Is This Economy Trump’s Fault?

(upbeat music) - People are pissed about this economy. - That's all I get for $100! - The cost of our health insurance is going up again this year. - Then a cancel, 'cause I can't even afford to be-- - My current rent's $4190. They are raising it to $4,602. - That's disgusting. - And you can guess who they're blaming. - I don't wanna hear about the affordability. We have the best economy anywhere in the world. There's no economy like this economy. - But can we really just blame one person? (upbeat music) - Catherine Rampell, welcome to the opinions. - Great to be here. - Catherine, you are the economics editor of the Bullwork and the host of the podcast receipts. I am an economist. We are also very good friends. - Yes. - And get to talk about the economy all the time. So I wanted to bring our group chat here to this table to try to unpack the extent to which Trump is actually to blame for what is happening in the economy right now and how people are feeling this giant issue ahead of the midterms. And you and I kind of disagree about this. - To an extent, we do. - But before we do that, I feel like it would be helpful for us to talk a little bit about what actually is happening in an economy. - Fair question. - And maybe to start us off, we can walk through some of these charts that you have right ahead of you. And remember, many people are listening to us and not looking at the screen. So if you can do a little bit of visual narration and tell us what we're looking at. - Okay, so we are looking for our first chart at the S&P 500 index. In short, line go up. - And short line go up. - That is how I would summarize this chart. The S&P 500 has hit a bunch of records as we have heard ad nauseam from our president recently. And the question is why, right? Like why is the stock market doing so phenomenally well? Particularly relative to prior points in history. Like the question is why. And we can get into like what is actually going on in the economy aside from the stock market. But I would say this is mostly a story about AI that there are a lot of things weighing on the economy right now. Interest rates, you have trade wars, you have an actual hot war. The AI sector has been sort of impervious to all of that. And usually when you have high interest rates, that should weigh the stock market because there's like less money sloshing around, including in equities. And we have not seen that happen. And that's because there is a lot of enthusiasm about AI. You could call it a boom. You could call it a bubble. I don't know. - I don't think of endless debate. - I know, I don't know if you have a referendum on that. But I would say in this particular case, if you look at like how concentrated the market is right now, it is extremely like historically concentrated in AI. Something like 45% of the market cap of the S&P 500 is in very AI-linked stocks. And if you look at like how much capital investment there has been right now relative to the overall size of the economy, so not just the stock market, but the overall size of the economy, the last time we saw like this amount of money going into the build out of new infrastructure was probably during the railroad boom in like the 1870s. So that's what's driving all of this. That does also mean that there's a lot hanging on all of this. And like bubble boom, who knows? If it's a bubble at that first, that could be quite bad. Given that the AI part of the market and the AI part of the economy seem to be propping up a lot of the rest of the economy. And I agree with that, but I also think there are aspects of that that are kind of interesting in that there was this good study that JP Morgan did, which documented that since 2024, about something like two thirds of all the gains in the S&P 500 are coming on the heels of AI or AI adjacent types of stocks. But sort of the flip side of that is that you're starting to see a couple of tremors in the market. Some concern that actually some of these data center moratoriums are going to be pretty significant and are going to delay the capacity to deploy the technology or the possibility that the revenues that we think are going to be generated by AI and the productivity gains that come from us being able to much more easily deploy the technology, they're kind of further out of reach. - Yeah, you have companies borrowing a lot, a lot, a lot. And the question is, can they ever actually deliver enough revenue to pay off that debt? And so you have seen, like if you look at this chart, there have been some market wobbles, shall we say, towards the end of the line go up, line dip down at the end. And that's partly because of these concerns. - Even in just the last week, right? We've seen a bunch of this, like are we pulling back from the AI boom, is there, are we on the verge of some of this profitability concern starting to be realized? But the flip side is that over the course of the last few months, what you've also seen is that you've seen that the gains from AI are starting to be more dispersed in the economy. So you have like something like nine out of the 11 S&P sectors are actually showing gains. You have earnings reports that are billing success, not just in tech and tech adjacent types of firms. They're also in the banks, they're also in the Wal-Marts where they're maybe deploying the technology and that's part of what the gains are being delivered or about to deploy it. But it's not as concentrated as it has been over the course of the last couple of years. So it's kind of like a positive story, at least, about how the market looks at the moment. Totally plausible that we're at the verge of a bubble starting to crack. And real concerns about that exist. But it is a story of AI and AI pulling up the rest of the economy, it looks like alongside it. I think there is no doubt that AI will dramatically transform, disrupt, whatever you want to use. Pretty much every major sector of the economy. But