Speaker 1: Hello the Internet, and welcome to Season one, Episode four
Speaker 1: upter Daily like ice to production of I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: This is a podcast where we take a deep devan
Speaker 1: do America share consciousness. It is Friday, July nine one.
Speaker 1: My name is Jack O'Brien a K. Yeah, Uncle Joe UFOs,
Speaker 1: come on wound, let's talk three point shooting. Oh Cuban
Speaker 1: Ray sound attack. Don't do nothing about what supremacy, So
Speaker 1: sit down, not too loud. I'm a check because I'm
Speaker 1: cute and Jugie that is courtesy Christy am Gucci name
Speaker 1: the boots Scooting Boogie a K that he said it
Speaker 1: took him a whole week to write and uh unfortunately
Speaker 1: uh not not really in my range. But what well
Speaker 1: well done, sir h and I am thrilled to be
Speaker 1: joined as always by my co host, Mr Miles Gray. Yes,
Speaker 1: Miles Gray, but I will just say this, no, a
Speaker 1: k A just all we need is boom kosaka boa
Speaker 1: all right, And you know, I know that there are
Speaker 1: other players on the England national team that don't play
Speaker 1: for my beloved Arsenal. But for the ones that do,
Speaker 1: that's you Bookayo, and whant I see you out there?
Speaker 1: Your young man doing your thing. The Three Lions are
Speaker 1: through to their first finals six Hey do you feel
Speaker 1: the energy? I can't? Uh so shout out to all
Speaker 1: the Three Lions supporters out there. I know it's very
Speaker 1: happy times for you walk yeah, yeah, alright, well miles,
Speaker 1: we are thrilled to be joined in our third seat
Speaker 1: by an economist and an independent analyst who hosts the
Speaker 1: Bubble Trouble podcast, which tells you some inconvenient truths about
Speaker 1: how financial markets really work. Please welcome Richard Kramer and
Speaker 1: Will Page. What's up? Welcome, Welcome, Hello, Hello, how are
Speaker 1: how are y'all doing? We're what part of the what
Speaker 1: part of the world are you coming to us from today?
Speaker 1: We are coming to you from sunny London? Oh wow?
Speaker 1: And Will? How about you? Where are you coming to
Speaker 1: us from today? I'm speaking to you for one mile
Speaker 1: from the Emberhood Stadium where your boys, Oh my goodness,
Speaker 1: you can hear them. It's here when they score. And
Speaker 1: last season we didn't hear most hearings. So not at all,
Speaker 1: not at all. Or do you support a club in
Speaker 1: the Premier League? Well, my true club is Heart at
Speaker 1: Lothian beck Hoom in Scotland. We don't have a trophy
Speaker 1: cabinet because we ain't want nothing but down here in London.
Speaker 1: When you live in Kentish Town, you have to support Arsenal.
Speaker 1: What's the law be a FAILI need to go with
Speaker 1: Tottenham Hotspur? Oh yeah, absolutely, yeah you and I can
Speaker 1: tell your your self respecting football supporter when you don't
Speaker 1: tread into those waters over there, it's not worth any Richard.
Speaker 1: What about you? Well, you know, as a nice Jewish boy,
Speaker 1: I think I'd be obliged to support Tottenham, all right,
Speaker 1: for sure? I get that. Are you? But do you?
Speaker 1: But you're living in London, are you? How has the
Speaker 1: football caught hold of you or you know, thirty years
Speaker 1: on living in London? Uh? Not really? Uh, it wasn't
Speaker 1: the sport I grew up with. So what was the
Speaker 1: sport you grew up with? Baseball? More? More hockey? Oh wow, hockey?
Speaker 1: So you know you've you've got to Uh it's similar passions, Yeah,
Speaker 1: less hooligan violence. Who's your team? And then NHL Pittsburgh Penguins. Okay,
Speaker 1: the kid in all success at Mario Lemieu? I remember
Speaker 1: those games? Didn't he play with you too? No? No, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: Who is your who was the other Eastern European guy
Speaker 1: who played for the Yeah, that always messed up. And
Speaker 1: he had number sixty eight on this jersey, which was
Speaker 1: a reference to the Prague Spring. So wow. I always,
Speaker 1: as a kid, not being completely ignorant of Eastern European
Speaker 1: phonetics and spelling, I was like, I think they missed
Speaker 1: Bill Jersey. But I was ten and didn't know much
Speaker 1: about anything. So there you happy. Will is Scottish, so
Speaker 1: you the England football team is a touchy subject for him. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The game finished I think at quarter past eleven last night,
Speaker 1: and by twenty past eleven, I bought my train ticket
Speaker 1: to Scotland on Sunday evening, so I am out of
Speaker 1: the country. Actually go ahead and win it. I just
Speaker 1: too much for the Scots to handle. There's that close. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm all Italian for the next Yeah, I mean it,
Speaker 1: trusts me. I was definitely rooting for the Scottish team
Speaker 1: because of you know, Karen Tierney again another great Scottish player,
Speaker 1: but also Gunner as well. So yeah, but shout out
Speaker 1: to hearts, you know, like I can't imagine it's it's
Speaker 1: easy to be to support to heart. Yeah, we had
Speaker 1: an American play for US, a guy called Perry Kitchen.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you remember him, captain an American
Speaker 1: team for US. Yeah. For some reason, he was incapable
Speaker 1: of passing the ball forward. I don't think anyone shall
Speaker 1: make it forward passed. He was like he confused the
Speaker 1: rules of rugby with soccer. There's a lot of Remember
Speaker 1: a lot of American players end up going to the
Speaker 1: Scottish Premiership, you know, like like sort of the first place.
Speaker 1: America's Americans who are too cowardly to go too far afield,
Speaker 1: they like to dabble in the Scottish Premier League. I
Speaker 1: noticed that it would be a big fish in a
Speaker 1: small pond, right, right, exactly. That's why I landed on
Speaker 1: Evan never left. Well, helped our national team. Well you
Speaker 1: may have seen, you've seen Billy Gilmo will play. Billy
Speaker 1: Gilmore's a Chelsea seventeen year old. He played for Scotland
Speaker 1: against England. Yeah, best player, best player on the whole championships.
Speaker 1: And he couldn't play again because he got COVID in
Speaker 1: the second and third game. And that's when like Mason
Speaker 1: Mount had to quarantine, right because he interacted with him.
Speaker 1: It's amazing how those little things can affect so many
Speaker 1: players at one tournament. So we got this joke back
Speaker 1: woman in Scotland, which is Billy Gilmore. The only postive
Speaker 1: results happened Scotland's European Championship. Postive result covid. Okay, you
Speaker 1: get it. I love it. Well, it's appropriate. I I
Speaker 1: here maybe one out of every ten words that everybody's
Speaker 1: saying because my Internet connection is just completely broken. But
Speaker 1: I would have had nothing to add to that conversation.
Speaker 1: So that's works out. But congratulations on on the success
Speaker 1: of the the three lines. All right, guys, we are
Speaker 1: going to get to know you a little bit better
Speaker 1: in a moment. First, we are going to tell our
Speaker 1: listeners a few of the things that we're talking about.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a have a capitalism and overall capitalism
Speaker 1: conversation with you guys, just markets, the rising popularity of socialism,
Speaker 1: the whole robin hood conundrum, all that plenty more. But first, Richard,
Speaker 1: will we like to ask our guests what is something
Speaker 1: from your search history that's revealing that who you are?
Speaker 1: I search a lot of discoing funct from the seventies
Speaker 1: and eighties for my time. But it tells you a
Speaker 1: lot about who I am, like somebody who spent positivete
Speaker 1: years at the front of music technology. I'm always going back. Well,
Speaker 1: you and you worked at Spotify, correct said that's right
Speaker 1: for the best part of a decade. It's Spotify, right,
Speaker 1: and then prior to that, working with songwriters and publishers too,
Speaker 1: So a balance of the rights holder and the rights user. Yeah,
Speaker 1: got it, got it, and and and all you can
Speaker 1: think about is seventies, eighties disco and funk. I like that. Yes,
Speaker 1: as far as the music goes forward, I keep on
Speaker 1: going back. That's That's always been the story with me.
Speaker 1: Is there any Are there any bands now that you
Speaker 1: feel like? What about like Jungle? Are they adjacent enough
Speaker 1: to get your toe tapp it? It's a great one.
Speaker 1: Jungles on my mix. That mix on mixed Cloud got
Speaker 1: thirty eight thousand uniques, be Ericabadoo and l a Star
Speaker 1: in terms of popularity, which is great. But I'll give
Speaker 1: you one. This is a big one for your listeners,
Speaker 1: and I have to spill it out to you because
Speaker 1: it sounds weird. Salt I write this down s A
Speaker 1: U L T Y. That was the hottest band coming
Speaker 1: out of London, right and it's just nobody knows who
Speaker 1: they are, nobody knows what they look like. They don't
Speaker 1: do any press, they're completely incognito. Yeah, it's just bubbling
Speaker 1: right now people. I love that track new record, Why
Speaker 1: Why Why Why? That's uh yeah, I love that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: We've actually written out on a couple of Salt tracks
Speaker 1: because I look Spotify. They know how to serve me
Speaker 1: the things I'm looking for and it gave me a
Speaker 1: heavy dose of sodium or in this case, salt and saults.
Speaker 1: The one for me is I'll go on recogen say
Speaker 1: it's the most powerful music I've heard since discovering mess
Speaker 1: of Attech and discovering Messive Attech is pretty much on
Speaker 1: power with losing your virginity and it's that good. Okay.
