Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe wisen Phal and I'm Tracy Allaway. Tracy, So
Speaker 1: obviously on this podcast we speak with mostly I would say,
Speaker 1: either economists or sort of like market practitioners in one
Speaker 1: way or another, traders, investors and so forth. Yeah, or
Speaker 1: some policymakers. Sometimes that's true. We also speak with policymakers.
Speaker 1: But it's interesting because I realized, like, we don't really
Speaker 1: and maybe we should fix it, maybe we should address it.
Speaker 1: We don't really speak with that many people who are
Speaker 1: actually engaged in sort of what people would call business,
Speaker 1: I mean trading, investing, building, you know, fintech companies, etcetera.
Speaker 1: As a business, but in terms of the day to
Speaker 1: day business of running actual things, consumer operations, making payroll
Speaker 1: in a crisis that has not been typically a sort
Speaker 1: of a big area for us. No, we sort of
Speaker 1: talk about the economy from a theoretical level, and of
Speaker 1: course the economy is comprised of people and businesses, and
Speaker 1: you know, people who run businesses, and we probably should
Speaker 1: be talking to them, and especially right now, of course,
Speaker 1: in the midst of this crisis, because again, you know,
Speaker 1: we talked about all these things like payroll protection policies
Speaker 1: and what kind of stimulus would be good to get
Speaker 1: the economy roaring again once the acute health crisis passes. Um.
Speaker 1: But again, you know, there are people who actually have
Speaker 1: to make the decisions. People actually have to go out
Speaker 1: and hire people who have to go out and sort
Speaker 1: of reinvest in new things in the world. And obviously
Speaker 1: the degree to which they're inclined to do that is
Speaker 1: going to be quite determinative of what kind of recovery
Speaker 1: we can expect to see. Yeah. Absolutely, So we were
Speaker 1: talking to a business person today, we are we're talking
Speaker 1: to We're gonna talk to a very well known business
Speaker 1: person today, a very outspoken person. UM, someone who is
Speaker 1: sort of had lots of thoughts on policy, all kinds
Speaker 1: of things related to the crisis and so forth. No
Speaker 1: no reason to have any spoilers or further clearing. We're
Speaker 1: going to be speaking today with Mark Cuban. He is
Speaker 1: the owner of the NBA team, the Dallas Mavericks. Lots
Speaker 1: of people know him from the show Shark Tank and
Speaker 1: his investing in startups. Very active on Twitter and social
Speaker 1: media in terms of fleshing out and sounding out policies
Speaker 1: right now during this crisis. Also someone who people suspect
Speaker 1: may have political ambitions of his own one day, um,
Speaker 1: and so sort of great person to discuss everything that's
Speaker 1: going up right now. I would like to preface this
Speaker 1: entire interview by saying that I know nothing about basketball
Speaker 1: or the NBA, but I'm going to try really really hard. Alright, Well,
Speaker 1: let's bring in Mark Mark. Thank you very much for
Speaker 1: joining us. Mark, what's the deal? Tracy was just asking
Speaker 1: this on Twitter? Can you give us the thirty second
Speaker 1: explanation of how the the NBA salary cap works? Tracy
Speaker 1: was trying to cram doing some homework before the podcast,
Speaker 1: and so it's like, how does that work? She wants
Speaker 1: to know. I'd rather calculate PI digits try to explain
Speaker 1: this salad cap. Okay, well, fair enough anyway, thank you
Speaker 1: for joining us, as we've been doing throughout all of
Speaker 1: our episodes, UM during this crisis. I want to make
Speaker 1: a note that it is May twelve today, and the
Speaker 1: reason that's important is because who knows how the world
Speaker 1: will look in a few days when this comes out,
Speaker 1: but it is here. We are May twelve, about really
Speaker 1: two months into this crisis in its most intense form,
Speaker 1: because it was actually or to eleventh, the day that
Speaker 1: the NBA was canceled, so two months in mark. Just
Speaker 1: from your perspective, all the different things you're involved in,
Speaker 1: how does the world look to you right now? Sort
Speaker 1: of big picture and with the businesses that you operate
Speaker 1: and invest in, uncertain, confused, hope, you know, cautiously, hopeful,
Speaker 1: looking for guidance, looking for leadership. We just don't know
Speaker 1: who to trust with our lives effectively, and that's keeping
Speaker 1: people from doing things the way we've always done them.
Speaker 1: So you invest in a lot of small businesses, could
Speaker 1: you maybe give some specifics about how your portfolio companies
Speaker 1: are getting impacted right now? What are the biggest problems
Speaker 1: that they're currently facing. The biggest problem is that the
Speaker 1: falling demand. You know, there's just people are are very
Speaker 1: hesitant when it comes to buying products and services right
Speaker 1: now unless they're related to things you can store in
Speaker 1: your home. You know, the companies I have that are
Speaker 1: selling athletic equipment, you know, those are doing well. Companies
Speaker 1: that are selling food products, those are doing well. Companies
Speaker 1: that are selling pretty much everything else are not for
Speaker 1: their their businesses down. It's some percentage, and so you know,
Speaker 1: people trying to get we're trying to gauge when consumer
Speaker 1: demand will come back, and that's the most difficult aspect
Speaker 1: of trying to figure out what's next. So how in
Speaker 1: your review, what's been done from the you know, sitting aside,
Speaker 1: what the right approach to the health crisis is. We've
Speaker 1: seen We saw the Care's Package passed at the end
Speaker 1: of March with the idea of helping at least small
Speaker 1: businesses keep employees on their payroll to not to prevent
Speaker 1: the unemployment crisis from getting worse, and for people to
Speaker 1: have businesses to be to go back to work too
Speaker 1: when the health crisis lives. I've also seen a range
Speaker 1: of things from the Fed. In your you how effective
Speaker 1: have those measures been at least dampening the pain from
Speaker 1: this summer some to some extent, you know, I'll refer
Speaker 1: to Mike Tyson who said everybody's got a plan until
Speaker 1: they get punched in the mouth, right, and the Care's
Speaker 1: package um that the plan was great. The initial timing
Speaker 1: of it was great. It was it happened very quickly.
