How Politics Play Into Million Dollar Art Market

Your next video will start in

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments


Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- On today's "The Agenda," Tom Keene, Sara Eisen and Scarlet Fu look at trending news stories on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg Surveillance." (Source: Bloomberg)

100 million dollars for a painting -- what is the sales tax?

$8 million?

I don't know.

Sales tax depends on where you are by airing -- buying it.

If you buy it online, do you have to pay tax?

Not yet.

I one to know what the art market says about stan collender's washington and the rest of america.

Income inequality, we have been covering it all year.

Him into the end of 2013. stan collender, if i am a politician in washington, maybe chuck schumer likes it because its tax revenue for his new york state and new york city, but other than that, what a statement on these times.

First of all, a lot of of the members will like it, too, because it means someone has money to give them in campaign contributions.


Probably renewed interest -- hitting up wall street for campaign contributions under these circumstances.

But the polarity is shocking.

Not shocked what we are paying for the art market.

I think it is a great market.

Scarcity involved.

The warhol i really don't know but some of the other -- very cool.

You have -- talking about this for months.

The fact that wages have basically been frozen for lower and middle income people.

Is it safe to say, scarlet, that ben bernanke, mario draghi, governor came -- warmer -- is the reason sotheby's and christie's is hitting the ball out of the park ? especially when assets like gold have not held up or return the same kind of investment so leave little option to diversify.

In the new york post today, spike lee has a property near our world headquarters, residential.

I think he paid $6 million for it and he is trying to roll it for well in excess of $10 million.

The rest of america -- the representatives saying, wait a minute, it is not us.

, the talk health care, because that is my agenda for today.

Falls right in the budget.


President obama is open to changes to the affordable care act to allow insurers to keep the existing health plan with to make the changes the president will be forced to go through congress.

The chief of staff will meet with senate democrats later today.

The question for me is how far is this going to go, right?

You have the house bill looking to say that you can offer canceled policies to new customers, to bypass the affordable care act act together -- altogether, but senate democrats stepping behind it saying people who had these plans got canceled should still be able to have access.

Who changes where we are now?

Is it done by executive edict?

Look, there is probably some plausibility in the law.

But if there are going to be wholesale changes they have to go back of the legislation.

That is why they would like to start with the senate whether white house has a little more control.

Getting anything through the house on any subject these days will be extremely difficult.

Remember, republicans would like to keep the pain going, the political pain for the white house, longer.

In congress focus on more than one thing at a time?

Can they do health care and also maybe the budget?

First of all, it is not even clear that can focus on one thing.

They would have trouble getting majority support for reading the lord's prayer.

Incremental changes?

Total fantasy.

Don't even talk about a grand bargain.

It will not happen.

Do they believe a grand bargain about the table or do they think they really can do it?

I don't think anybody really believes.

A talking point.

A lot of delusion.

Why isn't anyone talking about the budget deficit shrinking?

We have this extraordinarily positive number for the previous year.

The question is, is it too much or little?

It went down from 1.4 -- 1.4 trillion.

Down 38% from last year but it is still $680 billion.

But migrating in the right direction.

Yes, but we talked earlier about how monetary policy has to fill the void.

Do you really want to have to do austerity at the fiscal level when -- trade is not helping.

How do you, the smartest guy arguably on the budget, wave the american protestant tradition, we need -- the budget.

You motion would have been the president and others are successful at bringing it down.

Versus goosing the economy?

How do you play the philosophy?

Playing the philosophy does not work in the current environment because you do talk about a tax cut, which is positive for some people, and/or a spending increase, which is negative almost everybody.

The economic debate in washington has almost nothing to do with economics.

It has all to do with politics, philosophy.

Which is why you are getting the disconnect constantly.

If you were talking to any politician of any flavor, what you focus on the present good news on the budget or do you focus on the gloom a 40 month -- 48 months out?

I would focus on the gloom.

Not just 40 months out but 2, 3, 4 some of five years out.

The deficit will start back up because of medicare and social security primarily.

What we should be doing is more stimulative short-term and dealing with the longer-term budget issue right now, but that is not a discussion that is possible in washington currently.

Very little -- speaking of snapchat, that is on my agenda.

Remember, the smartphone app turned down a $3 billion cash offer from facebook.

Just the latest mega-offer in the tech market.

We keep asking whether there is a tech bubble going on.

$3 billion in cash for a company that makes no money for messages that self destruct.

"the new york times" saying benchmark capital, really behind snapchat, the initial investment, also invested in instagram and was actually disappointed that it sold itself to facebook for $1 billion.

So, this kind of brings us to our twitter answer of the day.

What do you think snapchat is actually work?

We have some funny ones -- definitely not a believer of

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change