yeah, I think that there are likely to be productivity gains. I hear it from like every CEO that I talk with. I was talking with a company that sells Christmas trees recently and they have been hit by the tariffs. And he was saying that the CEO of this company was saying that if the trade war had happened like two or three years ago, he thought it would have been much more devastating for the overall economy. But now the drag of that has been sort of offset by some of the gains from productivity. And so that's been able to help them hold on. Yeah, and interestingly, when the market is doing well, it is also tends to be a moment when consumers and Americans writ large like fuel kind of good about the economy. That's in part because like our household finances are very significantly tied up in the stock market, at least for sort of American workers who have 401Ks that are being invested in the market. And so those gains are actually realizing for them like pretty significant wealth increases over the course of the last couple of years. Yeah, but they don't seem to recognize that. Hence our second chart. Yes. OK, so second chart is about consumer sentiment. Consumer sentiment has basically been in the toilet. It has been in the toilet for a long time now. If the other track are low. Lowest in our lifetime. Yes. If before it was line go up, this is line go down. Basically since 2020. And according to this index and this index, we should explain is a series of questions that the University of Michigan has been asking consumers for decades at this point. And their questions like is now a good time to buy a house? Are you worried about your finances better this year than they were last year? What do you think the rate of inflation will be? How much higher do you think prices will be a year from now? Things like that. So it's like a mix of different specific questions, as well as some softer questions about how do you feel about things. And things are historically bad, as you point out. Natasha. In fact, they are worse than they were during the financial crisis and great recession. Let me tell you, as someone who covered the financial crisis and great recession, in fact, I covered it for the time. There is no way in hell that today's economic conditions rival those. We had 10% unemployment. People were losing their homes. There was like Americans lost a third of their net worth during the great recession. Yes, it felt like we were on the edge of the abyss, right? I don't think as much as I believe people are actually struggling to get by today, it is not nearly as bad as it was then. So then the question is, how do we interpret this? And why do people say this economy is so terrible? Why do they hate it so much? And I think that there are a few different ways to understand this. And I'm sure you have theories as well. But one of them is just like answers to survey questions like this have gotten much more politically polarized. So people are much more likely to say that the economy is bad when the person in the White House belongs to the party that they don't. And that political lens has just become like a lot thicker over time. So it's partly that, but even Republicans have said that they like the economy less today than they did recently. It's basically true across all demographic groups. I think the other issue is when you ask people about their impressions of the economy, The question is. compared to what, right? They're not being asked, how do you think about the economy today relative to 2008? That comparison that I just made. They're being just asked to talk about the economy today and their reference point may be what they thought the economy would be, right? Donald Trump got into office. He was elected explicitly on a set of promises to reduce prices, to usher in a new economic golden era. And instead, we have had the opposite, right? We have had actually inflation re-accelerate due to a number of policies Trump himself has put in place. We have some signs of fragility in the labor market. And you do not see any signs of this new economic golden era in manufacturing or anything else that he had promised. So if people are comparing today's economic conditions to what they thought was going to happen, I get it. I get why they're upset. - So I agree, but also I'm not fully sure I agree. - I kind of don't really agree with the media environment or social media is polarizing and making us think things are worse than they actually are. There's been some really interesting empirical work about the extent to which that's true. If you look at fabulous vacations or something. - Exactly. And you feel it's kind of like keeping up with the Joneses thing, but it's like keeping up with the Kardashians, right? We're just more exposed to a lot of consumption and the ways in which that makes you feel like you're going without, that is, you can understand why that might have accelerated over time, but it doesn't actually look like it lines up very neatly with what you're seeing with respect to things like consumer sentiment. And so that seems like it's probably a less likely driver of what we're observing. And so I think some of this is like deeper in some sense than just this particular moment. And in ways that make me wonder like how much I should attribute the current pain and the ways in which this election in two weeks is also going to be decided on the heels of people saying that when they're going to the polls, 50% of people say they're doing so with cost of living issues as their number one issue. Like how much of that is about a reaction to what we've seen over the course of the last few years. And how much of that is something much deeper and more structural about the American economy. - I think people have been ticked off about the economy about rising inequality, about feeling like they're being left behind, about rising prices at the grocery store and everywhere else. I think that they've been ticked