The Macro Memo - US election, trade wars & the challenges facing European businesses

In a discussion hosted by Gavin Hinks, Mark Kennedy and George Lagarias explore the impact of the US election results, the rise of populism in Europe and the intricate relationship between macroeconomics, geopolitics, and business. They highlight the ongoing volatility in business environments, particularly in light of the US election result and its shifting global leadership. The conversation touches on trade tensions, especially between the US and China, and the potential for positive economic outcomes despite challenges. They also address the importance of European unity in the face of rising populism and the need for political cohesion to enhance competitiveness. Overall, the sentiment remains optimistic as businesses navigate these complex dynamics.

Transcript

Welcome to Macro Memo, a board agenda podcast exploring the impact of macroeconomics and geopolitics on business with Mark Kennedy, George Lagarias, and hosted by Gavin Hinks.

To access thousands of articles, guides, reports, and our upcoming events, sign up or log in at board agenda dot com. That's board agenda dot com.

This episode is brought to you by Forvis Mazars, the international audit tax and advisory firm helping businesses around the world operate and grow with confidence.

Hello, and welcome to this edition of the macro memo. My name is Gavin Hinks, and this is our last briefing of twenty twenty four on the macro trends affecting business and trade. As we all know, we're about to see a new regime in the White House after US presidential elections, and there's already talk of changes that could transform the global trade and economic landscape. We'll be looking at issues like bank deregulation, tariffs and trade, and tax cuts.

But first, a welcome to our regular macro maestros. Mark Kennedy joins us from north yes. You are in Dublin, aren't you, Mark? Welcome.

I am indeed. Yeah. Yeah. Good to see you, Gavin.

And for once, well, usual suspect economist, George Legarius, instead of in Athens, is in London. Hello, George.

Hello.

Look, gentlemen, we've got a lot to get through, but let me start with, a quite a broad question. George, you've written that we are about to enter an era of uncertainty.

In general terms, what do you mean by that? Although, I think secretly we all know.

Okay. So, to to cut a long story short, first of all, uncertainty has been the name of the game anyway since the pandemic.

The pandemic became the catalyst for for a lot of things to to happen, especially around global supply chains.

But the particular of uncertainty now comes from America's will to essentially depart from its role as a global leader and act more competitively against other economies.

Okay? And it creates uncertainty just because it it changes the status quo.

Right. Mark, is it do you feel as uncertain as George appears to?

I do. I, and and I think George is right. There has been a a kind of a period of an ongoing period of volatility, which, is interesting to reflect on because what it tells you in a way is that businesses and, to some extent, economies are managing that uncertainty. You know?

This is not a new topic. I think where I may be, maybe a little bit positive about it as well is that I think that the trends we're seeing, if you take slightly longer historical focus, are not that unusual. And, you know, if we look back over the last hundred years, there's lots of periods where the US's relationship with other countries and the the general geopolitical layout was quite different, and and things still went on in in the most case. So so I'm taking a positive spin on that, but I do agree there's quite a lot of uncertainty facing us in the next two years in particular.

Even the articles that are kicking around at the moment, George, is, most of which are highly alarmist. It's unusual to hear anyone talk about a little bit of positivity in the economic global trade outlook.

I would I would argue that there should be positivity. Look, the fact that America is acting more in more competitive fashion is not all bad news. First of all, it's good news for for, for the American economy over the shorter term, right, and for the American consumer because we are assuming a world where there is higher growth in the US and higher inflation for both the US and and everyone else possibly.

But, changing the status quo after, what, nearly, eighty years following the the invasion of Normandy, at the end of the day, might be something that's historically coming, might be something that's historically necessary. You know, we're talking about nearly a century of of of of that particular status quo. So what's going to happen is that if the US feels like, it needs to be more competitive, then Europe, and Asia are going to rethink their alliances as well.

And then we're going to end up with sort of a new system.

Okay?