Speaker 1: I like that you had a better experience losing your
Speaker 1: virginity than it sounds like Richard Well. I will say,
Speaker 1: I'm absolutely right with Will on the seventies and eighties funk.
Speaker 1: That's something we're completely in SynCon. But it's a bit
Speaker 1: of a trick question for me because I don't have
Speaker 1: any search history. Because I am I was one of
Speaker 1: the early investors in a browser called Brave, which I'd
Speaker 1: recommend everybody to be using. It is the the privacy
Speaker 1: safe browser, but it basically make sure that you're not
Speaker 1: tracked when you're using the web, and it keeps all
Speaker 1: your history hidden away. And so given my memories fading
Speaker 1: constantly for whatever reason, uh, you know, I can remember
Speaker 1: what I searched for a few minutes ago, but not
Speaker 1: after that, and I don't have to worry that that
Speaker 1: search history is sitting there for for decades in somebody
Speaker 1: else's servers. Sure, so you're immune from this question? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I just I guess every once in a
Speaker 1: while you want to figure out, hey, what was that
Speaker 1: that I found, but you realize it's probably really not
Speaker 1: that important and just think of the next thing instead.
Speaker 1: How do you stay organized? Because I'm one of these
Speaker 1: people has like nine million browser tabs open because I
Speaker 1: don't want to forget things. But the way you're talking,
Speaker 1: you're like, I don't know, maybe I searched it that,
Speaker 1: but I'm it's all good. You have like a tone
Speaker 1: that you write this stuff. I also have. I also
Speaker 1: have nine million browser tabs open at times. But but
Speaker 1: then you just gotta go through. Then you gotta go
Speaker 1: through and cull them. And the point is when you
Speaker 1: close them, you want that history to be gone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what what is something you guys think is overrated? I
Speaker 1: can give you something that's overrated and something that's underrated
Speaker 1: in the world of sport. I think men's pupil is
Speaker 1: overrated and women's puopile has underrated. In ten years time,
Speaker 1: you're going to see a massive equalization, a massive convergence
Speaker 1: if you want, of the two of the two games.
Speaker 1: Trust me, when I saw seventy three thousand people turn
Speaker 1: up for England women versus German women at Wembley Stadium,
Speaker 1: it was a day of reckoning. So you know, you
Speaker 1: can look at gender and sports seeing inequalities pretty much
Speaker 1: everywhere you look. And I think the next ten years
Speaker 1: you're going to see a very very sharp correction there.
Speaker 1: So overrated for Arsenal getting three fifty thousand pounds a
Speaker 1: week twice what Boris Johnson gets a year. Underrated women's
Speaker 1: pupolers who are still pretty much amateur semi professional status,
Speaker 1: watch that correct itself, especially there. The talent in the
Speaker 1: league are phenomenal. I I watched like the champions leagu
Speaker 1: Final with PSG. Like I've I, I really love it.
Speaker 1: Especially the Arsenal Ladies team is stellar. Vivian Amtima is
Speaker 1: one of my favorite players to watch. I didn't realize
Speaker 1: Premier League teams head women's teams as well. Let's not
Speaker 1: all of them do, but most many of them do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: very cool, yea Richard? How about you? Yeah? I would
Speaker 1: say that the one thing I I feel strongly is
Speaker 1: completely overrated is pretty much anything to do with social media,
Speaker 1: and specifically Twitter, which I consider the id of Western civilization.
Speaker 1: It's the kind of thing that you know, if if
Speaker 1: I watch you guys walking down the street together and
Speaker 1: amiably chatting, I wouldn't take any notice of it. But
Speaker 1: if I watched you went walking down the street screaming
Speaker 1: at each other, I'd stop and take note. And I
Speaker 1: think that's the kind of behavior that a lot of
Speaker 1: social media and genders and I it's just I think
Speaker 1: it's the kind of thing that everybody feels the need
Speaker 1: to show how clever they are put something out there,
Speaker 1: but it has so little substance, and it's such a distraction,
Speaker 1: and and that it's it's really wildly overrated. I think
Speaker 1: there's lots of other ways to see distribution of of
Speaker 1: interesting ideas and content news, And I think the thing
Speaker 1: that's underrated is just that is sort of the contemplation
Speaker 1: you get reading a book. Will just publish Tarzan Economics
Speaker 1: giving him a shameless plug for that, but you know,
Speaker 1: reading and engaging with content. I think podcasts are the
Speaker 1: same thing. When you when you feel as if there's
Speaker 1: there's a conversation that you're part of. I think that's
Speaker 1: fascinating and and way underrated because you feel a connection.
Speaker 1: And I think this sort of bite size, constant flow
Speaker 1: of distraction in social media is is really damaging. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can build on that a couple of points. So
Speaker 1: just one. I always reminds me when I hear Richard
Speaker 1: talk about this of what Gratual Mark said, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, back then he said television is a fantastic
Speaker 1: convention because every time I switched it on, it reminds
Speaker 1: me to read a good book. And I just wonder
Speaker 1: what he would say about Twitter and Facebook and the
Speaker 1: like today. And I often look at a lot of
Speaker 1: that social media's junk food and keeping with that food
Speaker 1: theme of a colleague of ours, Noami Drew she said
Speaker 1: to me once, what Twitter is this ability to You're
Speaker 1: sitting at a big dining table, lots of guests, and
Speaker 1: everyone's broken off into private conversations, and Twitter allows you
Speaker 1: to eavesdrop into all those private conversations. I thought, somebody
Speaker 1: doesn't tweet. It's a nice illustration of what it might
Speaker 1: actually mean to us. But then you have to step
Speaker 1: back and say, well, why would you want to eavesdrop
Speaker 1: into all those private conversations. Why not have a deeper
Speaker 1: one with something you can reward yourself from as opposed
Speaker 1: to all these distractions. So yeah, it does come across
Speaker 1: as junkard to me. So I'll little Richard's point there.
Speaker 1: But but Myles, something that hopefully you're aware of is
Speaker 1: that about a month ago, the entirety of UK sport,
Speaker 1: every sport, rugby, cricket, tennis, football, all said complete ban
Speaker 1: on social media for four days over a bank holiday
Speaker 1: weekend because the original sin of Twitter is allowing people
Speaker 1: to the hashtag raving racist or hashtag of you know,
Speaker 1: I love abuse, uh, And it's just absolutely shocking these
Speaker 1: and I say this in all seriousness. I think it
Speaker 1: is the id of Western civilization. All the things that
Speaker 1: we you know, in classic psychoanalysis or psychology, you'd never
Speaker 1: say to people in polite company, all the terrible thoughts
Speaker 1: you have in your head that you would never voice
Speaker 1: directly to somebody. People save them all the time on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and and you you know, you have someone who's who's uh,
Speaker 1: you know, an icon and just deserving of the highest
Speaker 1: of of respect, like Marcus Rashford in in the UK,
Speaker 1: with all the stuff he's done with school lunches and
Speaker 1: so forth, and he just gets the most unbelievable invective
Speaker 1: of abuse and you don't know where it's coming from.
Speaker 1: And of course no one is going to walk up
Speaker 1: to him in the street and say these things, and
Speaker 1: and and and and yet the entirety of sport, it
Speaker 1: wasn't just one sport. It wasn't just a few athletes,
Speaker 1: it was everybody. He said, this has gonna stop. We
Speaker 1: gotta say a break here, because we're not going to
Speaker 1: contribute to this, this constant bubbling up of of of
Speaker 1: an invitation to take potshots at us. Yeah, no, I totally, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's there's the amount of especially the racial abuse
Speaker 1: Hurld that, like the athletes, is gob smacked. Is the
Speaker 1: word I would use when I look at some of
Speaker 1: the things that I read, and yeah, that even forced
Speaker 1: one of my sporting idols, Tierryan reed to like deactivate
Speaker 1: his accounts and he's saying, I'm not I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna, I'm not working with this at all. If
Speaker 1: this is what people come here for and the companies
Speaker 1: allow this to just run rampant, what is the point? Yeah,
Speaker 1: And that's why I think a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: our guests, even who are comedians, come on to say, like, like,
Speaker 1: you know, we can't stand social media because there is
Speaker 1: a there's a certain level where, especially for comedians, like
Speaker 1: it's a place to get their jokes off. But on
Speaker 1: the other side of that, it allows for a lot
Speaker 1: of people to just come at them and say all
Speaker 1: kinds of ridiculous things that again, like you're saying, Richard,
Speaker 1: you would never hear someone say that to your face.
Speaker 1: And so we've had to like we have built up
Speaker 1: these weird callouses emotionally to even engage in social media
Speaker 1: that you know, I'm sure resonating many other ways. So
Speaker 1: so I had a UK UK member of Parliament say
Speaker 1: to me, you know, how can it be correct? That's
Speaker 1: something that you would be arrested for telling someone in
Speaker 1: the street to their face. You can say every day
Speaker 1: on social media and will will tell you the the
Speaker 1: the the language that's been hurled at Nicholas Sturgeon as
Speaker 1: leader of Scotland, the Scottish National Party. You know she
Speaker 1: she gets all sorts of rape threats or what have
Speaker 1: you on a daily basis, and you know you you
Speaker 1: can't callous yourself entirely to that stuff. It's just no
Speaker 1: one can but on interpreting it, Like when when Richard
Speaker 1: just mentioned it was what was inside people's heads all along,
Speaker 1: but now it's pouring out. That reminds me of like
Speaker 1: one there you normally of crime stats is a good
Speaker 1: reminder for how do you interpret all this activity. So
Speaker 1: it goes like this, if crime stats are up, what
Speaker 1: do we know this has happened? You know, a crime
Speaker 1: on the app or be we're getting better at catching criminals,
Speaker 1: or see we've changed the definition of crime, or d
Speaker 1: a combination of all of the above. But it doesn't
Speaker 1: necessarily mean crime is on the up. It means now
Speaker 1: we're seeing what people had inside their heads all along.