off about all of that for a long time. And then you layer onto it the fact that they were promised all of those problems would be magically fixed. And so that resentment, that deep well of frustration, of insecurity, I think all of it just gets so much worse because there's disillusionment essentially. People were already mad about all of these economic conditions. They were told they would get better. They have not gotten better. In fact, many of them have gotten worse. And understandably, that disillusionment is feeding into this sort of like rage about the economic conditions that they're stuck with. And you know, there are different lessons that politicians could take away from that. And the thing that I worry about is that you will have this sort of like doom loop almost. The party out of power says, don't worry. I will solve all your problems. Throw the bombs out, elect me. They get into office. They cannot solve everyone's problems. They're certainly not with the snap of the fingers that has been implied by like, all we have to do is round up all of the immigrants, just as an example. And then people get even more frustrated and even more resentful. And then they're susceptible to the, again, the party out of power, which had been in power, promising the same thing. Except in this case, the party out of power says, don't worry, I can solve all your problems. I can lower prices by just name a different scapegoat. - The billionaires. We're gonna punish the billionaires and that is going to make your health care cheaper or what have you. And you end up with this kind of populist doom loop in other countries we've seen in Argentina. As an example, where you had like the left wing populist and the right wing populist kind of like alternating power always promising. - Sure, right. - Yes, but always promising that they could, they had the magic bullet to solve everyone's problems, when like there isn't a magic bullet. It's like a bunch of boring technical stuff, like the kinds of things that you worked on in the administration that don't land, that don't get spelled easily on a slogan. There's almost like an arms race and who can offer the most magical thinking and nobody's tethered to reality. I think that's the real thing that I'm worried about. - I'm super worried about that too. I almost call it like the affordability doom loop, right? Because if you take some of these policies and try to disentangle their likely economic effect, so if you go back to the 2024 presidential election, Trump's, I'm gonna lower prices on day one. People are really upset, prices haven't been lowered on day one, but guess what? It would actually be quite bad if prices were lower on day one because what it would reflect is it would reflect that we were in a downturn such that people had less dollars to spend and they were spending less. And the result of that was that prices were falling because demand for goods was falling. And if you take other proposals that you've seen over the course of the last few years, so around Memdani's mayoral campaign, we're gonna freeze rent and that's gonna provide relief for people with respect to housing costs, which are hugely significant. So like big important problem to solve, but it turns out that when you do things like rent freezes, you actually just make it more difficult for people to find affordable housing. It was great work that's been done by Rebecca Diamond at Stanford on this, where she points out that one of the sort of effects is that a lot of rental units end up being redeployed or repurposed such that they're no longer available for people as a form of rental housing. And I worry that it's because the nature of our political process is such that you're constantly trying to craft policy for like two-year election cycles, and there are no solutions to these types of problems that like exist in that type of an election window. - I think the problem is not just about the election cycles, it's about the impatience of voters, right? If you tell voters, don't worry, this, we're gonna expand supply, and we're gonna-- - How big supply, really big deal. - I know, we're gonna make it so much easier to build and like-- - We're making more form, we might do some of that, right? - Yeah, some of it, some of it. That doesn't solve the problem quickly enough, and we have gotten to a new norm where politicians have begun promising and immediate fix, right? You don't win on a platform of this will make the cost of living better 10 years from now. This will make the insurance pool function better 10 years from now, because we'll have less adverse selection or whatever, like all of these things, they're both boring and technical and hard to message, but also they're not immediate. And if you have one party that is offering immediate gratification in the form of policy solutions and the other party that is tethered to reality, the party that is tethered to reality is at a disadvantage. And so that's what I mean when you say you get this arms race, where it's like if one side is offering rainbows and ponies and the other side has to offer rainbows and ponies, even if the rainbows and ponies are not actually gonna solve anything and may actually make things worse. (upbeat music) - I guess one interesting aspect of it, as you started to point out, is this isn't something that like we're uniquely observing here in the United States, right? We're talking 'cause, in part, because there are midterm elections in a couple of weeks where these issues are driving people to the polls, but another reason why we could be talking at this moment is if you look at what is happening in France with respect to literal protests on the streets by people who are at their core frustrated with a political system that they feel like isn't delivering for them in meaningful ways with respect to education, with respect to pensions, with respect to government spending and revenue raising writ large opportunities. - Totally, and