And creating those systems historically has been the product of war. Yes.

But, I don't think we need to go there. In fact, I don't I don't personally think we can we can even go there. Okay. So there is going to be some sort of trade tensions to to be sure. But for every tariff imposed by the United States, there is going to be, an equal, pushback from other places.

Case in point, China, responding to to mister Biden's tariffs, just banned the exports of gallium and germanium.

Earlier in the week in, in in in the US. Gallium and germanium are necessary. They sound exotic, but they're necessary to make lithium batteries and solar panels and and and such. Okay. So this is sort of the whole point. Action breeds reaction.

So there is going to be tension, but ultimately, there is going to be a resolution.

Okay. None of what we're describing usually starts actual wars.

Okay? There there are usually ethnic issues and and stuff like that that that would start actual wars. So we're going to have trade tensions. We're going to go through a period of uncertainty.

But ultimately, especially for Europe, I think, it might be a very necessary wake up call.

Well, that's interesting. We'll come on to Europe in a little while because as we all know, Europe is worrying a great deal about its own competitiveness in the world at the moment. Mark, I I just wanna come back on this this historical point, really.

George is talking about the status quo. I mean, personally, I see it as a return to a kind of American exceptionalism, whereas, in recent years, America has tried to be more involved in into the international order.

A return now to somehow saying, well, we're more important than everyone else.

Yeah.

I I I think in terms of sentiment, you may be right.

I mean, it depends on how one defines American exceptionalism. I don't think that's ever gone away to an extent.

And and I'd probably take a more holistic view on it than, you know, that even in the the era where, you know, popularly people perceived America as having a particular role in the world, you know, that that was still exceptionalist in its own way. It was more engaged, but it was exceptional. That's this is what I suppose is the point. But look. I think to try and to try and, kind of just reflect on George's point for a second, I I agree that I think when we're looking at a kind of a a period of uncertainty, it's not something that I think is is a kind of catastrophic situation. And a lot of what's in the media, I think, is is overhyping and maybe misunderstanding what's going on to an extent.

I think from, you know, a layman's stand back, and it's it's overly simplistic. But in fact, you know, what the US and and this is not just a function of the current regime. This is or sorry, the coming president. It's it's a reflection of of probably six or eight years of of gradual progress.

I think what the US is trying to position itself is something a bit closer to the the era between nineteen fifty and nineteen seventy where where the US was the big player in town. It was the big lender to a lot of countries. It was helping through the Marshall Plan and other methods. Europe redeveloped, Asia developed, and so on.

And it was also very much the winner in a trade sense. And I think that's the the kind of idyllic view that some American politicians are are putting out again.

So I think a lot of this is going to I don't I don't see a kind of breaking of nations if we, you know, steal Hardy's line. It's it's much more, I think, that the US is going to shift its policy in relation to trade in certain matters, and that is an ongoing process. And as George says correctly, others will will reevaluate and move. And that that has an economic consequence.

And there are then wider kind of military, social, and so on consequences that follow-up from that. But I I see that as a negotiated process over the next number of years. And if I was to make one kind of point that maybe moves us into the realm of trade, if you take that line as a kind of realistic analysis, well, then part of this is the US. Some in the US dislike the idea of having a trade deficit.

There are two big, points of reference are already out there, which is China and its major, American trading partners, where there's a significant issue there from a US perspective if you want to to write the balance. And I think that's why the incoming president is talking about signing an order in in on the twentieth of January or whatever the date is to put tariffs in place against Mexico, Canada, and China.

Europe then comes next in terms of a trade deficit, and and so I think that's where you'd start to see these negotiations played out.

Yeah. I think that's a that's a really good point. On on your point about the, alarmist and quite shrill nature of much commentary at the moment, it was it was, quite notable that when the Financial Times recently interviewed Christine Lagarde, she sound tonally, at least, she sounded very calm and, about how to deal with the future.