Speaker 1: I think that's an important contextual point about trying to
Speaker 1: make sense of this madness as well. Yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: really good point. I mean, the the neutering effect that
Speaker 1: banning Trump from social media had is something that we
Speaker 1: talked about a lot on on this show. But like
Speaker 1: that's truly that. That was a moment when I really
Speaker 1: had to like sit back and be like, wow, they
Speaker 1: we we haven't figured this out yet, and like that
Speaker 1: what he did, the way he used social media, Like
Speaker 1: hopefully I'm assuming years down the road like that won't
Speaker 1: be possible in one way or another because it was
Speaker 1: just so so damaging. Neither worried for Scotland. Is he's
Speaker 1: kind of done his time in America. Is he're gonna
Speaker 1: come back to Scotland and open more golf courses because
Speaker 1: we got a bit of him for a few years.
Speaker 1: He was making a messy years place. Yeah. Maybe, I
Speaker 1: mean it's it seems like the Scots are are are
Speaker 1: definitely more united and giving him a hard time than
Speaker 1: the people of the US. But I don't know, he
Speaker 1: who knows if if there's maybe a little Maga contingent
Speaker 1: in Scotland, maybe he'll find it there. But it seems
Speaker 1: like Florida is the place for him at the moment.
Speaker 1: Florida's got better Weatherland, Scotland, Scholand. We have two seasons,
Speaker 1: winter in June and that's your lot. So winter it
Speaker 1: was amazing. Alright, guys, let's take a quick break and
Speaker 1: we'll come back and talk about the news. And we're
Speaker 1: back and just kind of up top. You know, we
Speaker 1: we talk a lot on this show about socialism, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, some of the ways that we feel like
Speaker 1: capitalism has been damaging to our our current version of
Speaker 1: of society. And I guess I just wanted to kind
Speaker 1: of get you guys as people who spend a lot
Speaker 1: of time thinking about markets and capitalism, Like, what are
Speaker 1: you guys thoughts on just the rise of popularity of
Speaker 1: socialism and in the modern world, and like how that
Speaker 1: fits into the evolution of markets and capitalism in in
Speaker 1: the Western world. I guess yeah, if I can take
Speaker 1: a stab at unpacking this one, I'll draw an example
Speaker 1: I flag in the first chapter of the Buktas and Economics,
Speaker 1: which is when people, you know, sort of frame the
Speaker 1: debate around capitalism and come them there's often like an
Speaker 1: axiom underneath all list, which is a capitalism kind of
Speaker 1: removes the safety in there, and that encourages an entrepreneurial spirit.
Speaker 1: You win, you win big. If you lose, you lose hard.
Speaker 1: But there's no complacency. It keeps you on your toes.
Speaker 1: Where socialism that imposes a safety net. And if there's
Speaker 1: a safety net, nobody takes any risks. And if nobody
Speaker 1: takes any risk, nobody wins big and nobody loses. There's
Speaker 1: a stereotype there of how economies, or societies perhaps a
Speaker 1: better word, work kunder capitalist models and socialist models. And
Speaker 1: what I drawn in the book Tars and Economics is
Speaker 1: to look at the entrepreneurial spirit in the free market
Speaker 1: capitalists country that is United States of America, and compare
Speaker 1: that with the entrepreneurial spirit in the very left leaning
Speaker 1: socialist economy of Sweden. And I don't see a drought
Speaker 1: and entrepreneurial activity in Sweden. I see startups galore, Eyesettel, Spotify, Clara,
Speaker 1: the list goes on and on. I see a country
Speaker 1: that's getting rid of cash next year. You know, they
Speaker 1: getting switching off the FM radio band next year. One
Speaker 1: of the earliest adopting countries that you'll ever find. So
Speaker 1: I'm not sure the stereotypes of what is capitalism of
Speaker 1: what is socialism? Work down on their ground and I
Speaker 1: just want to toss this back at you guys, which is, yes,
Speaker 1: I get it. The US model of capitalism encourages with taking,
Speaker 1: encourages reward, incentivizes the entrepreneurial spirit. But maybe, just maybe
Speaker 1: the Swedish model, which has this really strong social safety net,
Speaker 1: you know, which keeps people above the poverty line, provides
Speaker 1: great maternity and paternity leave, amazing child support, and allows
Speaker 1: you to take six months out of work to study,
Speaker 1: allows you to take nine months out of work to
Speaker 1: try and start up. Even maybe this model, because of
Speaker 1: the social safety net, is so strong, it encourages even
Speaker 1: more entrepreneurial activity. So it's just a way of thinking
Speaker 1: about is it either or or? As the line a
Speaker 1: little bit fuzzy between these two models, I'm fascinated with
Speaker 1: how Sweden, with all of its safety net, with all
Speaker 1: its socialistic beliefs, has produced such a great entrepreneurial success story.
Speaker 1: But how am I gonna want to get out of
Speaker 1: bed in the morning if I am not scared that
Speaker 1: I'm going to starve to death? I just I don't
Speaker 1: I don't see it, or if if I am afraid
Speaker 1: that I can't give my kids health care. That's the
Speaker 1: only thing. Get me up, No, I I I think
Speaker 1: every you need to carry right, every right exactly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I mean there's so many things I could pick
Speaker 1: up on there from what Will said. But I think
Speaker 1: the way you guys are posing it as a complete
Speaker 1: false economy, and the when I look back at where
Speaker 1: I grew up in the States but left a long
Speaker 1: time ago, more than half my life ago left left
Speaker 1: there in the US isn't a capitalist economy in any
Speaker 1: any sense. There's enormous social support for large companies and
Speaker 1: there for the wrong things you're saying. I like that.
Speaker 1: I think one of the sad things that's happened in
Speaker 1: the past thirty or the years is this notion. And
Speaker 1: it's been a very deliberate notion to undermine the idea
Speaker 1: that there there is any value in collective enterprise or
Speaker 1: the government or what have you. In this back to
Speaker 1: the Reagan era of oh well, you know, the worst
Speaker 1: words are that I'm here from the government, here to
Speaker 1: help you. I mean, And Michael Lewis wrote a book
Speaker 1: on this just recently, you know, which was basically a
Speaker 1: love letter to them. To the folks who toil away
Speaker 1: for relatively low salaries, lurking on food safety in the US,
Speaker 1: working for the government. We're glad that we have these
Speaker 1: people doing this in so many different endeavors. And and
Speaker 1: we've kind of we've had this idolatry of in the individual,
Speaker 1: which looks down on the collective enterprise. And I think
Speaker 1: what Wills describing in a society like Sweden or Denmark
Speaker 1: or or other countries which have a higher degree of
Speaker 1: social cohesion is that everybody's willing to to get in
Speaker 1: it together. And I think one, you know, one one
Speaker 1: aspect to this that that I really, you know, take
Speaker 1: a lesson from is my nephew did a PhD at
Speaker 1: at the University of British Columbia in psychology and he
Speaker 1: was studying happiness. And the thing about happiness is once
Speaker 1: you hit a point where you have pretty much enough
Speaker 1: of what you want, you get to something called satisficing.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure Will can go on and on about this,
Speaker 1: but having more doesn't make you happier, having more stuff,
Speaker 1: having more money, and and it's it's almost a psychosis
Speaker 1: that that has gripped people because they've been marketed this
Speaker 1: this this myth of capitalism that we have this complete,
Speaker 1: constant gladiatorial, you know, arena that we're fighting in every day,
Speaker 1: that we don't find ways to have more collective enterprise
Speaker 1: and appreciate the collective enterprise at the neighborhood level or
Speaker 1: up to the nation state level. Yeah, I like to
Speaker 1: wrap that one up. We're like saying some is better
Speaker 1: than none. I'm not advocating communism here, but more it's
Speaker 1: not necessarily better than some, and that needs to be
Speaker 1: tattooed on our foreheads. When we're studying economics, were interpreting
Speaker 1: economic analysis, which is it doesn't necessarily mean I need
Speaker 1: that extra dollar as much as I needed that last dollar.
Speaker 1: I think that's where it breaks down if I just
Speaker 1: quickly come back to Sweden as well. Another observation is
Speaker 1: when startups scaling Sweden, and forgive me for picking on
Speaker 1: one of a handful of Scandinavian economies with similar models,
Speaker 1: but in Sweden, when you see start up scale the
Speaker 1: scale fast in their own country. It was Spotify launched
Speaker 1: in late two thousand eight. By two thousand and ten,
Speaker 1: a large chunk of Swedish population was using Spotify, and
Speaker 1: America had never even heard of streaming, So it's scales
Speaker 1: first night. I just wonder whether you've got a social
Speaker 1: safety net and a greater deal of equality in your economy.