Speaker 1: The implementation was was too slow, and so when we got,
Speaker 1: you know, the day the NBA was canceled March eleven,
Speaker 1: and people started really realizing that there were issues that
Speaker 1: we were going to have to address from a health perspective.
Speaker 1: And then, you know, relatively quickly for Congress, you know,
Speaker 1: the beginning of April, we had a Care's Act for stimulus.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, from that point in time till the time
Speaker 1: small businesses, small medium sized businesses actually got funding was
Speaker 1: several weeks. Add to that the fact that there wasn't
Speaker 1: enough money. Add to that the fact that there was
Speaker 1: uncertainty about how the money can or should be spent
Speaker 1: and what would be the case for forgiveness, and that
Speaker 1: caused a lot of small businesses to hesitate, and that
Speaker 1: led to a scenario where, you know, a month in
Speaker 1: a month after the CARES stimulus was passed, businesses really
Speaker 1: weren't able to take the steps necessary to try to
Speaker 1: continue as much business as usual, and that really created
Speaker 1: cascading negative effect that we're he's still in right now.
Speaker 1: So the concept was good, the plan was good, but
Speaker 1: the virus punched us in the mouth and the execution
Speaker 1: wasn't near where it needed to be. I'm just curious,
Speaker 1: but if you were designing a sort of stimulus or
Speaker 1: policy package to help small businesses in the current crisis,
Speaker 1: what would it look like? So to two questions there, one,
Speaker 1: what would I have done April one? And the answer
Speaker 1: to that would I would have a bank overdraft program
Speaker 1: where I would have allowed small medium sized businesses to
Speaker 1: just right checks without them bouncing. So that and then
Speaker 1: the FED would make the banks whole on a daily
Speaker 1: basis because that would have allowed companies to continue business
Speaker 1: as usual, and banks understood what they're spending policies were
Speaker 1: because they see all their bank statements and banks already
Speaker 1: have products um parameters in place, So it would have
Speaker 1: been the the approach that had the least amount of friction.
Speaker 1: But that you know, that's April one. Here we are
Speaker 1: made twelve six weeks later, and we're in a different
Speaker 1: set of circumstances, and so now we've got to take
Speaker 1: we we've got to look at the consumer demand function
Speaker 1: as opposed to the continuity function that we're looking at
Speaker 1: on April one. And for consumer demands, it goes to
Speaker 1: the whole concept of how do we build confidence, How
Speaker 1: do we give consumers confidence that they're going to be
Speaker 1: able to retain their jobs, that they're gonna be able
Speaker 1: to keep their salaries at the current level, and that
Speaker 1: that in turn will lead to the confidence to spend
Speaker 1: money on things rather than just on things other than
Speaker 1: just necessities, rather than spending just on rent, utilities, food,
Speaker 1: the basics, and then saving everything else. And to do that,
Speaker 1: you're gonna need a federal jobs program. I want to
Speaker 1: get to that federal jobs program in one second. Just
Speaker 1: a real quick question, though, I really am interested in
Speaker 1: that idea of just sort of make it simple, payroll overdraft,
Speaker 1: let people continue, let companies continue to spend and pay
Speaker 1: their employees at the level that they were pre crisis.
Speaker 1: Would that be ideally a program that would apply even
Speaker 1: to companies that are larger than the small businesses covered
Speaker 1: by the p p P. I mean, you'd have to
Speaker 1: model it out and do the map, but effectively it
Speaker 1: could be right because the key, you know, and but
Speaker 1: again hindsight is always twenty um and so the key
Speaker 1: was continuity. Right, what was the path through at least
Speaker 1: resistance to allow businesses of and it could have been
Speaker 1: of any size, to continue working as they were now.
Speaker 1: The question I would have added then is if we
Speaker 1: were going to be supporting bigger companies, you know, companies
Speaker 1: that had more than five hund employed, some companies that
Speaker 1: may be public entities. You know, what would I do
Speaker 1: as the negotiator for the taxpayers and those circumstances, And
Speaker 1: I probably would have asked for something in return for
Speaker 1: that overdraft protection, because larger companies typically have other means
Speaker 1: of raising capital. They have stronger balance sheets, they have
Speaker 1: you know, they may have public stock. You know, they
Speaker 1: may be able to to um get loans from banks
Speaker 1: or from the public markets, And so I would have
Speaker 1: tried to negotiate something for the taxpayers in response. So
Speaker 1: just going to the Federal Jobs um guarantee idea of
Speaker 1: the Federal jobs program, it's kind of unusual to hear
Speaker 1: someone from the private sector, someone who invested in a
Speaker 1: lot of different types of businesses, actually advocate for that.