feeling like isolated and frustrated in ways that are actually very tied to the same sets of issues that we're watching here in the United States. And I almost think about France as a bit of like a cautionary tale for how things could go in the US. And one of my sort of flashpoints for why that is, is at its core what France is confronting, I think, is it is confronting a debt problem. Like it is confronting what the nature of this sent these types of protests at this particular moment are in part about the inability of the government to be able to marshal a budget that meets its needs to raise revenue or cut spending seriously and find opportunities to employ an educated's youth. And that type of a debt problem is actually one that we're facing here in the United States too. You know, 10 years ago, 50% of millennials who didn't own homes thought someday they would, today that number is like 30%. So it's increasingly they're feeling like priced out of certain aspects of the American dream almost, by the fact that these costs are high and rising. And there actually is a direct connection between the way in which our government is spending and things that are very real to all of us. - Yeah, and again, these things are not, [BLANK_AUDIO] really intuitive, like how interest rates relate to inflation, relate to mortgage rates, and how all this stuff works. You and I have the luxury of having the time to spend on all of this stuff and think about how these things work and how the mechanics could go awry for most normal people, they do not. This is not their job. I am paid to follow these things. You are too. Most normal people do not have the luxury of that time and bandwidth. So of course, it's going to sound appealing when you hear a president say, "Don't worry. I am just going to cut everyone to check. I'm going to force the Federal Reserve to cut rates and all of your problems are going to go away." Even though in the medium term, arguably, that's going to make all of these affordability problems worse. So totally great with you, but Devils Advocate slightly, I think this is an area where I ask myself how much are the problems that we are observing in the economy today about the Trump administration and this president, and how much are they about sort of broader structural forces that have been in the works for quite some time? And interest rates and our deficit problems are like a perfect example in that it is true. We have made problems worse over the course of the last few years, in part because we had a giant deficit finance tax cut that delivered gains basically only to the top of the distribution and actually delivered losses in the form of food stamp cuts and increased healthcare costs for everyone else, Medicaid cuts coming after the midterms very conveniently designed. Those consequences are really significant, and yet that entire package, by the way, added some $3 trillion to the deficit, so made the problems worse. But even before then, I mean, we were on track for debt to GDP ratios to rise to 125% and part of the challenge, by the way, is like, I feel like all these numbers are totally meaningless to people. Like, oh, the national debt is crossing $40 trillion, and it's actually $33 trillion if you exclude intra-government transfers, like what does that mean this stuff actually mean? Yeah, I mean, again, even for people like us who are paid to pay attention to these things, at some point, it all starts to lose meaning. Now, can you even just imagine for a normal voter who has been scolded about deficits for 10 years, 20 years, and there was never a debt crisis that actually materialized, like, why would you pay attention? And why would you care, and why would you connect those things to the fact that you're watching mortgage rates rise, and you're watching it become more expensive for you to buy a car because it's hard to get financing for that giant purchase for your household. But in fact, like, these things are all connected, and even if you look at healthcare, right? Actually, a lot of damage has been done by this administration with respect to both cuts that have already arisen and increases in, you know, the average family who is an employer provided health insurance is paying something like $27,000 for that package. That is like a very significant cost, and people are about to watch their plans increase from something like 8% to 10% over the course of the next year, which is the highest increase that we've seen since the early 2000s. But a lot of this is about the fact that we've had challenges with respect to both the delivery of health benefits in the cost of health benefits in this country that, like, way predated this second Trump administration. Yeah. Again, totally agree with all of that. There are problems that predated Trump. The problem is that he has made all of the worse, right? Just as an example with healthcare, he has taken money away from outreach efforts for recruiting people to the marketplace plans, the Obamacare plans. Outreach spending is actually really important, and the reason why is that people who are sick who have poor health, they know that they need insurance, right? The people who are healthier? Maybe this is less top of mind for them. So what happens is if you don't spend money on outreach, if you don't do a lot of advertising to tell people like what their options are, they may just decide, "I've seen these numbers about insurance premiums going up 15% or whatever, I'm just not going to get it." And then you end up having an increasingly sick population who does get the insurance, which actually drives the rates up the following year. And then repeat that several times. You get the death spiral, as it's called, in health insurance. And that's all because of this stupid thing that the Trump administration did, which was just not advertise the fact that insurance was available, that open enrollment is happening and that here are the subsidies