Speaker 1: If one person is a good idea, it can split
Speaker 1: all people a lot faster than in a strictly capitalist
Speaker 1: economy with a bigger gap between rich and poor, where
Speaker 1: you might have one good idea, but it can reach
Speaker 1: to old because a lot of people are priced out
Speaker 1: of the bargain. So it's worth just, you know, playing
Speaker 1: this social safety net, not just on the creative side,
Speaker 1: but also on the consumer side. Old people can win
Speaker 1: with ideas scale sure, And I'm curious to think, like
Speaker 1: just with this, you know, as you're saying, Richard, like
Speaker 1: we we definitely have social safety nets for these large corporations,
Speaker 1: and that there's like this the emphasis is to always
Speaker 1: it seems like, if just speaking very narrowly about the
Speaker 1: United States, that if there is some kind of crisis
Speaker 1: that an industry is facing, the first thing is to
Speaker 1: make sure that the business owners themselves are the most
Speaker 1: sort of protected, while there's really not much consideration that
Speaker 1: goes down towards the workers who are actually keeping the
Speaker 1: businesses alive. Is there any way too, because I think
Speaker 1: what you're saying, like, you know, there's this idea of
Speaker 1: more and more and more that it's almost seems like unending.
Speaker 1: That can it? Can you know, people who are dealing with,
Speaker 1: you know, in big supporters of free market capitalism arrive
Speaker 1: at point to say, is there a limit? Because at
Speaker 1: a certain point, if we're too obsessed with growth and
Speaker 1: we look at just the huge gap between incomes from
Speaker 1: the people in the C suite middle management down to
Speaker 1: just you know, maybe hourly workers for a given company,
Speaker 1: how that can equalize in some level or is that
Speaker 1: just completely runs a foul of how maybe these business
Speaker 1: owners think? Well? And I think you raise a key point,
Speaker 1: which is how people understand the world. And certainly the
Speaker 1: level of concentration in the media market in the US
Speaker 1: is fairly extreme, and while it's fragment or splintered with
Speaker 1: the Internet in the past few years, it's still largely
Speaker 1: controlled by a handful of companies who are going to
Speaker 1: give a very certain message. Now, I'll take another example
Speaker 1: of a different country called Japan. In Japan, they realized
Speaker 1: a long time ago that roughly, uh, well, they have
Speaker 1: no oil, they have relatively few natural resources. It's an island,
Speaker 1: and they I leave deliberately engineered a zero growth economy
Speaker 1: with the idea and mind of sustainability, and they deliberately
Speaker 1: leave something like the arable land in Japan as forests
Speaker 1: and leave it fallow. And they have people live in
Speaker 1: mega cities. The Tokyosaka Nagoya Corridor is sixty million plus people.
Speaker 1: It's half the population of the country. But they realized
Speaker 1: if they just cut down every tree, they end up
Speaker 1: like Easter Island, which you know, we know that the
Speaker 1: people there. We believe that the people they are effectively
Speaker 1: extincted themselves because they overuse their natural resources. And there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with accepting no growth if when you look
Speaker 1: at all sorts of surveys, generally Japanese people are incredibly
Speaker 1: happy on a global scale. They don't have the tremendous
Speaker 1: inequality between the rich and the poor. They've long ago
Speaker 1: had debates about what the appropriate multiple of the lowest
Speaker 1: paid worker the business should be paid versus the boss.
Speaker 1: And they have a very rigid, very collective oriented culture.
Speaker 1: Now it's very unique. It's not something you could extrapolate,
Speaker 1: but the message there for a very long period of
Speaker 1: time was to preserve resources, not to overconsume, and and
Speaker 1: everybody bought into the program. And it's not some hippie,
Speaker 1: dippy utopian community. That's the country of a d twenty
Speaker 1: million people in one of the top five or ten
Speaker 1: economies in the world. Yeah, I'm yeah, I'm half Japanese.
Speaker 1: And you know, philosophically, there's very much an idea of
Speaker 1: if you can do something, do it well, and have
Speaker 1: a business that can do it for as long as possible.
Speaker 1: That's why Japan has the highest concentrations of businesses that
Speaker 1: have been around for over a hundred years with this
Speaker 1: sort of same philosophy of we don't need to open
Speaker 1: multiple franchises or things like that. We do this one thing,
Speaker 1: we do it well, the business is consistent, and that's
Speaker 1: what we're interested in, you know, culturally. But just to
Speaker 1: kind of come back to the US, I'm curious, you know,
Speaker 1: because now you've been living in the UK and things,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure you have a very broad perspective on
Speaker 1: everything that's going on. Do you think that you that
Speaker 1: at a certain point the stakeholders of like the large
Speaker 1: corporations in the United States could arrive at a realization
Speaker 1: that eventually says does this Is this actually sustainable in
Speaker 1: the long term in terms of like if we keep
Speaker 1: hollowing out the middle class and end up with a
Speaker 1: large chunk of people who are completely impoverished and don't
Speaker 1: have access to things like the most basic things, is
Speaker 1: it at at any level? Do you think people in
Speaker 1: the C suites there think there's a responsibility or that's
Speaker 1: just a that's like a fantasy world that doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: I would hope that they do. But then it's the
Speaker 1: seriousness of the commitment. And you see this, every single
Speaker 1: fortune company will make the most charming, glowing promises about sustainability,
Speaker 1: just as last year they made incredibly sincere air promises
Speaker 1: about racial justice. But then the proof is in the pudding.
Speaker 1: And and it's always easier to request that somebody else
Speaker 1: in the organization takes hold of that or as long
Speaker 1: as it doesn't need into my com package. You know
Speaker 1: who who suffers for that or who is relatively disadvantaged
Speaker 1: for that? I won't say suffering. And look at the
Speaker 1: debate in the US over over the tax structure, and
Speaker 1: you know, I think tax deductibility of interest in one
Speaker 1: respect has been a tremendous incentive to people to take risk,
Speaker 1: but for a lot of other people it has been
Speaker 1: an invitation to exercise enormous inequality and irresponsibility. And a
Speaker 1: college friend of mine, Jesse Eisinger, just published some phenomenal
Speaker 1: work in pro Publica which I'd recommend everybody to look at,
Speaker 1: covering the tax contributions, if you would want to call them,
Speaker 1: that the tax income from the fifteen wealthiest Americans. So so,
Speaker 1: now Jesse's point, which I think is very valid, is
Speaker 1: these people did not do anything illegal. They We're not
Speaker 1: saying that they broke the law. But is this the
Speaker 1: kind of society we want where if you have a
Speaker 1: lot of money, you have all of these legal means
Speaker 1: to ensure that you literally never pay tax, and if
Speaker 1: you don't have a lot of money and you can't
Speaker 1: hire tax consultants or trust fund trustees and so forth,
Speaker 1: you're stuck with everyone else, you know, paying paying the
Speaker 1: taxes as uh as you expect. And the question is
Speaker 1: what sort of society do we want to have? And
Speaker 1: then the question following that would be who gets to
Speaker 1: decide that? And I think I'm sure Will has a
Speaker 1: lot to add on this topic, but we Diday we're
Speaker 1: looking at doing this as a topic for bubble trouble
Speaker 1: because it it raises the question of are you allowing
Speaker 1: people to accrue two big pots of wealth relative to
Speaker 1: everyone else? And therefore your your in a in a
Speaker 1: biological sense, you're narrowing the gene pool of what's likely
Speaker 1: to happen with all that capital slashing in the system. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the way if I can drop one transatlantic observation, if
Speaker 1: you want about this, it rolls up to leadership as well.
Speaker 1: There was an election campaign where Romney went against Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: I believe I can't place a date on it, and
Speaker 1: Romney said on record he said I paid twelve percent
Speaker 1: tax last year and not a penny more. And people cheered.
Speaker 1: Now they cheered if the somebody wanting for prime minister
Speaker 1: or president and the European economy was to say that
Speaker 1: they would be builted off the campaign ticket. It was
Speaker 1: fascinating to see how he was celebrating how little text
Speaker 1: he paid. There's a backstory to that, which is on
Speaker 1: that campaign he actually wanted to get rid of capital
Speaker 1: gains tax. As somebody said to him, well, what would
Speaker 1: the poor people say to that? He said, or they
Speaker 1: don't go anyway. That's a potential president of the United
Speaker 1: States talking like that on the get to his proposed electorate.
Speaker 1: And it's just really interesting to like zoon in on
Speaker 1: that as a simple observation to say, if you said
Speaker 1: that in Sweden, if you said that here to the UK,
Speaker 1: you'd be off the campaign. On the campaign for Americans
Speaker 1: you celebrated. For we us, we criticize it. What. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that goes hand in hand with like, you know,
Speaker 1: leadership and the concentration of people who are able to
Speaker 1: access things like the media and even have you know,
Speaker 1: deploy their lobbyists to make sure their interests are protected legislatively.
Speaker 1: We have a very conflicted system. Plus, I think on
Speaker 1: top of that, Americans are probably the most propagandized people
Speaker 1: on the planet. When it comes to like you're saying,
Speaker 1: every other person would be like, get the funk off
Speaker 1: this stage. With that, we're fucking dying And people are like, yeah, man,
Speaker 1: don't pay your taxes. Because I've been I've created this
Speaker 1: like weird class false class solidarity with billionaires because I'm
Speaker 1: holding out for this one day chance that i could
Speaker 1: be a millionaire and I don't want to spoil that
Speaker 1: moment if it arrives by you know, backing progressive tax policies.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, like we're in a very unique situation
Speaker 1: where at every level, you know, as you say, with leadership,
Speaker 1: there's a revolving door from business to government back to
Speaker 1: business again. Um, And even my time lobbying, I've seen
Speaker 1: how all of the moneyed interests work to specifically undercut
Speaker 1: legislation or keep people out of office. Because it's at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, like we've allowed a lot
Speaker 1: of people the tools to meddle and if you have
Speaker 1: the resources, you can and that you know, unfortunately reverberates
Speaker 1: down the entire uh, you know, down to the bottom,
Speaker 1: from the top to the bottom. And yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's what puts us in a terribly unique situation. One
Speaker 1: thing that brings me out in a rash is general consensus.