Speaker 1: And usually, you know, private businesses don't really want the
Speaker 1: government to get too involved in the labor market because
Speaker 1: then they're basically competing with the government for labor. Give
Speaker 1: us a sense of why you're in favor of this,
Speaker 1: why why does it interest you As a long time
Speaker 1: fan of iron Ran, It's it's very counter who I am,
Speaker 1: but I didn't know that. Yeah, um. And I'm not
Speaker 1: an objectivist type. You know, I'm not an all in.
Speaker 1: Um I've I've modified my positions over time. But we're
Speaker 1: in a unique circumstance never in the history of this country,
Speaker 1: UM or any you know, advanced economies. If we've seen
Speaker 1: the loss of more than thirty million jobs in a
Speaker 1: period of two months, and you know, you can add
Speaker 1: to that the underemployed on the uncertainty of employment for
Speaker 1: another twenty plus million. So we've got fifty million people
Speaker 1: who have job uncertainty or have no jobs at all.
Speaker 1: And that's what changes my perspective. And with that, we've
Speaker 1: got the p p P program, and we've got other
Speaker 1: potential programs coming from the government. You know, the Democrats
Speaker 1: are starting to propose some new things now, but those
Speaker 1: are kind of putting businesses in a state of suspended animation.
Speaker 1: You know, they're not quite sure how to spend the
Speaker 1: PPP money because they're continent catch twenty two of You know,
Speaker 1: I have to spend this in eight weeks and bring
Speaker 1: back all my employees within that eight week term if
Speaker 1: I want this loan forgiven. But my state isn't even
Speaker 1: allowing me to open up or open up fully, which
Speaker 1: I think in a lot of cases is smart. But
Speaker 1: it's just a set of circumstances businesses are facing, so
Speaker 1: they're in a in a state of suspended animation. The
Speaker 1: Jobs Program, on the other hand, gets the ball rolling
Speaker 1: to do things that are productive that this country needs
Speaker 1: right now. We need tracking and tracing on a federal basis,
Speaker 1: with states and local municipalities doing tracking and tracing, that
Speaker 1: creates siloed information because half a tracking tracing is asking
Speaker 1: and tracking the information. The other half is doing the
Speaker 1: technology behind the scenes to do the analytics to understand
Speaker 1: what what we're learning from the tracking and tracing. So
Speaker 1: that's and silo of However, many jobs on a federal
Speaker 1: basis you could probably you know, make the case for
Speaker 1: two million or more. Then you have the issue of testing.
Speaker 1: You know, we've got to create the job, to create
Speaker 1: the facilities to create the tests, and then we have
Speaker 1: to train people and create the facilities to um enable
Speaker 1: the tests and then offer and then do the test.
Speaker 1: And then with all that, within this realm, there's training involved,
Speaker 1: so there's people who will do training. You have to
Speaker 1: make sure everybody understands HIPPI regulations, and here's the privacy concerns,
Speaker 1: so that there's no risk there of information getting out.
Speaker 1: And then you extend it further. We've got a growing
Speaker 1: subset of the population that is is at risk, you know,
Speaker 1: and it's not just the elderly, but it certainly includes
Speaker 1: the elderly, but there's you know, people with issues now
Speaker 1: whether you know, we're we're finding out new and new
Speaker 1: problems that the COVID creates, and so all these pre
Speaker 1: existing conditions. We have to have people who support those folks.
Speaker 1: And so we've all already even prior to this, we're
Speaker 1: in a scenario where we did have a lot enough
Speaker 1: long term care facilities or enough long term care takers,
Speaker 1: and so building those facilities create training those people. There's
Speaker 1: so many jobs that could truly be productive in our
Speaker 1: society right now immediately that can start to chip away
Speaker 1: at the unemployment and underemployment problem we have right now.
Speaker 1: So it makes sense to do this now. Do I
Speaker 1: see this as a permanent long term jobs program. No,
Speaker 1: it's intermediary, but it's needed right now because it's very
Speaker 1: difficult for all but just a few businesses that are
Speaker 1: doing better because of COVID to make long term or
Speaker 1: even intermediary commitments for jobs that are productive. And so
Speaker 1: having the federal jobs program I think is a necessity.
Speaker 1: And do you worry that at some point, I mean
Speaker 1: presumably Okay, so a federal jobs program of some sort
Speaker 1: have some sort of minimum level of pay, uh, some
Speaker 1: minimum level of benefits? Do you worry than saying, some
Speaker 1: of the vendors who work in your stadium could be
Speaker 1: in a situation in which they're trying to hire people
Speaker 1: back for when the NBA reopened, and yet there's a
Speaker 1: more compelling federal job out there that pays people more.
Speaker 1: That's a feature not above right. I mean in my stadium,
Speaker 1: American Life Center, we actually three years ago went through
Speaker 1: and tried to do an analysis to make sure that
Speaker 1: we were getting all of our employees a up to
Speaker 1: a fifteen dollar minimum wage. And b I wanted to
Speaker 1: know if any of my employees were receiving public benefits
Speaker 1: because to me, that was an embarrassment if they were.
Speaker 1: Now and I need to say that not just my employees.