available to you. And in fact, actually took away some of those enhanced subsidies. So this is just like a little microcosm of this broader question. And that's just leaving aside all of the other unforced errors that this administration has done on tariffs. And then you add on these ridiculous trade wars, which in addition to alienating all of our friends and allies around the world are also raising the cost of living. You have that. You have the war with Iran, we talk trade wars, there's the actual hot war, that's driving up prices as well. You have meddling with the Fed. There are a whole bunch of things that Donald Trump has done to make the economy objectively worse, directionally, at the very least. Now, none of that has produced a recession, knock on wood, and hopefully will not. And so I don't think it's like the economy is actually in the trash, despite those consumer sentiment numbers we were talking about. People say that they hate this economy, that it sucks, that it's worse than the financial crisis in the Great Recession. I do not, again, I do not think any of that is true. Unemployment is very low. Right. Unemployment is in the low fours. It's basically, I mean, it's not, you're starting to see pockets of concern. There was a great piece in the times about how you're starting to see African American unemployment take up, which tends to be a leading indicator of problems in the labor market. It's all this concern about AI, deumarism, and where it's going to show up with respect to job displacement. And so, in meaningful ways, the labor market is kind of holding up. And for large parts of the population, people who want jobs have them, of course, the long-term unemployed are going way up. And that's really concerning for a set of the population who essentially in the stalled, no higher, no fire economy is feeling themselves lacking the opportunities to enter. But, like, labor market kind of writ large doing pretty well relative to what you would expect if you take all of the things that you just listed about these policy errors, and you kind of combine it with these consumer sentiment numbers, I think you would expect a picture that's bleaker than you're actually seeing. Yeah. Absolutely. And, again, the things that the administration has done have been bad for the economy. They have not destroyed the economy. I think that if Trump had been unfettered and done a bunch of other things that he said he had planned to do, or that his underlings had said that they wanted to do, if he had been successful, Trump had been successful in firing the previous Fed share, Jerome Powell, that might have cost a financial crisis. Those kinds of things, like the most extreme versions of what he wanted to do, I think would have been completely devastating. Instead, you just have this, like, steady drag on the economy from all of the things we talked about from the uncertainty, from just like how erratic policy-making is. All of it makes things a little worse, even if it doesn't destroy the fundamental strength of the economy that we have, which, again, to go back to the beginning of our conversation is partly about this other thing completely unrelated to Trump AI. In some ways, he has been rescued by the AI investment boom, because it has provided a huge buffer in this economy against the kinds of things that he's doing. I think one of the sort of aspects is that we're circling around a little bit is there seems to be this, like, asymmetry with respect to the potential for policy to impact the economy in lifetime, which is, on the one hand, if you're looking for stuff that's going to make people's lives feel more affordable, immediately, like, and tangible to them, and deliver lower prices or cheaper housing, like, that stuff we're telling you is, like, longer term. The real solutions take time to effectuate, and they take patience, and, you know, our policy makers are impatient, and perhaps all of us are impatient. But the flip side is, like, if you want to do a lot of damage, it's actually relatively straightforward to do the damage quickly. Yes. Yes. The thing, the mantra that I have been saying since the beginning of my career in journalism has been, presidents get too much credit when the economy is good and too much blame when the economy is bad. They just don't have that much control over the economy. Yeah. The hardship to turn, right? The American economy is difficult to direct, except I retract that statement, officially. You heard it here for me. Big news. I know. You could do, like, a whole supercut of all of the times that I've said this on T, on radio, and written in my columns and stuff like that. It turns out, it is true that it is difficult for the president to make the economy a lot better. It is, unfortunately, very easy for the president to make the economy worse, because there's just, like, so many buttons he can push that will make prices higher, will make businesses feel more uncertain about the future, will put more jobs in jeopardy. There are a lot of ways that the president can, like, imminently make the economy worse. Just previous presidents have not elected to press them. buttons. You know what I think is really interesting in some sense is maybe the asymmetry is overstated because some of the more damaging consequences of what this administration has done over the course of the last few years, we actually haven't quite felt yet. Immigration is a very concrete example. You are in fact feeling particularly in industries like construction, particularly for issues like the building of new housing, which is massively important to housing affordability. You're already seeing the ramifications of this administration's immigration policy on our capacity to build and that is going to show up in prices if it hasn't already. But the longer-term consequences of having an economy were essentially we were projecting to get growth with respect to our labor supply that was entirely coming from