Speaker 1: And I feel a little all in agreement here. So
Speaker 1: I got to challenge the group's take and just through
Speaker 1: an observation about America to show where you might see collectivism.
Speaker 1: Under collectivism is but where do you draw the boundaries?
Speaker 1: You know, we all have our little niches, a little
Speaker 1: echo chambers. Maybe we find collectors them there. So let
Speaker 1: me pivot from American football to the American fiscal transfer system.
Speaker 1: Hold us in your head for a minute. So in
Speaker 1: American football, you've got the college draft, which essentially says,
Speaker 1: the worst team in one season period one gets the
Speaker 1: best draft picks to hopefully improve their performance in the
Speaker 1: next season period two. What a great model of socialism
Speaker 1: that you have in sport. And I remember sitting with
Speaker 1: the Freakonomics, said Steve Levett from fre Economics, saying, we
Speaker 1: need to build this for the teacher system. So the
Speaker 1: best graduates from teacher training colleges are sent to the
Speaker 1: worst school. So you have this self correcting model. You
Speaker 1: could learn a lot from American football, not European American football.
Speaker 1: But then you look at the fiscal transfer system in America,
Speaker 1: which essentially says, in the eighties of New Yorker is
Speaker 1: booming and California's bankrupt, I'm going to transfer of fiscal
Speaker 1: surplus from New York to out to accommodate the fiscal
Speaker 1: deficit in California. That's an interesting model of collectors them
Speaker 1: which holds United States of America United holds it together.
Speaker 1: My point being, we have the European currency here, But
Speaker 1: you don't have fiscal transfers. You wouldn't have Germany transferring
Speaker 1: its well to the Spanish economy. Oh you absolutely, but
Speaker 1: you absolutely do well, you absolutely, Then you don't you
Speaker 1: have Germany buying bonds and basically owning half of Europe.
Speaker 1: You don't have transfers. Well, there's a difference. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: can save your ass or I can buy your ass,
Speaker 1: which ones you want to pick? The funding of the
Speaker 1: EU budget for poor countries comes from the wealthier countries, right,
Speaker 1: And just in the same way, you have states here
Speaker 1: that are helping, you know, fill these sort of gaps
Speaker 1: in states that aren't able to sustain their own you know,
Speaker 1: programs within the state like Kentucky for example, they rely
Speaker 1: on federal subsidies that states like where I'm from, California,
Speaker 1: pay into. But I think where the disconnect happens is
Speaker 1: despite all of that money moving around the the actual
Speaker 1: end result for the constituents, for the people who are
Speaker 1: just living those are not really felt like. There's a
Speaker 1: certain point where it fails to you know, famously trickled
Speaker 1: down to those people and they can get caught up.
Speaker 1: And again, I think this is why we have a
Speaker 1: lot of failures of leadership from the state level to
Speaker 1: the municipal and a lot of rigid thinking on how
Speaker 1: people should be supported and things like that. So I think,
Speaker 1: but if you go back to a very simple phrase
Speaker 1: that comes from Thomas Jefferson, which is representative democracy, I
Speaker 1: think there's a it's a travesty in the UK the
Speaker 1: first past the post system because it ensures that one
Speaker 1: one group that hast can constantly be in power over
Speaker 1: two other groups that are split between each And in
Speaker 1: the US you have every single senator being a millionaire,
Speaker 1: And how is that somehow representative of democracy? And if
Speaker 1: you would gear some algorithmic model for sampling on a
Speaker 1: representative basis a hundred plus four thirty five people that
Speaker 1: would represent the totality of America, you certainly wouldn't come
Speaker 1: up with a group that looks like the Senate, the
Speaker 1: Senate or or or have a House of Parliament. And
Speaker 1: you know that the Jeffersonian ideal was that every citizen
Speaker 1: would And of course at that time he was excluding
Speaker 1: a lot of people that we would you know, don't
Speaker 1: include women or blacks or what have you. But you
Speaker 1: know that every person that he saw as a citizen
Speaker 1: would at least have the capacity the propensity to serve,
Speaker 1: and we it was all our duty to serve. And
Speaker 1: now we have representative democracy that represents really quite ideally
Speaker 1: the people who they are, and it doesn't really represent
Speaker 1: the wider populace or uh and and equally it doesn't
Speaker 1: represent because it's all on such a very short cycle
Speaker 1: of of thought, it doesn't encourage countries to have And
Speaker 1: this is what they do have in Japan, and they
Speaker 1: don't really seem to have in America a thirty to
Speaker 1: fifty year plan. Where do you want the society to
Speaker 1: be in thirty years away? And I think right now
Speaker 1: they're thinking is where do we want people America to
Speaker 1: be in ten years? Not talking about slavery or critical
Speaker 1: race theory that seems to be a lot of like
Speaker 1: sort of political capital being spent on really not talking
Speaker 1: about history and things like that, rather than do we
Speaker 1: want to actually help create some form of upward mobility
Speaker 1: for many people. Yeah, things like infrastructure take decades to build,
Speaker 1: and you need a thirty year plan to say what
Speaker 1: is gonna what what are things going to look like?
Speaker 1: And how do we work backwards instead of fighting over
Speaker 1: what's going to happen next week or next month or tomorrow,
Speaker 1: and social media. Going back to something you said, Richard,
Speaker 1: the the idolatry of the individual. So that's why I
Speaker 1: bring up the increasing popularity of social wism in America
Speaker 1: because I it it's down to like our obsession with
Speaker 1: individualism and this idea that you make it on your
Speaker 1: own without without any help or social safety nets like
Speaker 1: the the thing that is causing those people to cheer
Speaker 1: for Romney, it's it's so thoroughly written into the DNA,
Speaker 1: like down to a cellular level of of like the
Speaker 1: individuals in America that I'm just I'm very encouraged that
Speaker 1: we that there's a generational change happening where it seems
Speaker 1: like for the first time in a long time that
Speaker 1: is kind of being unwritten like decoded out of our
Speaker 1: out of our like kind of societal d NA like
Speaker 1: that we're growing more and more open to it. But
Speaker 1: it seems like the the mit Romney generation, the baby
Speaker 1: Boomers and stuff are just so oh thoroughly um bought
Speaker 1: into to that idea of of bootstrapping, like to the
Speaker 1: point that when a billionaire releases their book, they rewrite
Speaker 1: their story so that they never got any help from anyone.
Speaker 1: And it's a lie that has been like part of
Speaker 1: America's DNA for so long that I think we were
Speaker 1: going to need to overcome to to fix really any
Speaker 1: of the things that we're talking about, because I think
Speaker 1: a lot of the younger people are seeing, you know,
Speaker 1: that we're dealing with the the uh, the effects of
Speaker 1: you know, this kind of reckless way that corporations operate
Speaker 1: in the United States of just hoarding a lot of
Speaker 1: wealth not considering what happens to the like the entirety
Speaker 1: of the nation. And so you have a lot of
Speaker 1: people growing up looking at their situation and it's completely
Speaker 1: different than their parents, like in the eighties, like people
Speaker 1: just could be like, yeah, man, you can get a
Speaker 1: house and for for nothing and just do what you
Speaker 1: gotta do, start families. Just it's it's all there right
Speaker 1: there for you for most people. And a lot of
Speaker 1: people like myself graduating in college in two thousand seven
Speaker 1: and looking at the recession and everything's going on, like, oh,
Speaker 1: this this is a completely different game. I don't have
Speaker 1: the same access to the kinds of employment that would
Speaker 1: immediately put me in the middle class, immediately put me
Speaker 1: in a place to be able to obtain real estate
Speaker 1: or you know, that's a traditional form of wealth accumulation
Speaker 1: for people in the United States, that that game is like, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's like I feel like I pulled up to a
Speaker 1: different party and it's still over. And I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people, especially millennials, have found themselves singing like, well,
Speaker 1: how do now we gotta ask ourselves, how do how
Speaker 1: do we get here? And how do we end up
Speaker 1: in a place where we're not worried about the most
Speaker 1: minute things that we didn't think we had to worry
Speaker 1: about his kids, which is like, am I covered medically
Speaker 1: or do I do I know that if there is
Speaker 1: a pandemic happening that I won't be evicted from my
Speaker 1: home because everything was shut down and I have no
Speaker 1: means of of of actually generating in the income. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, let's take a quick break and we'll come
Speaker 1: back and continue this conversation. And we're back and yeah, well,
Speaker 1: during the break, I mean, this is this is gonna
Speaker 1: be sort of an abnormal episode of t DZ where
Speaker 1: we don't really get into the stories. But this conversation
Speaker 1: is just super interesting and we want to continue to
Speaker 1: have it because it is a theme and and sort
Speaker 1: of the subject that is written through basically every every
Speaker 1: story that we cover on the daily Zo Guist. But
Speaker 1: during the break, you guys were talking about Thomas Pacquetti
Speaker 1: as as somebody who has sort of some interesting ideas.
Speaker 1: He wrote Capital in the twenty one Century, which was
Speaker 1: kind of a massive successful book that I think came
Speaker 1: out of nowhere. A lot of people were were surprised
Speaker 1: by how successful it was, and I don't know as
Speaker 1: a critique of of a lot of the things that
Speaker 1: that we've been talking about as kind of poisoning or
Speaker 1: error various societies. I'll mention one thing that I really
Speaker 1: took from Pekeetti, and then I'll turn it over to
Speaker 1: Will to talk about quantitative easing, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: just such a sexy topic he can't stay away from it. Um.