Speaker 1: I'm only fifty owner of the arena, but still I
Speaker 1: pushed for trying to get a feel of whether or
Speaker 1: not UM those employees were getting any type, as I said,
Speaker 1: federal benefits, because to me, that's the ultimate socialism when
Speaker 1: the government has to subsidize a businesses employee. And so
Speaker 1: if the competition from the government, and let's just say
Speaker 1: for these jobs they pay a minimum of fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: per hour plus UM plus benefits plus healthcare, that's not
Speaker 1: a bad thing, you know. For me, it's worse when
Speaker 1: UM municipalities have their own UM minimum wage and states
Speaker 1: have their own minimum wage as opposed to a higher
Speaker 1: federal minimum wage, because then you're not on a equal
Speaker 1: playing field. You know, if you saw in Seattle where
Speaker 1: in one part of town they had to pay fifteen
Speaker 1: dollars and two miles outside that part of town they
Speaker 1: could pay far less, and that created inconsistencies and made
Speaker 1: it tougher to compete. As long as everybody is playing
Speaker 1: by the same rules, I'm fine with it. It's almost
Speaker 1: you know, like what we've you know, the price of
Speaker 1: a commodity goes up, everybody has to that's in that
Speaker 1: business has to pay the same price. You mentioned that
Speaker 1: you thought UM a jobs program could be intermediate or
Speaker 1: intermediary in the sense that you know, those jobs wouldn't
Speaker 1: last forever, and it would just be a sort of
Speaker 1: um bridging program between the coronavirus crisis and getting somewhere
Speaker 1: back to normal. What happens to the jobs or what
Speaker 1: would happen to the jobs at the end of that
Speaker 1: sort of intermediary period. And why does it have to
Speaker 1: be intermediary at all? Well, I say intermediary because again
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about government overreach. UM. I recognized, you know,
Speaker 1: when you're when you're in the middle of a crisis,
Speaker 1: things are going to be different. But I want just
Speaker 1: I just mentioned intermediate not to say that those jobs
Speaker 1: cannot be continued, but we just need to reevaluate at
Speaker 1: some point. UM. And then just going back to the
Speaker 1: discussion about wages. UM, one of the criticisms of current
Speaker 1: policy in the crisis is that a lot of workers
Speaker 1: were trying into and a lot of small businesses as well.
Speaker 1: We're basically trying to figure out whether it was better
Speaker 1: for people to stay on the payroll under p PP
Speaker 1: or to take unemployment benefits. How do you sort of
Speaker 1: calibrate the unemployment payment versus actual salaries. You don't It's
Speaker 1: a real problem I mean, you've got a lot in
Speaker 1: businesses I'm involved with as well as others, you have
Speaker 1: employees that make a lot more money on the new
Speaker 1: unemployment with the six enhancement then they do going back
Speaker 1: to work. And so there the Department of Labor maybe
Speaker 1: it was a Treasury had to literally April um issue
Speaker 1: a letter saying that if an employer puts in writing
Speaker 1: that they offered an employee's job back and that employee
Speaker 1: refused because they were making more money from unemployment, then
Speaker 1: that doesn't prevent full reimbursement under p p P for
Speaker 1: that employer. And so you're seeing it as a real
Speaker 1: problem because you know, you can't blame anybody for performing
Speaker 1: the six enhancement, you know, plus the state unemployment if
Speaker 1: that pays more than going back to work, so it's
Speaker 1: a it's a real issue. And I think it's thirty
Speaker 1: nine weeks for the unemployment program, so we're looking potentially
Speaker 1: at thirty more to go. And you know, on one hand,
Speaker 1: you can say, well, it allows people who really want
Speaker 1: jobs to go get them because the number of people
Speaker 1: that are competing with is reduced. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: at the end of that thirty weeks things can get
Speaker 1: really bad. Mark, I wanna get your take on health policy,
Speaker 1: because obviously, with this extraordinary I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: health crisis first and foremost, lots of people losing their
Speaker 1: potentially losing their employer sponsor sponsored health insurance. It's a
Speaker 1: potential moment where the country might rethink our general approach
Speaker 1: to healthcare. And one thing that I've heard some people
Speaker 1: say is that if we sever the link between employee
Speaker 1: and employer with healthcare, and perhaps more people would be
Speaker 1: willing to take risks in their lives. Maybe they would
Speaker 1: do a start up, they would be willing to leave
Speaker 1: their company to do something entrepreneurial. But because of benefits
Speaker 1: and so forth, that's a pretty dangerous jump. I'm curious
Speaker 1: from your perspective, again, is both a large employer and
Speaker 1: also an investor in sort of smaller companies for whom
Speaker 1: benefits is a very big burden, perhaps a reason not
Speaker 1: to take risks. What you think, whether you think there's
Speaker 1: an opportunity to rethink the structure of you as healthcare,
Speaker 1: Absolutely I think it should be rethought. I'm not a
Speaker 1: big fan of all of most health insurance coming from
Speaker 1: an employer. The question then, becomes how do you structure it?
Speaker 1: You know, is a single payer? Is that, you know,
Speaker 1: an enhancement of the A C A. You know, with
Speaker 1: the A C A you always had that opportunity to
Speaker 1: just buy your own healthcare through the through the program um.