immigration or largely coming from immigration as a result of the demographics in this country that are tilting older and people are delaying having children and not having children at all. Immigration really important booster of labor productivity, just labor supply growth in this country. We've kind of shut that down. Yes, there are a lot of ways in which a lot of the economic destruction that this administration will ultimately be responsible for is yet to be seen. It has to do with immigration, it has to do with institutions, it has to do with like other boring stuff like I'm personally kind of obsessed with the attacks on our statistical agencies, which is boring. Who cares about the fact? We care about the stable care about the statistical agency. There are dozens of us. Yes, so things like can you trust the numbers coming out of the census? Can you trust the numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces our jobs reports and some of our inflation data? Those kinds of things, sort of the degradation of trust in just numbers in data is really important because businesses need them rely on these data or downstream versions of it to figure out where to invest, what to buy, who to hire, what to stock in your stores. Those things matter for delegating or appropriating money around the country. They matter for all sorts of things and the consequences of making those numbers just a little bit worse or putting a little bit more down into them will not be felt today. It'll be felt 20 years from now when companies are making worse decisions about how to grow. Rather than thinking about the best way to optimize their whatever management or their processes or whatever, they're going to be spending a lot more time doing dumb things like figuring out who actually lives here, who are our customers. That's true for a lot of the corruption stuff too. Corruption is a tax on economic growth, a tax on rule of law, those are a tax on economic growth. All of those things again will not be felt immediately. They're not going to be felt today or tomorrow, but the more time that you have businesses figuring out how do I appease the leader rather than how do I come up with a product people like or whatever, the worse the outcomes are, the more that that drags on our living standards going forward. And what I worry about is a lot of affordability is the government should better be able to serve us, should better be able to provide us health care, should better be able to provide us opportunities for growth should better be able to provide us benefits if we fall into hard times or if our jobs are displaced by artificial intelligence. And just like the capacity to do that has been so meaningfully degraded by what we've seen over the course of the last few years. And the consequences of that, those are not like things that are showing up instantly. They're starting to, but they're going to be felt over like decades and generations really. They will be felt the next time we have a recession. And I guess that kind of brings us to these midterms. I worry that we've made life very hard for the people running for office because a TLDR version of what we've done is like your policy solutions are unlikely to be able to very quickly solve the problem that real households are tangibly feeling with respect to the ways in which the economy isn't working. And what does that mean? I guess like what should they be saying right now over the course of the next few weeks, but more meaningfully, like when they're in office, like what is the policy agenda that should be driving this group of policymakers as they seek to at least try to deliver something with respect to some of these problems? There is some low hanging fruit. The tariffs, just as a for instance, right? Like again, huge unforced error that drives up prices, particularly on specific goods, like why are we tariffing tomatoes right now? You know, like why is Trump trying to take away your salsa? I don't know. Democrats definitely in Texas could run on, don't worry. We're going to make sure that you get free salsa and chips at your local Tex-Mex restaurant. Like maybe that would be a win. Also the restaurant in my house. My toddler's very into tomatoes. Okay. So I'm sure that they are very unhappy about the rising price of tomatoes. So there are things like that that I think are easy to deliver. Some of these other stuff that we're talking about, it's a lot more challenging and maybe painful, in fact, in the near term. Like to the extent that part of the issue that's driving up high interest rates is that we have an unsustainable level of debt in this country. The solution for that would be to try to make that debt more sustainable, but you know what that means? That means a lot of really unpopular things like raising taxes and/or cutting spending programs. So I'm not sure that I would encourage politicians to like lead with that per se, but those are the kinds of things that over the long run are going to make a difference in the near term may cause some pain. Because again, if you are the party that is saying like we're going to give you the sober-minded, no-nonsense analysis of all the things, like all the boring things that we're going to do and like how you have to be patient and all of that. And you're running against a party that is saying don't worry about those nerds, like I'm just going to push this button and it's going to make everything better. It's really hard to compete. If you are promising big splashy solutions that are going to make things worse and people actually expect you to deliver on those things, yeah, you're setting yourself up for failure. Well, hopefully they won't set themselves up for failure and at the very least they'll be able to undo the bad. I think that's our message for them and we'll have to work on what to do about the good going forward. Thanks so much Catherine for joining me today and for this great conversation. My pleasure.