Michael Cembalest

It concerns me for a number of reasons. First of all, it's terrible for society. It's led to massive increased political polarization to the point where the country can't get things done. The percentage of moderates in the House and the Senate are at the lowest levels in over 100 years. And for that reason, some of the stuff that you talked about The CHIPS bill was supposed to help.

It concerns me for a number of reasons. First of all, it's terrible for society. It's led to massive increased political polarization to the point where the country can't get things done. The percentage of moderates in the House and the Senate are at the lowest levels in over 100 years. And for that reason, some of the stuff that you talked about The CHIPS bill was supposed to help.

The infrastructure bill was supposed to help. The energy bill was supposed to help. And now the administration, despite saying they want to do things to help people that have been left behind, are talking about gutting the programs that were passed to help them. So, yeah, I'm concerned about that.

The infrastructure bill was supposed to help. The energy bill was supposed to help. And now the administration, despite saying they want to do things to help people that have been left behind, are talking about gutting the programs that were passed to help them. So, yeah, I'm concerned about that.

The infrastructure bill was supposed to help. The energy bill was supposed to help. And now the administration, despite saying they want to do things to help people that have been left behind, are talking about gutting the programs that were passed to help them. So, yeah, I'm concerned about that.

And again, some of the priors that have led the administration to pursue certain policies are very clear. When China was allowed into the World Trades Organization in 2001 – it was a fantastic boon for profits, a boon for consumers in terms of low prices, but a disaster for manufacturing communities. Industrial production has basically flatlined since that date.

And again, some of the priors that have led the administration to pursue certain policies are very clear. When China was allowed into the World Trades Organization in 2001 – it was a fantastic boon for profits, a boon for consumers in terms of low prices, but a disaster for manufacturing communities. Industrial production has basically flatlined since that date.

And again, some of the priors that have led the administration to pursue certain policies are very clear. When China was allowed into the World Trades Organization in 2001 – it was a fantastic boon for profits, a boon for consumers in terms of low prices, but a disaster for manufacturing communities. Industrial production has basically flatlined since that date.

So there are important discussions that have to be had about everything from tariffs to domestic investment, to subsidies, to marginal tax rates. I just, I think the administration's policies aren't necessarily, like if you believe that 30 years of globalization is, left too many people behind.

So there are important discussions that have to be had about everything from tariffs to domestic investment, to subsidies, to marginal tax rates. I just, I think the administration's policies aren't necessarily, like if you believe that 30 years of globalization is, left too many people behind.

So there are important discussions that have to be had about everything from tariffs to domestic investment, to subsidies, to marginal tax rates. I just, I think the administration's policies aren't necessarily, like if you believe that 30 years of globalization is, left too many people behind.

You'd need the kind of superstar A-team of policymakers to figure out how to unwind parts of it with a scalpel, focus the benefits on the people who need them while not wrecking the capital markets in the process. And the jury's out whether or not this administration is comprised of people with those kinds of skills and vision and competence.

You'd need the kind of superstar A-team of policymakers to figure out how to unwind parts of it with a scalpel, focus the benefits on the people who need them while not wrecking the capital markets in the process. And the jury's out whether or not this administration is comprised of people with those kinds of skills and vision and competence.

You'd need the kind of superstar A-team of policymakers to figure out how to unwind parts of it with a scalpel, focus the benefits on the people who need them while not wrecking the capital markets in the process. And the jury's out whether or not this administration is comprised of people with those kinds of skills and vision and competence.

But I'm very concerned about some of those wealth inequality issues. And, you know, the dam will break at some point and we will have a wealth tax in the United States. It's just a question of the level that it will be set at.

But I'm very concerned about some of those wealth inequality issues. And, you know, the dam will break at some point and we will have a wealth tax in the United States. It's just a question of the level that it will be set at.

But I'm very concerned about some of those wealth inequality issues. And, you know, the dam will break at some point and we will have a wealth tax in the United States. It's just a question of the level that it will be set at.

I didn't really have a linear plan. I went with the wind. The opportunities opened up. I took advantage of them. I joined J.P. Morgan in 1987. As you mentioned, the bank didn't even have underwriting powers then, and I was in some back office financial position for many years. I will say that the world has gotten more jargonified since 1987.

I didn't really have a linear plan. I went with the wind. The opportunities opened up. I took advantage of them. I joined J.P. Morgan in 1987. As you mentioned, the bank didn't even have underwriting powers then, and I was in some back office financial position for many years. I will say that the world has gotten more jargonified since 1987.

I didn't really have a linear plan. I went with the wind. The opportunities opened up. I took advantage of them. I joined J.P. Morgan in 1987. As you mentioned, the bank didn't even have underwriting powers then, and I was in some back office financial position for many years. I will say that the world has gotten more jargonified since 1987.