Speaker 1: And then when you look at single payer, I'm not
Speaker 1: a fan of single payer. I'm more a fan of
Speaker 1: a hybrid with the safety net in other is. And and
Speaker 1: and actually I've spent more time on this than that
Speaker 1: most people realize, you know, what I've proposed, and the
Speaker 1: Rand Corporation is actually evaluating it um and we're reevaluating
Speaker 1: now because the number of people who are A C
Speaker 1: A eligible will go from forty six million to who
Speaker 1: knows what it could be seventy six millions. But the
Speaker 1: way I've always felt about it is I look. I
Speaker 1: looked at the top five thousand corporations in terms of
Speaker 1: employment and of them self ensued. And so when you
Speaker 1: look at what the opportunities are for for this country,
Speaker 1: I asked the question, why can't the United States of
Speaker 1: America self ensued and why couldn't we put together a
Speaker 1: program where at some percentage of the federal poverty level?
Speaker 1: And I used two the only cost for any type
Speaker 1: of healthcare would be a co pay with limits for
Speaker 1: things where there's repetitive co pays like pregnancy and stuff
Speaker 1: like that. And then anybody above that does pays a
Speaker 1: means tested amount of their income for all health care,
Speaker 1: no matter what it is, including drugs, up to ten percent.
Speaker 1: And so when we did that, the numbers came out
Speaker 1: and they were incredible. The users because now under the
Speaker 1: a C and this was this was geared towards forty
Speaker 1: six million at A potentially users, those people who prior
Speaker 1: to COVID would have been eligible for the a C
Speaker 1: A save sixty three billion dollars because they didn't have
Speaker 1: to pay premiums into the system. The government themselves, the
Speaker 1: government itself say, you know, a few billion dollars a year,
Speaker 1: but covered all forty six million people that were eligible
Speaker 1: instead of twelve millions that were actually using the a
Speaker 1: C A. So long story short, you know, my my
Speaker 1: orientation is, yes, you want to separate it um. You
Speaker 1: want to make it those who can't afford healthcare. You
Speaker 1: want them to have full care, you know, and only
Speaker 1: the co pay amount. And you can argue, depending on
Speaker 1: the savings, whether you even get rid of the co paid,
Speaker 1: and then for everybody else who's making more than two
Speaker 1: of the federal poverty level, you do it on a
Speaker 1: graduated level. So no matter what the cost of your healthcare,
Speaker 1: if you're making you know, if you're single and you're
Speaker 1: making sixty dollars a year, I think you paid three
Speaker 1: percent of your income. But you don't start paying that
Speaker 1: three until you actually use the system. So one of
Speaker 1: the the underlying challenges, and this is going to be
Speaker 1: exasperated with COVID, is that hospitals like to pretend that
Speaker 1: they don't know their actual costs, and so they'll put
Speaker 1: out this information saying that for Medicare. You know, one
Speaker 1: of their arguments against single payer Medicare for all is
Speaker 1: that they lose nine percent on Medicare pricing and even
Speaker 1: a little bit more on Medicaid pricing, and that's absolutely
Speaker 1: not the case. They you know, they kind of pudge
Speaker 1: these things called Medicare costs reports. So all this is all,
Speaker 1: this radical change and horrific pandemic is an opportunity for
Speaker 1: us to rethink how we support hospitals and how we
Speaker 1: allow them to do their accounting. It shouldn't be activity
Speaker 1: cost accounting. There needs to be one standard for all
Speaker 1: hospitals that receive public funding, and they need to publish
Speaker 1: not their pcing. The pricing is important, but more important
Speaker 1: is their costs. What are their actual costs for doing
Speaker 1: business without burdening the accounting burning their costs with all
Speaker 1: the fancy things that they build and all the buildings
Speaker 1: they built. And so if we're really going to try
Speaker 1: to get to a cure and and really deal with
Speaker 1: the issues we're facing with healthcare, the underlying principle is
Speaker 1: what are the actual costs for providers? Until we get there,
Speaker 1: you know, it's we're not going to really ever have
Speaker 1: a strong solution. Tracy, I gotta say, Um, Mark's answer
Speaker 1: sounds like it would have been good, would be good
Speaker 1: on a presidential debate stage. Just saying that it sounded
Speaker 1: very good. I'm just saying, just throwing that out there,
Speaker 1: sounds like he's done. It sounds like he's done some
Speaker 1: As for practice marked your presidential ambitions, Um, I go
Speaker 1: back and forth. Honestly, I put it to my family
Speaker 1: to vote on, you know, a year ago, and they
Speaker 1: voted no. I was the only yes, Um, and it
Speaker 1: was more action to what's going on in the country.
Speaker 1: Then presidential ambition just to be blunt, you know, we're
Speaker 1: we're as we go forward before COVID, after COVID, we
Speaker 1: need people who truly understand technology and it's impact. If
Speaker 1: you look at the changes that we're going through right now,
Speaker 1: you know, work from home, online buying instead of in
Speaker 1: person buying. You know, trying to get manufacturing because we're
Speaker 1: too dependent on external manufacturing you know in Asian and
Speaker 1: the rest of the world UM countries. To address those
Speaker 1: things requires at least a basic understanding of technology, and
Speaker 1: none of our candidates have that. And so if we're
Speaker 1: gonna push for and and try to get companies bring
Speaker 1: back manufacturing, we're gonna have to invest in robotics because
Speaker 1: we're third or fourth at best in robotics globally. If
Speaker 1: we're gonna deal with jobs and understand the impact of
Speaker 1: technology and jobs because of AI, you're gonna have to
Speaker 1: understand at least the basics of artificial intelligence. We don't
Speaker 1: have that skill set in our leadership right now, and
Speaker 1: that creates competitive problems for the country. And so again
Speaker 1: there's people who know these things better than I do.