Speaker 1: I mean, to me, the point of Thomas Pachetti was
Speaker 1: really the way in which if you start with some money,
Speaker 1: it's easier to have much more money, and that that
Speaker 1: money has been accumulating in the form of bank accounts
Speaker 1: are sitting in cash, which doesn't circulate in the economy.
Speaker 1: When money sits in the bank, it's not doing anything.
Speaker 1: And I think one of Pecquetti's key points was there
Speaker 1: have to be greater incentives to circulate that money in
Speaker 1: the economy. And look, one of the things that really
Speaker 1: breaks my heart in London but I hate to see
Speaker 1: is in the past twenty years, certainly under Boris Johnson
Speaker 1: as mayor, you've allowed all these developers to build these
Speaker 1: super luxury flats and they're all bought by by offshore buyers.
Speaker 1: Whether it's from from Asia or from the Middle East,
Speaker 1: or or Russia or whatever. It's all it's a subtle
Speaker 1: form of money laundering. We can discuss the debate that.
Speaker 1: But the problem I have with those flats is they're
Speaker 1: all empty. So you go by one of these luxury
Speaker 1: developments that's in the middle of London in my neighborhood,
Speaker 1: beautiful spot, and you can see up ten stories and
Speaker 1: there's no lights on, and that money is not circulating,
Speaker 1: that that resource is not circulating in the economy. That
Speaker 1: would be a wonderful place to have nurses live or
Speaker 1: teachers live. One of these developments is right across from
Speaker 1: primary school that my daughter attended, you know, and but
Speaker 1: the teachers could never afford to live in these luxury flats.
Speaker 1: And my idea for that would be you should whack
Speaker 1: a great big occupancy tax on empty flats, and they
Speaker 1: shouldn't just be accumulated as as an asset for offshore
Speaker 1: buyers that doesn't contribute to the local economy because when
Speaker 1: no one's living there, they're not going to the awful license,
Speaker 1: they're not going to the local restaurant, they're not sending
Speaker 1: their kids to the primary school. They're just leaving the
Speaker 1: flats empty because they think they're gonna be worth more
Speaker 1: than five years. And you need something that gets those
Speaker 1: flats circulating in the economy that makes it so painful
Speaker 1: to sit on that asset that it's worth letting it
Speaker 1: out to somebody and actually having someone that lives there
Speaker 1: as a benefit to society instead of as a fallow
Speaker 1: asset sitting in the middle of town. Well, so, I mean,
Speaker 1: I like, how rich is using networks circulating Where does
Speaker 1: all this money sit? You know, who's it percolating through
Speaker 1: towards You feel the impact of that cash? Is it
Speaker 1: the few or the many? And there's a way that
Speaker 1: you can go from Paketti to a real life example,
Speaker 1: which is if you look at the response to the
Speaker 1: financial crisis two thousand eight onwards, and you're still seeing
Speaker 1: this today. You're still seeing central banks around the world,
Speaker 1: especially in the Western world, deploy quantitive easing as a
Speaker 1: way of holding up the financial set of spellance sheet.
Speaker 1: There's two points I want to make here. I want
Speaker 1: to dive into the technical details of quantity easy, but
Speaker 1: I want to make a macro point about where is
Speaker 1: it and a micro point about what impact is it having.
Speaker 1: So at the higher level, if you think about where
Speaker 1: is it, if you look at the UK economy, and
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure the same numbers check out for the US,
Speaker 1: around about a third of the stock of debt this
Speaker 1: country has we owe to ourselves through quantiti feasing. It's
Speaker 1: essentially an IOU between the central bank and the treasury function.
Speaker 1: Last time I checked a broadly similar figure applied to
Speaker 1: the United States. So you think about how countries set
Speaker 1: all these If they have a towering stock of debt,
Speaker 1: they might opt for austerity to reduce the stock of
Speaker 1: that debt. Well, is there not a case for a
Speaker 1: debt you believe when you owe a third of that
Speaker 1: debt to yourselves? This is not pure modern monetary theory.
Speaker 1: Here It's just a different way of thinking about what
Speaker 1: is money. If that huge towering stock of debt that's
Speaker 1: clouding over my fiscal policies is making me more risk
Speaker 1: averse about you know, your building a social safety in there.
Speaker 1: If a third of that day I owe to myself,
Speaker 1: well why do I just wipe it off and allow
Speaker 1: more physical stimulus into the economy, allow more spending. Not
Speaker 1: such a radical proposal, moving trips a bit more of
Speaker 1: a radical proposal. One that have always argued ever since
Speaker 1: I got my head around quantity of easing is if
Speaker 1: you're going to have quantity of using increasing the economy
Speaker 1: by ex percent, then how about this, you increase the
Speaker 1: minimum wage by why percent to pull the money through.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to what Richard Kramer was saying about
Speaker 1: circulating just money washing around and nobody's feeling the benefit.
Speaker 1: Not a bad example is quantu feasing. I'm going to
Speaker 1: increase quantity of easing because the banks are under stress. Great,
Speaker 1: so let's balance up their back up their balance sheets.
Speaker 1: All that's happening is you're getting asset price bubbles. If
Speaker 1: you increase the minimum wage by a similar degree, it
Speaker 1: would help pull money through from wall street to mainstream.
Speaker 1: As you Americans like to say, I again not that
Speaker 1: radical or proposal given the alternative to what's happened. We
Speaker 1: have huge herring stocks of debt, which be we oh
Speaker 1: much to ourselves. And see, all I've done through policy
Speaker 1: is create asset price bubbles which benefit the very few
Speaker 1: as supposed to having any impact whatsoever on the many.
Speaker 1: And it's I don't want to sound like a radical here,
Speaker 1: that's that's the facts, right, And I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that's what a lot of people think, is that it's
Speaker 1: just inflating asset prices that just benefit just enriching the wealthier.
Speaker 1: I think. But for people who want to look at
Speaker 1: that with rose tinted glasses, I'll say, well, then maybe
Speaker 1: it'll trickle down to everyone else because of that. And
Speaker 1: I think, yeah, it's true that this is where this
Speaker 1: is where it becomes interesting because again, raising the minimum
Speaker 1: wage right is something that's massively popular with people in
Speaker 1: the United States. But then you have like places like
Speaker 1: bodies like the Chamber of Commerce that are lobbying actively
Speaker 1: senators that they're calling out and giving Bipartisanship awards for
Speaker 1: their part in being a no vote in increasing like
Speaker 1: minimum wage and things like that, and and it's it
Speaker 1: becomes very cynical because you're at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: we're thinking what what we already look at what it
Speaker 1: costs to live in a given city and most most
Speaker 1: places are unaffordable with one job or the subsubsistence wages
Speaker 1: a lot of people are paid. So you know, at
Speaker 1: what point that's again, this is why we find ourselves
Speaker 1: in this terrible, terrible place where I think it's whether
Speaker 1: it's you know, radical collective action, which I think is
Speaker 1: what it's going to take for people to see what
Speaker 1: the potential is for you know, uh, some kind of
Speaker 1: equitable share in this country. But on the other side
Speaker 1: of it, yeah, a lot of people who are just
Speaker 1: so exhausted by merely going through the grind of surviving
Speaker 1: in America, not really ever able to take a moment
Speaker 1: because everyone has to work. And because of the one
Speaker 1: moment we had in the pandemic where things stopped for
Speaker 1: a second, it really did give people, you know, the
Speaker 1: opportunity to take a breath and look at where their
Speaker 1: energy is going, what they're receiving in turn for their labor,
Speaker 1: and how that squares with what the realities are they're
Speaker 1: given city. Yeah, and again I know he's like, it
Speaker 1: seems radical to do this, but I think it's because
Speaker 1: we have there there's these these patterns or momentum that
Speaker 1: we have with certain monetary policies that suddenly any tweak
Speaker 1: to that is considered just like, oh my goodness, like
Speaker 1: this is that's I can't fathom what that would mean, um,
Speaker 1: and what that would mean to you know what I'm
Speaker 1: going to say on an earnings call if I had
Speaker 1: to start paying hourly people more, and then analysts might
Speaker 1: be asking interesting questions about what that means for our business.
Speaker 1: But there is there is an open question about why
Speaker 1: companies need to have a certain level of profitability so
Speaker 1: once they have, I mean, if you think of a
Speaker 1: traditional and this is where the current markets are really
Speaker 1: unmoored from history and from the traditional way of thinking
Speaker 1: about investment. And I was explaining this to Will on
Speaker 1: a run we were taking. I've been training Will how
Speaker 1: to run for the last year. Slowly slowly. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: goes very slowly. My training is going very slowly for him.
Speaker 1: He goes much more slowly than I do. But you know,
Speaker 1: the the original idea of getting together as a as
Speaker 1: a stock company, was that the company itself would be
Speaker 1: able to have some sort of collective action that would
Speaker 1: produce profits and pay back each of those stockholders a
Speaker 1: dividend a portion of the profits over time. And now
Speaker 1: you have to ask the questions since many companies don't
Speaker 1: pay dividends or don't plan to, but they they seek
Speaker 1: to generate huge profits, but they sit on them. And
Speaker 1: again back to Thomas Pachetti, how can it be a
Speaker 1: good thing when you have some of the largest companies
Speaker 1: in the US sitting on cash piles of fifty or
Speaker 1: a hundred billion dollars. That money is simply not circulating
Speaker 1: in the system, and and it just doesn't you know,
Speaker 1: these huge key relations of wealth. Uh, while they're certainly
Speaker 1: justified by the law, you have to ask the fundamental questions,
Speaker 1: like my friend Jesse Isisinger is asking about the tax policy.
Speaker 1: Is is this the best outcome? Is this what suits
Speaker 1: the long term interests of society best? To allow these
Speaker 1: huge accumulations of wealth and in these pockets where they don't,
Speaker 1: they aren't being used to help others, right, And I'd
Speaker 1: imagine the two of you are in orbit of people
Speaker 1: that have the ability to you know, who are in
Speaker 1: a c suite, who run companies, who are the people
Speaker 1: that would make those decisions. Do you think of those
Speaker 1: kinds of proposals for people of that wealth class, of
Speaker 1: just that astronomical bracket. Could they come around to that
Speaker 1: idea to say, yeah, you know what, I do have
Speaker 1: entirely too much? Because it seems right now there's a
Speaker 1: very it seems like a minority of the hyper wealthy
Speaker 1: are willing to sort of outwardly say like, there's more
Speaker 1: that we can be giving back what we do have,
Speaker 1: more than we'll need. But it also seems like on
Speaker 1: some level, you do need the buying of these these
Speaker 1: billionaires on some level for this to happen, because on
Speaker 1: the other side of it, it'll be like how ex
Speaker 1: On Mobile has a playbook to say like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're all for a carbon tax, while aggressively like lobbying
Speaker 1: as much as they can to take stuff out of
Speaker 1: infrastructure bills, but outwardly have this persona of like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're absolutely all about this. It seems like there's again
Speaker 1: from your firsthand experience, do you think that is a
Speaker 1: sellable proposition to someone who is at the helm of
Speaker 1: you know, a multi billion dollar company if I can
Speaker 1: kick it in with just an outside of looking in
Speaker 1: a non American looking at America and somebody who's absolutely
Speaker 1: fascinated America, an American political junkie. But one thing that
Speaker 1: fascinates me with the American approach is the belief in
Speaker 1: the philanthropy model. So if you've made a ton of money,
Speaker 1: is your you need to give some of it away?
Speaker 1: That would be seemed as generous. But there's a real
Speaker 1: issue I have of that, and I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people in Britain have for the way that philanthropy
Speaker 1: works in America, which is you may think that you
Speaker 1: want a beautiful modern art gallery in your hometown, but
Speaker 1: the government might think I'd rather pay the teachers a
Speaker 1: livable wage, and who should have the choice? And that
Speaker 1: goes to right to the heart of what we're discussing here,
Speaker 1: which is, hey, I made that business grow, I made
Speaker 1: that buck, and I'll decide what I'm going to spend
Speaker 1: on that. I want to butterfly farm, the biggest butterfly
Speaker 1: farm backline on Earth right here. Fine, but how do
Speaker 1: you paid your Taxis that money could have been allocated differently,
Speaker 1: maybe back to Rich's point about having money washed up
Speaker 1: in one cult sec how did you get that out
Speaker 1: to filter down different different streets and different But but
Speaker 1: I'm saying about that idea. Right, Let's say you go
Speaker 1: up to Basos or anyone who is it is a
Speaker 1: great example of someone who like doesn't pay taxes so
Speaker 1: that he can give all his money away supposedly, right,
Speaker 1: But how would a conversation go. Let's say they're all
Speaker 1: getting together or it sound because based on how the
Speaker 1: lobbyists for their respective companies move, there's no interest to
Speaker 1: for them to pay those taxes. So there's like this
Speaker 1: active fight where everyone has the same refrain of like, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not breaking any laws, and I'll acknowledge maybe very
Speaker 1: narrowly that there's this level of inequality because of the
Speaker 1: tax code here, but also like I'm not really interested
Speaker 1: in paying that. Like let's be real, I don't know
Speaker 1: like if if that is going to be accepted, because
Speaker 1: you see the resistance that comes out as it plays
Speaker 1: out through lobbying, because that's how you know, that's how
Speaker 1: these corporate interests are able to maneuver and sort of
Speaker 1: have these like double speak moments out loud, so I'll
Speaker 1: give you my perspective on this, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: the language of business, which is probably not talked very
Speaker 1: much on your podcast, but we we live. I live
Speaker 1: day in and day out, is you know our companies.
Speaker 1: If you're assessing companies, you're looking at them and saying,
Speaker 1: are they good capital allocators? If they have a pool
Speaker 1: of capital that's handed to them. Let's say they raise
Speaker 1: a bunch of money in an I p O. Are
Speaker 1: they good at allocating that capital such that they'll generate
Speaker 1: a return? You know, if you'd think fair enough, if
Speaker 1: you gave your your body a hundred bucks to start
Speaker 1: a lemonade stand, you'd like to think he didn't go
Speaker 1: down to the pub and drink away eighty of it
Speaker 1: and then forget to buy lemons. And he's claiming that
Speaker 1: he's only got twenty bucks left and he doesn't have
Speaker 1: enough to buy cups, ice and lemons to start his
Speaker 1: lemonade stand. So you want to know that people are
Speaker 1: individually in companies good capital allocators. The problem is that
Speaker 1: individual companies themselves aren't going to allocate capital to do
Speaker 1: things like build schools, roads, bridges, all of the public
Speaker 1: goods that will can go on for hours about that
Speaker 1: we need in society. And one of the things that
Speaker 1: get scirted over by those who say, yeah, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make a lot of money not pay tax and then
Speaker 1: choose to give it away, is well, who built the
Speaker 1: roads that drive to your mansion, who maintains the the environment,
Speaker 1: who you know, They're all these externalities that are looked after,
Speaker 1: and you choose, you choose to opt out from supporting them.
Speaker 1: And that's in my view, it's it's somewhat irresponsible. It's
Speaker 1: you know, acting, and if everybody is acting in their
Speaker 1: own individual self interest, there will be no society, there
Speaker 1: will be no collective self interests. We won't have infrastructure
Speaker 1: or or healthcare. And and I can tell you I've
Speaker 1: been delighted to to live in the UK, and you know,
Speaker 1: I've had my children born in the National Health Service
Speaker 1: and we pay I pay a higher rate of tax
Speaker 1: than I would in the States. But we have all
Speaker 1: of our healthcare provided by fantastic National Health Service that
Speaker 1: you know, which unfortunately doesn't pay its employees nearly as
Speaker 1: much as they really deserve to be paid. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: maybe wrapped that one up by saying, look at the
Speaker 1: state of San Francisco and then look at the state
Speaker 1: of San Francisco airports a good example of the gaps
Speaker 1: that exists between the public service and the private sector. Well,
Speaker 1: then I guess from your perspective, like, how could do
Speaker 1: you like because you're all very well aware of the
Speaker 1: inequality and able to like articulate what is what the
Speaker 1: sort of dysfunction is in the pathology of certain parties involved,
Speaker 1: How would you you know, knowing the language of people
Speaker 1: who are maybe focused more on like the business of
Speaker 1: side of everything, what is what is the conversation that
Speaker 1: can be had Because I think on one level, people like, well,
Speaker 1: radically X, Y and Z has happened and he's happened yesterday.
Speaker 1: Whenever those sort of legislative policies are introduced, it fizzles
Speaker 1: out immediately. Is there any way that those people could
Speaker 1: actually find or or how could you solve like does
Speaker 1: it you are you saying that you're advocating for the
Speaker 1: government to figure out to say like, no, this is
Speaker 1: not how we're doing it. This is all how it
Speaker 1: has to be. Or do you think that people deserve
Speaker 1: the agency to be empathetic because it seems like when
Speaker 1: you give people the the agency to do that. They're
Speaker 1: absolutely not interested in helping anyone except for themselves. So
Speaker 1: what is the how do we how do you solve that?
Speaker 1: And I think there are very there are many different
Speaker 1: ideologies around how to solve that. But from because you
Speaker 1: are seeing the dysfunction, how would you propose that works
Speaker 1: in a way that is a equitable most importantly for
Speaker 1: those who are missing out on, you know, all of
Speaker 1: the wealth that's being siphoned out. So maybe drawing on
Speaker 1: a very brief period of my career as a government
Speaker 1: economist working for Gordon brun Our Chance loves the exchequer
Speaker 1: at the time. But in economics you always have a
Speaker 1: cost benefit analysis, and layman speak, it's just a debate.
Speaker 1: I believe I'm right and you're wrong. You believe you're
Speaker 1: right and I'm wrong. We're we're perhaps disagreeing about the
Speaker 1: balance of the costs and the benefits. So if I
Speaker 1: go back to that Swedish example, social stafet safety nets
Speaker 1: have costs, Yes, understandable if you look at where America
Speaker 1: is today and you were to move to that bottle,
Speaker 1: that brings with it costs. You know, if you want
Speaker 1: to get somewhere, you wouldn't start from here. But it
Speaker 1: also brings benefits, and I alluded to some of those.
Speaker 1: Entrepreneurial spirit in Scandinavian economies is as high as anywhere
Speaker 1: else in the world. The number of startups coming out
Speaker 1: is is sky high as well. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: risk taking happening thanks to that social safety net. And
Speaker 1: you go back to your point about the minimum wage,
Speaker 1: and it's it's interesting to think about the cost of
Speaker 1: the maniun wage. That's bad for profit margins, could create unemployment, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But there's benefits. To Alan Krueger, a dear friend who tragically,
Speaker 1: you know, it's no longer with us, but he famously
Speaker 1: wrote a paper of Card Card and Krueger looking at
Speaker 1: the minimumation, how it can boost productivity, boost labor market participation.
Speaker 1: There's other benefits to consider. I again, as the non
Speaker 1: American on the call, I would just like to see
Speaker 1: America have a bit more balance where ways up the
Speaker 1: costs and benefits of either option. I think that could
Speaker 1: be like just a small step forward in the right direction.
Speaker 1: It's just to get that balancing point right. It's not
Speaker 1: just a one a street. You've got to consider the
Speaker 1: benefits of these models, as well as it course tying
Speaker 1: out up on minimum wage. I hope, Mike you can
Speaker 1: dismiss this as fake news. But when minimum wage was
Speaker 1: being debated in the American economy is a Republican senator
Speaker 1: who said on record that when I waited tables as
Speaker 1: a student, I was owning six dollars now and I
Speaker 1: was just fine. I got along just fine back in
Speaker 1: the seventies, and that Republicans centered failed to factor in
Speaker 1: something called inflation into his analysis. But yeah, if that
Speaker 1: is the standard of debate, your leaders are having a
Speaker 1: that's woeful. But b let's get balanced. Let's go back
Speaker 1: to that Card Cooper paper and think about the benefits
Speaker 1: of these safety nets as well as the costs. And yeah,
Speaker 1: so I seed and maybe it can take root one
Speaker 1: of the things, Miles, that you're kind of alluding to
Speaker 1: and and is one of I have to throw it
Speaker 1: in because it's literally my favorite quote. And Will has
Speaker 1: heard me say there's dozens of times, but it's wrongfully
Speaker 1: attributed to Mark Twain, but really from Upton Sinclair. And
Speaker 1: it's never expect a man to understand something when his
Speaker 1: job depends on not understanding it. I think that goes
Speaker 1: a long way to explaining explaining the willful blindness is another.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a brilliant book written about this, about
Speaker 1: people's willingness to suspend disbelief. And I just want to
Speaker 1: raise one quick point about the great interesting test case
Speaker 1: we're going to deal with here, which is climate. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't know how. I don't care how many billions
Speaker 1: you have. You are not going to be able to
Speaker 1: escape completely insulate yourself from a heat dome over over
Speaker 1: thousands of miles radius area of the country that raises
Speaker 1: temperatures beyond the point at which human habitation is possible.
Speaker 1: And you are not going to be able to shield
Speaker 1: yourself from the externalities of of climate. And if one
Speaker 1: does not contri beute to some form of solution, if
Speaker 1: if we all do not amend our behaviors in some way,
Speaker 1: we know how this is going to end. And especially
Speaker 1: the people who are presumably best educated because they have
Speaker 1: the money to educate themselves and their children. There's no
Speaker 1: amount of money that is going to save Miami real
Speaker 1: estate on a fifty year view, and and we certainly
Speaker 1: are not planning on a thirty year view. As one
Speaker 1: would need to to build the infrastructure that would potentially
Speaker 1: save the value of that real estate. And yet, you know,
Speaker 1: if people want to take an Ostrich like approach to it,
Speaker 1: I guess you can't prevent them from doing so. But
Speaker 1: but it's going to be a super interesting test case
Speaker 1: to see how all the these people who have billions
Speaker 1: are contributing or not to solve what is clearly a
Speaker 1: very intractable problem right now. Yeah, interesting test case. It'll
Speaker 1: be the fine phaps the final test case. Well, you
Speaker 1: tell me where you know what what what land you're
Speaker 1: going to buy where it's not going to be affected
Speaker 1: by climate change exactly. Well, that's why we're looking at
Speaker 1: space folks. Well, guys, it's been such a pleasure having
Speaker 1: you on such a such an interesting, fun conversation. Where
Speaker 1: can people find you and follow you and hear you. Well,
Speaker 1: we have a podcast Bubble Trouble, produced by a magnificent
Speaker 1: Noise and that's wherever you find your podcast Spotify, Apple
Speaker 1: across the board that's up in morning. And Richard represents
Speaker 1: a right research and you'll see him getting quote in
Speaker 1: the medio. Fantastic video of him on YouTube with him
Speaker 1: and Scott Galloway. I definitely recommend people go and check that.
Speaker 1: When I really entertaining myself, I got the book out.
Speaker 1: Came out on the eighteenth of May in the US,
Speaker 1: and that's tars and Economics and the book and everything
Speaker 1: you need to find about that book about the Eight
Speaker 1: Principles and pivoting through Disruption that's upon tarzan Economics dot com.
Speaker 1: Nice I will we normally ask our guests, what what's
Speaker 1: a tweet or some of the work of social media
Speaker 1: you've been enjoying, But I'm guessing that's not that's not
Speaker 1: something that you guys have to Yeah, listen to Psycho.
Speaker 1: There's one on LinkedIn which I really liked, which was
Speaker 1: just how shit are all these poles are springing up
Speaker 1: on LinkedIn in your opinion? Is it a really ship
Speaker 1: or e B even bigger ship and even bigger ship
Speaker 1: is currently and really ship is So those poles are
Speaker 1: really ship. So any poll about which tweet you find
Speaker 1: interesting is really shit. And I would definitely say for
Speaker 1: anyone that spends a lot of time on social media.
Speaker 1: There's a fascinating article in the Atlantic by a woman
Speaker 1: journalist who got her tech savvy's son to make her
Speaker 1: take a twenty eight day hiatus from it and under
Speaker 1: no circumstance. It was a great quote in there saying,
Speaker 1: you know, giving it up it's hard because you always
Speaker 1: think you can go back. Giving up percent is easy.
Speaker 1: So for all the people that obsessively check the Twitter
Speaker 1: before they go to bed or can't can't wait to
Speaker 1: see how many likes they have on Instagram, go cold
Speaker 1: Turkey for a solid week or two, and you'll probably
Speaker 1: find yourself a singer, happier, more balanced individual. Absolutely. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll take like a couple of days here and there,
Speaker 1: and then then I'll be like I just really a
Speaker 1: couple of days really, or a couple of days kind
Speaker 1: of like oh, I mean this is yeah, this is
Speaker 1: I'm in therapy, and I'm like, there's like, you know,
Speaker 1: have you thought about not using that because it sounds
Speaker 1: like a source of anxiety feeling like, yeah, you're right,
Speaker 1: So get off of social media as a form of
Speaker 1: self care, y'all? Yeah, Miles, where can people find you?
Speaker 1: What's a tweet you've been enjoying? Find me on Twitter
Speaker 1: and Instagram a at Miles of Gray. Also the other
Speaker 1: podcast for twenty Day Fiance. Check that out. A Twitch
Speaker 1: dot tv Slash two zero day fiance a tweet that
Speaker 1: I like. First one is from Mike Gin at shut
Speaker 1: Up Mike Gain, tweeting thirty nine year old producer who
Speaker 1: has tender age range set from twenty one to twenty
Speaker 1: four years old. Dating in l A is so weird,
Speaker 1: people talk wild. Another one is from Sarah Lazarus at
Speaker 1: Sarah see Lazarus. I really love this one. She tweeted.
Speaker 1: There should be a post pandemic full service doctor where
Speaker 1: you just lie down for a three hour appointment and
Speaker 1: five people swarm around you and fix you like a
Speaker 1: race car. Yeah that would that would be good. Just
Speaker 1: a quick health pit stop, real quick, complete with the
Speaker 1: yeah yeah, high power screws ring ring, red bull racing outfits.
Speaker 1: Uh tweeter, I've been enjoying. Uh at l was a mistake, tweeted,
Speaker 1: gotta respect the longevity of Microsoft word nothing about it
Speaker 1: works and it's still the standard. Want to move an image,
Speaker 1: go to hell, edit a pdf, edit your expectations, ignore
Speaker 1: a spelling mistake. How about suck my dick? That'll be
Speaker 1: a hundred and uh. You can find us on Twitter
Speaker 1: at daily Zeitgeist. We're at the Daily Zeitgeist on Instagram.
Speaker 1: We have a Facebook fan page and a website daily
Speaker 1: zeitgeist dot com, where we post our episode and our
Speaker 1: foot note the information that we talked about in today's episode,
Speaker 1: as well as a song that we think you guys
Speaker 1: should go check out. Miles, what song are you recommending
Speaker 1: people go check out to that? Okay? Actually, uh, this
Speaker 1: is uh this is a bit of a parody and
Speaker 1: it's a twenty two minute YouTube clip. If you remember
Speaker 1: Low Fi Beats to Study Too, that was like this
Speaker 1: channel on YouTube that would just have this like running
Speaker 1: animation and like low fi hip hop beats. Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: a friend of mine. Uh. Fantastic writer, comedian, just overall
Speaker 1: creative person Alex Sargent. He over on his YouTube page
Speaker 1: The Layman. He's created low kis low key lo fi
Speaker 1: relaxing beats to Study time Crimes too. Because of the
Speaker 1: popularity of the show Loki, so it's not only the
Speaker 1: God of Mischief, but it's low key lo fi and
Speaker 1: his cousin did some of the beats on there and
Speaker 1: they're really good. So if you're a bit of a
Speaker 1: Marvel fan and you like some lo fi hip hop,
Speaker 1: this YouTube clip is for you and it's fantastic. It's
Speaker 1: some great stuff to get your head not too al right. Well.
Speaker 1: The Daily Zakay is a production of My Heart Radio
Speaker 1: from More podcast. For my Heart Radio, visit the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows. That's gonna do it for us this morning.
Speaker 1: We're back this afternoon to tell you what's trending and
Speaker 1: we will talk to y'all then