George, Mark has raised the issue of the trade deficits, which which brings me to the broader or direct question is, all this talk about trade tariffs, potentially some banking deregulation, what what is the problem that that the White House is trying to resolve, with that talk? What what is the problem they see in the US economy that they need to fix?

I'll be honest with you. I don't see it. American exceptionalism has has resulted in much higher equity market performance.

It has resulted in, in much better growth in Europe and, in fact, the rest of the developed markets.

It has resulted in US assets overall performing better, on on a portfolio level than all other assets. It has resulted in a strong dollar still being fifty eight percent or or or thereabouts of the world's reserve currency.

This is sort of, the large problem with the discussion.

America was great before, it set itself to to become great again. Okay? And we must not be as analysts, we must not allow ourselves necessarily to be drawn into this, into this notion. In fact, when when you are on top of the pyramid and then you you seek to to shift things, chances are that you can't go much higher than when you are right now.

Chances are that America will become less potent out of this. And I'll give you, something which I think is telling. Yesterday, we had, in the office, we had a meeting with a journalist. We went out to tweet, four people.

For the whole of two hours, no one discussed the incoming US president, not once. The subject was not mentioned.

And I think Mark will agree with me on this.

People are becoming tired of this, and they're going to ask their governments to find other solutions because you cannot have this thing hanging over you as an economic problem day in and day out. At the end of the day, America is a great economy. It can start, it can make threats to everybody else in the world, but because there are other people in the world too, they will find solutions.

And the the only question is how much growth can we have without with less of an American consumer because trade doesn't stop.

Okay. So less of an American consumer in the mix. Well, that will just compel Asians and, and Europeans to dig in a little bit more into their savings and maybe change some of their spending patterns.

That's a really interest trusting view. Mark, I I suppose if we look ahead to twenty twenty five and we reflect upon those, declarations about trade tariffs that we've all heard about, I suppose the US may think that will work out, but it could not work out for them.

I think the George is, is the economist probably correct me, but I think the the view is that it will not work out for them. That actually the US by trying to solve that problem, it creates more problems for itself. And so so I that's why I'm I'm very much of a view that I think what you're hearing now is a kind of a setting out of a negotiation position, and there's something to be traded for here. And that, you know, what in fact will happen over the next number of years is that an American government is going to try and make sure that its economy stays in good shape.

And and I think that's one of the things that's implicit in what George is saying. Actually, after and then this was kinda linked to my point of volatility earlier that people have learned to manage it. We've had an inflation crisis. If you look at the latest numbers for inflation in Europe, UK, Asia, US, generally, we're in a pretty good place.

There's a lot of central bankers who would say we're in a very good place, actually. If you look at trade levels, yes, globalization has changed patterns, but it hasn't collapsed in the way you might believe if you picked up some newspapers. It's continued.

And, okay, there are tensions between countries in terms of tariffs, but that's not a new thing either. You know? And I think even if you look at the national debt statistics, particularly if you look at them in the major blocks, they're not bad. I mean, the US probably has a trends issue there to manage and that it's now over a hundred percent and looks like continuing to grow. But Europe is more like eighty percent when you look at the EU members collectively, and the UK, okay, again, is a bit higher, but it's still under a hundred percent. So so we're not in a bad place, and I think that's part of George's thesis as well that people will then sensibly try and make their economies better, but but do it in a sensible way.

George, bringing the conversation, back to you, this is quite right, isn't it? We we shouldn't be too alarmist.

What the US has set out is a a a starting point for a negotiation.

It looks like it, and it very may very well be, Gavin.

But it also looks like a populist reaction and a populist demand to make things right in a world that does not necessarily feel that they are right, for whatever reason.

And we cannot although we have to rationalize some of that stuff, we cannot completely ignore the possibility that not all of these actions come from a long term strategic plan.

Right. Now that puts Europe, Mark, in a very interesting position. We know Europe is concerned about its competitiveness.

We have the Mario Drahi report reflecting heavily upon that. One thing that Draghi points out is that Europe needs to take more lessons from the US.

What lessons would they take?

Well, I I think the big lesson that that Draghi is pointing to is the need to finish the single market in a number of respects is a is an important thing and that there's a significant competitive advantage in the US because of its market structure. And secondly, that it needs to provide a platform to grow very, very large companies. And I think one of the I don't think it's mentioned in the report, but one of the comments I saw that I thought really nailed it is if you look at the origins of AI, actually, it goes back to companies in the UK, none of whom are at the top of the ladder now.

And that points to a weakness perhaps in the European system, which is to the the capital structures and the innovation fostering environment that allows a company go from great ideas to being a world dominating business in the way some of the big US companies have. And that that really takes you to, I think, capital and trade issues in the European economy.

George, in many ways then, the Europe had already begun its response to this current era of uncertainty coming out of the US. It had commissioned the DRAE report. Mark points out they've highlighted this issue around capital. They've got to get moving on that now, haven't they? They've got to start implementing policies that address those recommendations from DRACI.

Yes. But the underlying problem is the same as it has ever been with Europe.

Europe is not the US in the sense that it is not a nation.

And a lot of what Draghi suggests is simply, to, mutualize debt. If you mutualize debt, then you need to mutualize government governance around that debt, which means you need, that that the Eurogroup, which is technically what you have as a substitute ministry of finance in Europe, will need to become a proper ministry of finance with a proper minister of finance.

And if you have a common budget, then you need some sort of common leadership and a common constitution to govern that.

Okay.

So you cannot have a long term, you cannot have a long term monetary union without at least a very basic setting of a political union.

Okay. And that's always been the problem with Europe. And that, you know, I think it's very optimistic to say that we can we can easily go go past this. Will Germans accept foreign leadership of their, you know, wanted economy?

Will Greeks who are at the edge of Europe accept German soldiers guarding the the border with, with Turkey? And so on and so forth. Will France accept German generals leading their forces?

Okay. Or French or from Luxembourg for for that matter.

Okay. Each place in Europe, each country in Europe, it brings something unique.

And, let let alone the language, by the way, which is, everybody's very proud of their language.

So how do you unite people politically enough to be able to sustain this monetary union? That has always been the problem. And if anything, what I am seeing in Europe is more a resurgence of nationalism than a need for multilateralism.

There are the multilateralists out there. There is the ECB. There is Brussels. There are people who are trying to make these institutions work. You know, we're we're dumping a lot of hate on Brussels. I think they're doing really hard work, but they have constitutional limits and structural limits as to what they can do because we still operate under the principle of the nation state, which I think must be overcome for European institutions to work in an economic level that will allow it to unlock growth.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, George. It look. And and you and I have argued this many times, and I don't suggest we spend a long time on it. But there's a there's a vast gap between the kind of single harmonized Europe's European superstate that you're describing, which is a bit of a straw man for, well, we can't do it because we can't do that.

I think that's not the issue actually here. The issue is that Europe has set out and actually managed for many years very successfully the exchange and mutualization, not of debt, not of government debt, but of budgets and of real spending for many, many years. And both you and I are from countries which have been transformed utterly by European aid from our larger neighbors for which we never repaid other than being good European citizens. That's you know, the Ireland I grew up you talked about phones.

The Ireland I grew up with was a predominantly agrarian economy.

Didn't have a financial services center. Didn't have a technology base. And the vast majority of people at twenty twenty one left to go and work somewhere that was more modern. It's, you know, in in you know, I'm fifty four nearly now.

It has changed utterly in the last forty years. And I would be much more hopeful than you are that actually Europe can take the kind of steps that Draghi is focusing on. And I think what he's focusing on is really working with alignment of national policies to create a better platform for international companies in Europe. And I think finishing the capital market project is really, really important.

There are there are certainly aspects around defense and so on, but they're longer slower. I would agree with you, and I think it's a different narrative in a way.

George, the EU has a track record of overcoming these tensions between its member constituent parts.

Look, make no mistake, by the way. Marx and I, disagreements with this are more more philosophical than than anything. I appreciate Mark, very much. But, that that long term track record you're talking about is twenty years.

The Latin Monetary Union, which was the first attempt to common to have a common currency in Europe, lasted somewhere between the mid eighteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century.

Okay. They would all issue the same coins and, you know, same weight, same amount of silver in it, blah blah blah. Okay.

Interesting, historical, nugget. Greece was the first one that was expelled out of this unit too.

So, for for debasing the currency without telling anybody else. But, the the the point here, the wider point is that the history of economics does not treat monetary unions well. And from an economist perspective to this day, the euro is more a peg. It is not a common currency. Economists would argue that it looks and feels like a peg, to to to to essentially, to what is the the the what was the Deutsche mark in the beginning of the of the twentieth century the the twenty first century.

So I do think we need to take a lot of steps to to rectify this. Maybe market I hope Mark is right that we can do it in such, you know, a piece a piecemeal way that it would the long time necessary to achieve political union, we will have that time and we will make changes in a paced way and we'll have time to do it so that we eventually get there and the next generation of children will be much will much more willing to to, to live in a multilateral environment.

Okay. Or or the European super state for that matter.

Mark, the putting aside these issues about how the DRAE policies are implemented, I'm kind of optimistic on those, like you. But, I wonder what how does how if you're a leader of a European business looking at the global landscape right now, how do you react?

Do you do you stay calm or or or do you start rebuilding your business in way in in some way, which you're absolutely stay calm, Gavin.

Sorry for cutting across you, but I have to I just my enthusiasm for for your suggestion. I think you absolutely stay calm, and I think if there's a theme for through this discussion from the start, it is that neither George nor I is saying this is kind of a catastrophic, uncontrollable looking future. I think we're looking at, you know, normal trade in many ways. So if I'm running a large European business, I'm certainly going to make an educated assessment of whether either inputs to my business or my product or service that I'm providing are going to be affected by potential tariffs from the US.

I'm going to have a clear view of that coming. I'm probably far more interested in the short to medium term in terms of what my European neighbors are doing because most of my business is probably within Europe. And if I've got some, depends again on the type of business. I mean, clearly, the UK and I'm including the UK and Europe, please, there is a very important part of the block.

Let's not forget that your UK's biggest trading partner is Europe. It's not anybody else. And, yes, I may have a view then in terms of developments in Asia if I'm if that's part of my supply chain as well, you know, or Africa indeed in terms of the wider world. But I'm definitely not panicking, and I'm making reasonable choices.

And probably far more focused on issues like technological transformation, which is a challenge to every business, getting the right people in the right roles, which is a challenge to every business, and probably trying to assess what's my capital, future looking like given the interest rate paradigm has shifted a bit unnecessarily from the kind of dead zone of the last ten years.

You you raised the point of, Britain's biggest trade partner remaining the EU. So that brings us quite neatly to the question of how Britain reacts to developments in the US. Lot of talk about whether the UK aligns itself with the US or the EU.

Keir Starmer in a recent speech says that that was a false choice. He he he gave what I thought was a very pragmatic speech. Yeah. So my question then, Mark, to you first is, how does UK business react?

And I suppose they focus on their biggest trading partners and making sure Yes. Those are working.

Yeah. No. Agreed. And, look, every business, I I you know, one of the problem with a helicopter view is, of course, there will be businesses out there that are listening.

So, well, China is an enormous issue for me or the US. You know? But if we take the generality, for most businesses, the biggest headache they have today is actually dealing with the kind of layer of administrative issues and so on that have come with separating from the EU that's still normalizing and becoming b as BAU. So I think that's an issue for them.

And I think the, you know, the Europe or sorry. The UK economy isn't any different than most of its neighboring economies. Technological change, productivity, people are the big issues that are on their radar. And I'll give you a sneak preview.

We launched in in January our annual survey of c suite. And, I think it's very heartening to see that the c suite around the world, but in the UK as well, are more positive than not about their growth prospects for the next twelve months. That's one of the big headline findings. So I think, again, we're people are being careful with planning ahead and growing their businesses.

That's interesting, isn't it, George? That that speaks to the fact that business is feeling resilient, including UK businesses, despite the fact we're outside of the EU.

Just to come to the UK EU policy, DAMA, the new prime minister, has started the work of bringing the EU and the UK close together. Commentators in the UK have been screaming quite vociferously that that's got to now accelerate given the news or statements coming out of the u US.

Do you see that as necessary, or do you think, you know, steady as she goes?

I think that I think that the UAE the UK and the EU are natural partners, and I think that it doesn't matter if it's steady as it goes or accelerated. It just breaking down some barriers that were erected for very little reason on both sides for for that matter. Right?

I don't think I think there is zero reason for hostility between, the the UK and Europe.

The hundred years war is well past us, for for that matter. I don't think there is much to argue, anymore.

And I think because the Europe is Europe, the the UK is Europe's, natural trading partner, and Europe, as a European, I will tell you, misses the UK on a number of levels as part of its institutions.

I think it is natural that those two entities come closer, especially given American stands for more competitive growth. Okay. The special given American stands for more competitive growth. Okay. The special relationship, whereas it is important, might not necessarily work for the UK because that was a product almost exclusively of the second world, war.

When during the start of it, I think King George the King George the six went and had hot dogs in the Hudson with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Okay. That that's where it all began.

But we need to move past this now, and the UK is recognizing the EU as a national trading partner. If anything, I think that the Europeans also need to remember all the benefits the UK brought to the EU, and we should see relations smooth out. And we're not talking about undoing Brexit or any of that. People have spoken. But we there is no harm in having great relationships with your neighbors and mending fences.

Mark, everyone loves a hot dog, but I think the Brits have grown accustomed to croissants as well, during the time of their membership of the EU if they were gonna stick with a food metaphor.

I think, Starmer set out his red lines, of course. He's repeated those over and over again. But if you're a businessman looking on, my guess is you can see room for maneuver.

There are there are ways of aligning the UK with the EU that allows Starmer to maintain his red lines.

Well, I'm sure I'm sure there are. I mean, as George look. I mean, it's a it's a big topic. But if I take one example, I think if you take the area of banking regulation, which we've touched on earlier, you have quite a harmonized system. London is still somebody very colorfully described it in the, in in the run up to Brexit. I remember being at a conference. One of the speakers described London as being the the house for or the holding point for most of the plumbing for, you know, European and, in fact, a lot of global finance.

So that's not gonna change. So there's a huge incentive, I think, for both the EU and the UK to play in tandem on a lot of banking regulation issues. And that's both from a commercial point of view and a prudential point of view. So that's just one example. But I think in any industry you come you'll see points where I think the British government has points of maneuver where it can try and help its own businesses do well and at the same time play in a very coordinated way with Europe. And I think Europe is open to that.

Yes.

I think you you said it's happy to take a sectoral approach on on these issues.

Yeah. Yeah.

We we which which bodes well, I think, for a future relationship. It bodes well. Look. We're coming to the end of our time, guys.

So I I I wanna sum up and find out whether you're feeling bullish or bearish about the future given all the doom and gloom that's going on. But I also want to know what do you want under your Christmas tree for the coming year? What's the gift that you want for international economics and trade? Mark, can I start with you first?

Yeah. So, I think I'm overall, I'm I'm on the bullish side of things. I know I generally am, but, but I think about the big things that that that kinda worry me, say, there's been a lot of hype around, you know, the US and others backing out of climate change protocols and processes.

I think at the same time, there's enough momentum there and enough has been built. I think we'll continue. And I, you know, I read the unsurprising but still startling number of the Feet this morning. I think a hundred and thirty five billion is now the last number for for the year for insurance companies coming from climate related events.

You're gonna see that pressure continue. So that that that shifts me on a big issue to kinda slightly bullish. I think we'll we'll see there. I think on on trade issues, we will have a lot of posturing. But behind the scenes, I think we're gonna have something that that resolves itself into something that businesses can work with. And as I said earlier, the fundamentals are pretty good in the major economies around the world, which means that, you know, there's a good base from starting. So overall, I'm looking into twenty five with a a level of bullishness.

And that's not diminishing. There are challenges out there. I think from, you know, what would I like to see? I'd like to see some pragmatism on all sides, and let's get to you know, the hardest thing to do in weigh in a business is volatility because it it shortens your planning cycle significantly.

And I'd love to see a bit more stability for even on a regional basis where people can say, yes. We're we're, we can plan ahead with with confidence. And I think if I was to venture beyond that, my big wish is we said this was the year of politics. The one takeaway I have, whatever results that were there is the voting numbers are down almost everywhere.

And I would love to see people reengage more in in terms of politics in their countries and regions because I think that's the way you build stable societies, which is good for everybody.

That's interesting. That's two gifts from Santa. You want that's pregnant.

I'm greedy. I'm sorry, Gavin. I'm greedy.

Well, we we all were. Just on that point you made about, climate and the global approach to climate change, I just want to observe, you you're quite right. Everyone expects now that that the US will roll back its efforts on climate. But in fact, Forbes magazine this week was advised had an article advising US businesses to get themselves, around the EU's corporate sustainability reporting directive. They were gonna have to comply with it too if they're doing business in the EU. So there are forces still moving in that direction whatever decisions the US government makes.

That's entirely right. Yeah.

George, coming to you, are you bullish or bearish? You usually are a bit a little bit more bearish than Mark. I I wonder if you can be more optimistic at this time of year. And, what do you want for Christmas?

Okay. So bullish or bearish is is not necessarily what describes me because I am ready. I'm ready for a tumult, and I'm ready for a market correction, and I am ready for all the posturing. That that's how I describe myself, ready and resilient.

Having said that, I do have another tone of bullishness because I believe that deregulating banks over the shorter term will provide huge benefits, huge growth benefits for, developed economies.

So if it wasn't for that, you might have seen the more pessimistic outlook, but I think potential bank deregulation, which everybody seems to be eager to to jump on, I think, could, for the shorter term, unlock growth.

As for the gift under the Christmas tree, for me, it would be it does sound in metal and corny, but I think it does it does fit into Mark's argument. I think we need to step back and see what we should be thankful for and that Christmas is the season to to do that. Okay. I am an international worker, working for a firm that does good.

I have a good job. My family is well. I live in an economy, in a western economy. Even in even if it's Greece, it's a western economy that affords me to live better than, eighty five percent of the world out there.

And that stuff I need to be thankful for, not stuff I I should be angry about for all the things that are not being done to to make me feel better.

Okay. So I would hope that people see what they, especially in the west, see what they need to be thankful for.

And if if they do, I'm sure this this wave of populism would undo itself and would unravel itself very, very quickly. And that would lead to more rational decision making and more international cooperation.

Well, I couldn't think of a better Christmas gift there, George. Thank you very much for that. Mark Kennedy, George Ligarius, thanks very much for joining us in this last macro memo of twenty twenty four. It's been a pleasure speaking to you as usual. Thanks to everyone out there who downloads the program, and goodbye.

That was a podcast brought to you by Board Agenda.

To get the best in boardroom thinking and access a hub of expert insight, intelligence, and resources for boards and directors, sign up or log in at board agenda dot com. That's board agenda dot com.