Speaker 1: And if there were candidates that are that presented themselves
Speaker 1: that do know this stuff better. I'd be more than
Speaker 1: happy to take a back seat, but that that's kind
Speaker 1: of my logic behind it. Okay, Well, just on that note,
Speaker 1: I actually wanted to ask you when you sort of
Speaker 1: survey the big picture changes that are going to come
Speaker 1: from coronavirus for the business landscape. You know, clearly there
Speaker 1: are both challenges and opportunities. Are there any particular sectors
Speaker 1: or industries that you get excited about that you think
Speaker 1: could actually benefit from some of the changes that we're seeing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, just look at the technology industry. We you know,
Speaker 1: we went from the analog to digital evolution to being
Speaker 1: hybrid digital, you know, and manpower driven. You know, you
Speaker 1: can look at Uber and Lift as an example of,
Speaker 1: you know, being a hybrid of technology and putting independent
Speaker 1: contractors to worker some might are you employees to work now,
Speaker 1: you know, as we advance towards uber lip with self
Speaker 1: driving cars or autonomous vehicles, I think we're gonna go
Speaker 1: into a new age of the economy, if you will.
Speaker 1: And so in order to get there and understand the ramifications,
Speaker 1: you've got to have people investing in it. And I
Speaker 1: think that's just a unique opportunity right now, how do
Speaker 1: you get from a hybrid digital physical economy too, as
Speaker 1: you know, almost totally digital economy, And I think that's
Speaker 1: where they're going to be unique opportunities. That's not to
Speaker 1: say all physical you know, commerce goes away. Obviously it won't.
Speaker 1: You'll buy things, but I think they're gonna be delivered
Speaker 1: at some point. You know, your order online, you might
Speaker 1: just you know, with ambient voice, you might say, Alexa,
Speaker 1: you know, giving my typical grocery order, have it delivered
Speaker 1: on Tuesday at three pm, and some sort of autonomous
Speaker 1: robotic system picks and picks it from a warehouse, putting
Speaker 1: into an autonomous vehicle which delivers it right to your doorstep,
Speaker 1: and depending on how your house is configured, may even
Speaker 1: put it right into your refrigerator. And so, you know,
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of changes and opportunities that are coming,
Speaker 1: but they're gonna be very disruptive and so we've got
Speaker 1: to be cognizant of that as well. Now, is that
Speaker 1: going to happen in the next two years, over the
Speaker 1: next twenty years, yes, before we move on, and I
Speaker 1: want to get to a few other things, including uh, sports,
Speaker 1: and a couple other quick business questions. While we're talking
Speaker 1: about politics and stuff. Do you have much communication? Do
Speaker 1: you talk to people in the White House or other
Speaker 1: parts of the federal government? And also just on sort
Speaker 1: of some of this logistics stuff getting like PPE equipment
Speaker 1: into hospitals and so forth. Is that something that you
Speaker 1: feel is uh, what's your communication like there and how
Speaker 1: do you think that's gone? Okay, So two different questions. One,
Speaker 1: do I communicate with them? Yes, when the President put
Speaker 1: me on the Sports Council, that was only one ceremonial call.
Speaker 1: But then they assigned me a liaison that I talked to,
Speaker 1: if not every day, almost every day via textphone or email,
Speaker 1: and so they're very responsive. The one thing, you know,
Speaker 1: I've probably given them fifty ideas. The one thing they
Speaker 1: did do was I'm working with an organization called the
Speaker 1: ai h A, which is an Industrial Hygiene Association, and
Speaker 1: those folks put together a website called back to Work
Speaker 1: Safely dot org and now that there's a link to
Speaker 1: that on the CDC site and other sites, and we've
Speaker 1: also made it available to local and state municipality. So
Speaker 1: that was a positive. You know, I've been very vocal
Speaker 1: with them some of the issues I mentioned with you
Speaker 1: guys in terms of what's working and what's not working
Speaker 1: for P P P. The last suggestion I made to
Speaker 1: them was yesterday where I said that, UM, part of
Speaker 1: the problem for small businesses, particularly in states that are
Speaker 1: trying to get open back up, is that there's no
Speaker 1: forgiveness for any money that needs to be spent to
Speaker 1: upgrade just just for a stake of example, or retail store,
Speaker 1: for safety measures, you know, buying mass upgrading the air
Speaker 1: conditioning system so you don't recirculate anybody and any germs
Speaker 1: that from somebody who might came in updating your bathrooms,
Speaker 1: dealing with replacing you know, all the rules for new
Speaker 1: restaurants those should have been businesses should be able to
Speaker 1: take that right off the top and not um impact
Speaker 1: their forgiveness. And so that was the last thing. And
Speaker 1: so we'll do what they come back when, and whether
Speaker 1: or not they agree or disagree. Okay, Well, I did
Speaker 1: all this NBA preparation and it would be a shame
Speaker 1: not to use it, So I'm going to try. UM.
Speaker 1: So Joe's right. I did tweet out asking what the
Speaker 1: the salary cap issue was for the NBA, and all
Speaker 1: I learned. All I learned is basically like no one
Speaker 1: understands it, and they understand it even less in the
Speaker 1: current situation. Can you maybe give us a sort of
Speaker 1: high level summary of why uncertainty around COVID is such
Speaker 1: a problem for the NBA because our business shut down
Speaker 1: and the salary cap at its base says the players
Speaker 1: get approximately of revenue UM and then there's an expected
Speaker 1: level of continuity and there's no continuity, and so our
Speaker 1: businesses closed like like many others. And so you know
Speaker 1: what happens is the is the ultimate question, and I
Speaker 1: don't have answers, and you know we'll find out. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not just my decision. Obviously, it's a collaborative decision
Speaker 1: between the players union and the m b a UM
Speaker 1: at the commissioner level. So I'm just as curious about
Speaker 1: what's going to happen next is everybody else. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we've been talking about big changes coming to different industries.
Speaker 1: Could you imagine that the current crisis forces a big
Speaker 1: change for the NBA, either in terms of the salary
Speaker 1: cap and the way the league actually does its financials,
Speaker 1: or in terms of the way it gets its revenue.
Speaker 1: UM I think the way it gets its revenue could change,
Speaker 1: particularly if we won't have fans for games, which is
Speaker 1: the most likely outcome right now, particularly if we try
Speaker 1: to finish the this current season, and so that's going
Speaker 1: to be disruptive. And so you know, we've got a
Speaker 1: relationship with the players union and our commissioner Adam Silver
Speaker 1: is talking to them on an ongoing basis, and so
Speaker 1: we're all gonna have to be agile, resilient and adaptive.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are no rules right now that you know,
Speaker 1: there's no way really to anticipate what comes next, because,
Speaker 1: like I mentioned right off the bat, of all the uncertainty,
Speaker 1: we're trying to be good corporate citizens. We're trying to
Speaker 1: let people in need get tests. We're not you know,
Speaker 1: in at least in the state of Texas and other
Speaker 1: states where there's a shortage of testing. You know, I've
Speaker 1: never been tested. UM our players to my knowledge, have
Speaker 1: not been tested. And so we're trying to take a
Speaker 1: back seat to people who are in greater need and
Speaker 1: allowing them to have, you know what, what's turned out
Speaker 1: to be a scarce resource unfortunately test And so as
Speaker 1: long as that continues, to be the case, it's very
Speaker 1: difficult for us to make a plan on what comes next.
Speaker 1: So it's difficult to make a plan on what comes next.
Speaker 1: Unclear if the season can be salvage. Do you think
Speaker 1: it can and what what kind of things? What could
Speaker 1: it possibly look like? I mean you mentioned almost certainly
Speaker 1: there won't be players, O, there won't be fans in
Speaker 1: the stands. But what could it just sort of look
Speaker 1: like operationally? Uh, what would be plausible at this point?
Speaker 1: Hotel California. UM. You you enter, but you never leave.
Speaker 1: We find a huge UM facility hotel that can support
Speaker 1: the all of our players, which is for fifty give
Speaker 1: or take plus extensive potential personnel to put on games,
Speaker 1: and we have those games in a central location and
Speaker 1: we play them for made for TV. But I think
Speaker 1: that would be great. I think, you know, basketball fans
Speaker 1: and NBA fans around the world would love it. I
Speaker 1: think you know, we as a as Americans have a
Speaker 1: proclivity towards sports and supporting our teams, and we miss it.
Speaker 1: And I just think it would be great to give
Speaker 1: everybody something to cheer for and get excited about. So
Speaker 1: I'm all four resuming the season. You know, not just
Speaker 1: for economic reasons, but for morale reasons in the country.
Speaker 1: And I think, I think there's a chance we'll do it.
Speaker 1: But again, it comes down to testing, It comes down
Speaker 1: to having the science, and so I have to to
Speaker 1: defer to the doctors and the scientists, but I know
Speaker 1: the NBA is working closely with them. So speaking of
Speaker 1: things that basketball fans watch, I'm curious if you've been
Speaker 1: watching the Michael Jordan documentary and whether there was anything
Speaker 1: in there that surprised you. Um, A lot of things
Speaker 1: surprised me, and yes I have. Um, you know, it's
Speaker 1: just so different. It was a different era that I'm
Speaker 1: talking about, you know, smoking cigarettes and drinking at halftime,
Speaker 1: you know, guys just taking off because they're mad at
Speaker 1: their playing time, renegotiating contracts, talk about the CBA changes.
Speaker 1: You could just see it's being so different because it's
Speaker 1: pre social media. You know, Michael walking out to a
Speaker 1: sea of cameras. You know, today's kids they just they
Speaker 1: have their own cameras. They don't need all the media cameras,
Speaker 1: and so yeah, it wasn't necessarily surprising, but it was just,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of a wake up call to how
Speaker 1: much things have changed. It's also fun see an MP
Speaker 1: DATA competitor because you know, he owns the Charlotte Hornets,
Speaker 1: so we've gotten to be good friends. And he's certainly
Speaker 1: still a competitor, but it's you know, it's just a
Speaker 1: different level of competitor when when he was actually playing it,
Speaker 1: And that's been fun to watch. Marcot. I love that idea,
Speaker 1: you know, the sort of the big centralized hotel California.
Speaker 1: Do you have like a site in mind that could
Speaker 1: plausibly pull it off and could have the capacity for
Speaker 1: enough games and all the personnel. Well, there's plenty. I mean,
Speaker 1: you just have to look at hotels that you know,
Speaker 1: maybe have an arena and can hold thousands of thousands
Speaker 1: of rooms, so Vegas, Orlando. You know, these aren't things.
Speaker 1: I'm not involved in those negotiations, so I'm reading them
Speaker 1: like everybody else, but they make sense to me. Mark
Speaker 1: one last, one, last question for you and then we
Speaker 1: can let you go. But you're in Dallas. Elon Musk
Speaker 1: he's been tweeting about maybe ditch in California for Texas.
Speaker 1: You want him to, uh, would you like him to
Speaker 1: join you in the lone Star State? I mean, I
Speaker 1: have no problem with that, but you know, would would
Speaker 1: that be a good choice for him? Yeah, of course.
Speaker 1: I mean doing business in around Dallas, Texas is a dream.
Speaker 1: I mean it's just so much simpler, so much less
Speaker 1: friction here. Um now, a lot of different perspectives um politically,
Speaker 1: but at the same time, when it comes to starting
Speaker 1: a running businesses, which I've done my entire professional life
Speaker 1: in Dallas, Texas, it truly is a great place to
Speaker 1: have a company. All Right, Mark, really appreciate you, uh
Speaker 1: taking the time and hopefully you joined us again on
Speaker 1: your run. Appreciate it, Joe, appreciate Tracy great questions. I
Speaker 1: really enjoyed it. Thanks, and take care of Mark staying smart.
Speaker 1: I guess I didn't realize Mark was a rented fan.
Speaker 1: Yeah you heard that too, huh. Yeah. I immediately lashed
Speaker 1: onto that. It's interesting because well that comes with a
Speaker 1: certain reputation. But of course what he's talking about is
Speaker 1: greater government participation in a whole bunch of markets. Right.
Speaker 1: But I mean this, I do think like this crisis,
Speaker 1: because of how intense and how deep it is, is
Speaker 1: sort of really exposing. I mean what he said right
Speaker 1: off the beginning, when I asked him about the state
Speaker 1: of the economy. For all, his business is large and small,
Speaker 1: Like it's about demand and if people if you're not
Speaker 1: selling something that you could store safely in your home
Speaker 1: for a long time, like certain kinds of foods or
Speaker 1: maybe athletic equipment, Like everyone is really hurting until that
Speaker 1: demand comes back. Yeah. Absolutely, I mean, the economy isn't
Speaker 1: really built for demand to just sort of dissipate. It's
Speaker 1: also really interesting to see a business person, you know,
Speaker 1: a very successful business person, someone from the private sector
Speaker 1: take such an interest in these types of policy matters.
Speaker 1: And it's it's interesting that you have seen more bit
Speaker 1: as well, because of course the business community, business leaders,
Speaker 1: they're the ones that are going to have to carry
Speaker 1: through on all these corporate policies, like we were discussing
Speaker 1: about the p p P program, making those judgment calls
Speaker 1: about whether or not it's better to fire your worker
Speaker 1: and let them get that extra six or whether or
Speaker 1: not it's better to keep them on the payroll. Lots
Speaker 1: of decisions to be named. Yeah. Absolutely. Also it's just
Speaker 1: clear like and I really you know, obviously talk of
Speaker 1: him like having potential presidential ambition. Um, you know, that's
Speaker 1: been percolating for while I was talking about it. You
Speaker 1: know that he's thought about it in the past. But
Speaker 1: then when he gave like his like and now here's
Speaker 1: the Mark Cuban healthcare plan, It's like, Yeah, that's someone
Speaker 1: who definitely is ready at some point for a more
Speaker 1: sort of like public national unveiling of it. Because I figured,
Speaker 1: you don't just come up with a whole healthcare plan
Speaker 1: and score it and figure out what the copay are
Speaker 1: and figure out the correct level of the federal poverty
Speaker 1: rate you're going to be if you're just planning on
Speaker 1: sort of keeping that to yourself, well, you don't have
Speaker 1: your own healthcare plan of your sleeve, the Joe wisen
Speaker 1: Ball Act. I have not gone to a think tank
Speaker 1: to calculate exactly how much it would cause people, how
Speaker 1: much cost savings, uh and all that. So no, I
Speaker 1: do not I have not done the equivalent work. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is very interesting to hear him talk about sort
Speaker 1: of using his own businesses as test cases for certain
Speaker 1: policy changes. Um. That's yeah, it's definitely something he's thinking about,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Okay, Um, well, great conversation. Yeah, I learned
Speaker 1: something about basketball, namely that no one understands how it works,
Speaker 1: because I was like, it's funny, like you did all
Speaker 1: the good homework, because I was like reading his comments
Speaker 1: about you know, federal jobs program and stuff. But I
Speaker 1: suspect more of our listeners what people want to know
Speaker 1: about it is like how the salary cap is going
Speaker 1: to interact with the COVID crisis and so forth. So
Speaker 1: I appreciate you having done the homework that I forgot
Speaker 1: to do. Thank you, I made the effort. Okay, On
Speaker 1: that note, this has been another episode of the Odd
Speaker 1: Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Tracy Alloway, and I'm Joe Wassn'tal. You can
Speaker 1: follow me at the Stalwart. And you should follow our
Speaker 1: guests on Twitter. Mark Cuban He's at m Cuban. Follow
Speaker 1: our producer Laura Carlson, She's at Laura M. Carlson. Follow
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg head of podcast, Francesca Levi at Francesca Today,
Speaker 1: and be sure to check out all of our podcasts
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg under the handle at podcasts. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: Two