone would have gotten $1.3 billion worth of credit last year if that Make Hollywood Great Again credit had been in place. But, but we think it's much more likely that the Section 181 deduction will be extended or, or even doubled than the Make Hollywood Great Again credit. And, and that's because the Section 181 deduction has actually been in the tax code since 2004. And every few years it expires, and then Congress comes back and extends it again. And not only have they extended it, but they've, They've, they've broadened it over time. So it makes sense to me, at least, that, that they would then extend it and double it. Maybe not in, in this Congress, but, but certainly in the next Congress. And this is a bipartisan issue. It's not just, it's not just Republicans to support it. It's Democrats. It's, it's, it's both parties.
- [27:34]
D
So.
- [27:34]
C
Got it. Why didn't they. I mean, when did you say the expiration date was?
- [27:39]
A
It was the end of 2025. So, yeah, December 31st.
- [27:42]
C
I guess they just had other priorities. I'm just trying to figure out why they. We weren't able to get it done if it's such a simple, bipartisan, popular tax credit.
- [27:52]
A
One would think.
- [27:54]
C
One would think, right.
- [27:54]
A
And yet this happens very, very frequently that these things expire. You know, the most famous example in tax world is 954, which is very tax technical provision, but it prevents federal 954. It prevents U.S. foreign subsidiaries from, from being taxed on transfers, but between themselves offshore. Right. And, and that had been in the code for 30 years. It was just made, made permanent I think, in the one big beautiful bill maybe, or Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But, but that had been extended every few years. There was a period where it had gone four or five years without being extended. And then Congress came in and extended all the way back retroactively. So companies had to like reissue all of their, their, their tax forms to, to account for that. They knew it was going to happen eventually, but it, you know, year after year Congress is like, yeah, we're going to get to it. But then they never did. So.
- [28:53]
C
All right, let's talk data centers because you had a headline this morning that read tax policy may determine next wave of AI infrastructure. So I think you, I think you may have been on this, on another episode previously talking about this issue, but maybe just give us the latest.
- [29:14]
A
Yeah, so in, in tax world, when you talk about the taxation of AI, a lot of times you're, you're actually talking about the taxation of data centers. And the reason for that is that AI is software. It's intangibles. Data centers are tangible. They're buildings, right? They, they, and, and they, you know, the electricity, cooling systems, networking equipment, all of that stuff is, is pretty easy to tax because it's eas. You say, oh, sitting right there in my state, I'm going to tax it,
- [29:44]
D
you know,
- [29:46]
A
but, but so my, my note that that went out today is about what leads to hyperscalers putting their, their data center in a state like Virginia as opposed to a state like New York, for example. And a lot of the reason that they do that is because of, of state taxes. And the main one is actually sales tax taxes. Why sales taxes? Well, so you spend, you know, a billion dollars, $10 billion, whatever to build this data center. And then a couple of Years later, your GPUs start to age out and you have to buy more. And every time you buy them, you get state sales tax on the repurchases. And you know, in states like Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, they exempt those purchases from sales tax. And it really sort of adds up. You know, and in, in, in, in other situations, if you're a farmer and you, you purchase a tractor, you can depreciate that, that tractor over time and it sort of washes away the the impact of the state sales tax, but not so much in this case. Why? Because a graphics processing unit is depreciated over the same schedule as a tractor. Right? So a tractor lasts you 30 years, a GPU lasts you two years, but you're depreciating it over the same period of time. So you're not getting your money back nearly as quickly. And so you're still sort of paying for these GPUs over time when, you know, for a tractor you'd be, you'd be perfectly fine. And, and the other thing that, that really sort of impacts these data centers is, is property taxes. And in a state like Virginia, they have enormous property taxes abatements, not in New York. So these data centers are absolutely enormous. They're getting taxed on sales tax, they're getting taxed on property tax, they're getting taxed on equipment tax, which is, which is called personal property tax. And all of those things in a state like New York, they add up and add up and add up. So we don't have a whole bunch of data centers here, but in Virginia they do. And that's on purpose.
- [31:50]
C
And we're going to have even fewer in New York due to the, the recent ban that our colleague Justin has spoken about on this podcast, or at least a one year moratorium on building new data centers in New York.
- [32:04]
A
It's funny because like you said, a lot of states are now thinking, even states that have put so much money into data centers, they're now sort of having buyer's remorse because they're now thinking, well, okay, we have this data center and you know, maybe in the future, like I said, you know, because it's a physical asset, we can point to that and say, all this AI money that you're bringing in, it's all because of that data center. And so we're going to be able to tax a lot of that. But for right now, maybe AI is putting a whole bunch of my residents out of work. So, yeah, okay, I bring in 10 people, 20 people to run this data center. But maybe AI is going to cause a thousand people in Ohio, for example, to be laid off. So it's not a great deal for states now. Ultimately it probably will be, but for now, not so good.
- [32:54]
C
Yeah, super interesting. All right, well, we'll keep an eye on that as well. Andrew, thank you very much.
- [33:01]
A
Thank you.
- [33:01]
C
I think in the interest of time, we'll leave it there. We'll conclude this episode of votes and verdicts. As always, we want to thank you for listening. If you have any questions about any of the matters that we discussed on this episode, don't hesitate to reach out to us at your convenience. As a reminder, you can find all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at BI Go. You can find our litigation and policy dashboard on the terminal at bilawsgo. We want to thank our producers Aditya Somani and Mariam Traore, without whom this podcast would never publish. Thanks again for listening. Have a great day and we'll see you next week.
- [33:53]
A
Hi, I'm Barry Ritholtz inviting you to join me for the Masters in Business podcast. Every week we bring you conversations with the people who shape markets, investing and business. I speak with CEOs, Nobel laureates, market innovators and and legendary investors. Whether you own stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, even crypto, these are discussions you absolutely need to hear. Subscribe to the Masters in Business podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen.