worldlive from bloomberg headquarters in new york, i am romaine bostick. today.roline hyde is off the dow, s&p, and nasdaq closing at record highs. joe: the question is, "what'd you miss?" rising to ares record high in u.s. equity

markets with a fresh signature in the next round of stimulus. the house says things are not over. they are set to vote in the next hour to move forward on a plan to replace the $600 payments with a $2000 payment president trump demanded. there are a lot of doubts about whether this will clear congress or is even necessary. we heard from larry summers. he set twitter on fire when he said those $2000 checks are not a good thing for the economy. joe: exactly right. former treasury secretary larry summers joining earlier today to clarify things. let's take a look. >> the question is not whether there is a need to help people. the question is, what is the best way to help people? anjudgment is across-the-board gift to 85% of

taxpayers of a kind that no one thinks can be sustained every quarter is a mistake. joe: there you go. the original claim that may be thousand dollars was not the right amount -- $2000 was not the right amount adjusted more on the unsustainable front. people are not done talking about this. let's bring in veronica clark. thank you so much for joining us. last night out president trump will sign the stimulus. let's start with what we know has been passed and signed. do you feel confident this will get us through the next several months in a healthy way that will get us to the other side of the crisis? >> thanks for having me. i do think this is a helpful

package for the next few months to bridge the gap for businesses and households that need extra support. $1 trillion is what we expected. we have the vaccine rolling out. we think the return to normal is not too far off and this is the right amount to get us through the next few months. romaine: to get to the heart of the argument from larry summers, the idea that throughout the pandemic we saw household wealth in general holed up relatively well. some of that was due to increased savings of people not oning to spend money day-to-day activities. saw of that is from what we in the appreciation in home prices. i'm curious whether additional stimulus has the potential for negative consequences for the economy. do we create a situation where

inflation becomes an issue? >> i think it is too soon to tell if we will have a scenario that plays out like that. it is true the downturn looks very different from others and aggregate incomes are well above pre-covid levels. a lot of that is because of the cares act stimulus checks in the spring, unemployment benefits. as we look at private labor incomes, those are back to pre-covid levels also. we have seen that translate to substantial good spending. services are restricted by the virus. but for now, i think the amount of stimulus being provided, we are seeing it in spending. i think it is too soon to tell if we will see overheating. joe: on the question of the orcks, how important unimportant it is. you have the view of overheating and the other view of saving.

does it make a difference the exact amount? would you have an expectation of a major difference if the $600 were bumped up to $2000? >> that is hard to tell. as economists, we think in terms of marginal utility. this stimulus is coming at a time when incomes are higher than pre-covid levels. the economy is doing much better than in april. the bang you are getting for your buck is not going to be much more. we would expect if people are getting $2000 that there will be more spending. in terms of the marginal impact, it might not be that much. romaine: with regards to the broader economic outlook looking generalnto 2021, the expectation in markets is with the vaccine rollout potentially

enforced by q2 and the reopening of the economy people expect by the end of that quarter, is there a general sense the trajectory of economic recovery is stable enough to get us to q2 and q3 where we can start justifying some valuations? >> we do have to get through the next few months. the data looks softer because of rising virus cases and new lockdowns. it is our expectation for 2021 that we could have a strong middle of the year as more people get vaccinated. you could get a lot of volatility on certain things. for instance, what we have seen in the housing sector. home sales have overshot pre-covid levels. eventually, we would expect those to decline. you could see things that look like a negative with volatility. joe: the current u.s.

unemployment rating is back below 7%. in theory, that could drop further if we get the sharp growth a lot of people are expecting middle of next year. people expect the fed to be on hold for a long time. do you think at some point there could be a rude awakening like this might not take years of recovery, that maybe we will be beingg about fed hikes discussed this time next year? >> i would think we could be thinking about thinking about fed hikes even sooner. that is the fed's language. we do have a more hawkish view on the fed. we think they may start to slow qe purchases the second half of next year. hikes are not coming in 2021. maybe towards the end of 2022. the middle of next year, we will

have the stronger growth picture and inflation around q2. that should get markets thinking about thinking about hikes. romaine: so you do think we could hit the 2% target next year? >> mechanically if you look at the inflation series, you had all those week prints in 2020. as soon as those drop out of calculations, we will probably go above that. it will not necessarily be a sustainable 2%. i think the fed would look through it and know it is because of base effects. markets could see that number and say things are going better than expected. romaine: great to get your thoughts, veronica clark. great discussion on the stimulus checks, on the economic recovery. we will continue that conversation in a bit. after the break, nathan will be joining us to give us his

thoughts. this is york, coming up o bloomberg. ♪

joe: today, we are discussing the recently agreed upon u.s. stimulus aid and the $600 checks coming with it. , nathane insight tankus. you tend to be soft-spoken and hold your attendings -- opinions back on twitter and your newsletter. do you share larry's view that $2000 checks would lead to

overheating of the economy? nathan: no, i don't. i think it is an absurd proposition. verynk in general, it is a strange position for larry summers to be speaking out because he has been talking for years and years. why don'tt did he say you just send out to thousand dollar checks one time and we .ill get over this stagnation i think it is an absurd proposition but at least it is the right conversation about inflation. romaine: it is about inflation. he tried to defend himself today and the methodology of how he came to the assumption the $2000 check could have a negative impact on the economy.

as you start to look at that through the lens of inflation and inflation expectations, why would that be a concern at this stage when the stimulus is supposed to endear you get us over the short-term hump? nathan: i don't think there is much of a case for it. it is true we have had supply chain issues with many workplaces shut down. as we have seen this year, that has not translated much into inflation. housing especially has not picked up. it is such a major component of price indices. sidedjustments on that have largely come with backlogs. you have to wait longer to buy certain appliances. you are still paying the same price. you are just waiting longer. i don't see any reason to think one-time checks even larger than

$2000 would have that kind of affect. whennk it is a distraction millions of americans are facing eviction, foreclosure, not being , even as the package has prospects for aggregate economic growth. joe: the questions about whether trump would sign the stimulus in the first place created uncertainty. i don't think anyone really thinks even if in the aggregate it was a lot of money spent that it was a good approach. there was a long gap between u.i.d.u.i. -- the expansion expired. how should we go forward making it automatic and calibrating it it is unskilled with

the severity of the downturn? nathan: i totally agree it is important to make our response is automatic. you need to have triggers based on economic indicators that do not require congress to go through these negotiations based on short-term partisan considerations rather than larger economic considerations. shown wehis crisis has need a better administrative apparatus. whether or not you have discretionary changes to how we are supposed to be calculating unemployment or other payments, we need to have a 21st century administrative apparatus that can do that easily and officially without bureaucratic burdens that make programs difficult to access but also

make them not seem like a benefit. or 90 hours work 80 with frustration and uncertainty to get my unemployment insurance, even if it has an additional $600 a week attached, which the most recent bill does not have, that is not going to feel like a benefit to me. that has grave consequences for how people think about our social safety net. we need a federalized unemployment insurance system. we need to redefine the administrative apparatus so the administrative burden easily and officially falls on the u.s. government and not individuals. romaine: we talk about reimagining the administrative structure, do you start to talk about of a system that includes automatic triggers so it takes it out of the hands of the politicians in the moment of that crisis? nathan: yes. i think automatic triggers are important. money fore

information technology infrastructure. thean say a lot about technology structure still being based on the language in the 1960's. but the more fundamental problem is being under resourced such that we can quickly make changes. there is no reason we should systems with different structures depending on what state you are in. we need a federal system. we needed to be able to quickly and efficiently incorporate changes. and we need it to deliver benefits easily and without stress in good times and especially bad times. joe: we have this $900 billion

deal. there is the possibility the checks will be expanded, but we don't know. a lot of expectations for fairly robust growth in the middle of the next year as the vaccine is rolled out. do you feel the bridge currently, although less than ideal generally, gets us there? is the bridge long enough? nathan: the bridge might be long enough for economic growth. it might be long enough for there to be a declared economic recovery. to haves still going suffering for millions of people. you have to remember this is about a pandemic. it is about human life before everything else. this economic package does not fundsoutside of narrow related to vaccine distribution, it does not have aid for state and local governments. that is the most important thing

to prevent people dying now. you provide funding for state and local governments. they don't prematurely reopen the economy and worsen the spread of the coronavirus. life, it is really inadequate. as soon as the biden administration takes power, we need to have a new bill devoted to state and local relief. that is first and foremost what is important, in addition to fully funding vaccine rather than just making it a down payment on strategy. for me, these are first and foremost. i think the support when it gets to households can get many households through the worst of it. but that is not enough to deal with the eviction crisis and thousands of dollars in utility and rent debt that millions of

households have. we might have an economic recovery, but we are going to have millions of people suffer because of the inadequacy of the bill and have tens of thousands more people die unnecessarily. romaine: great to get your thoughts, nathan tankus, modern money network research director. the treasury has said it will try to start getting stimulus checks out this week. let's go to washington. how speaker nancy pelosi trying to put a bill through the house that would bump up the 600 on check to a $2000 check. down to washington after the break and get an update on where the bill stands. this is bloomberg. ♪

romaine: welcome back to dow

today, we are focused on the bill trump finally signed over the weekend but not before leaving a gap in the aid some folks get. all the debate now is whether $600 checks will be enough. will be aently, there vote coming up that would need two thirds to pass. might bring it up again where they only need a majority. can talk to someone who understands it better. happy kwanzaa, by the way. let's bring in an adjutant -- anna edgerton to give us an update. democratse bill the are trying to pass? what exactly would it do? voteey are going to try to

on the bill that would replace the $600 in the current bill that trump signed into law yesterday with the $2000 checks trump demanded. it would make the $2000 payment inly to adult dependents addition to child dependents. they will vote on that at 5:00 p.m., and a little bit. if they cannot reach the two thirds majority threshold, they will try to put it on the floor later tonight that would just need a simple majority. joe: if it just needs a simple majority tonight, is a good chance it would pass the house. forcemitch mcconnell republicans to take a difficult vote? >> i don't think it's mcconnell is going to take it up. it is nancy pelosi's bill. it is a provision donald trump

said hit that he wants but republicans do not want. they could say we will take it from nancy pelosi but pair it reforms to the provision that provides protection to technology companies. not related to pandemic aid, but also an ask from the president. romaine: there is the big georgia senate runoff race. we know both parties are trying to paint themselves in the best light, make themselves look like they are the party that can do the most for americans. that this too cynical is a ploy? >> you are not being too cynical. cynicism is warranted at this point. these georgia races have been hanging out everything congress has done since the november

election. that is because these two seats will determine which party controls the senate in the next congress. romaine: we are going to have to leave it there. anna edgerton giving us the update in washington. that does it for "what'd you miss?" joe: have a great evening. this is bloomberg. ♪ ♪ ♪

emily: welcome to bloomberg technology. i'm emily chang in san francisco. over the next half-hour, we will look back at some of our biggest interviews in this unprecedented year, 20 20. while a global pandemic created tidal waves of uncertainty, the tech sector seems to do what it does best -- adapt. we begin with the tech companies that made it to the public