Anthony Pompliano

Will The K-Shaped Economy Destroy America?

🇬🇧 EN🇪🇸 ES
40:16 min youtube 2026 Week 26 🇬🇧 EN

Summary

TL;DR

  • Darius Dale’s core claim is brutal and simple: America already lives in a K-shaped economy, where the top of the K keeps compounding through asset ownership while the bottom gets squeezed by the real cost of living.
  • His macro take is that the Fed is not seriously aiming for 2% inflation; it is managing a political-financial balancing act where sticky inflation is tolerated because the alternative is breaking markets and financial stability.
  • The investment implication is not “hide.” It is almost the opposite: ordinary people feel forced to participate in markets and AI-linked wealth creation just to avoid falling further behind, even as affordability stress raises the risk of political anger and social instability.

◆ Anchor first: the real thesis is not inflation, it’s stratification

The headline question asks whether a K-shaped economy could destroy America, and Dale’s answer is basically yes, if the current policy mix keeps pumping wealth upward while everyday costs keep grinding households down. His framing is that aggregate data still makes the economy look resilient, but aggregates hide distribution. At the bottom of the K, he says delinquency rates in credit cards, autos, and student loans are running at or near Global Financial Crisis-type levels. At the top of the K, households still have large cash balances, rising asset values, and plenty of room to keep spending.

▶ The Fed’s job, in his words, is to “boil us alive” slowly

The sharpest line in the whole episode comes early: Dale says the job of the Fed is to boil people alive without them jumping out of the pot. Translation: the central bank can tolerate above-target inflation if that is the price of avoiding a more violent break in asset markets and the real economy. He argues Kevin Warsh is a “dove in hawk’s clothing” — someone who may ultimately want easier policy, but first needs to talk tough enough to preserve credibility with the bond market.

★ Why he thinks inflation expectations matter less than monetary reality

Dale pushes back on the idea that survey-based inflation expectations tell you much about future inflation. His argument is that the bigger drivers are money supply, money velocity, deficit spending, Fed monetization, bank credit growth, and an economy still running above a clean disinflation path. From his perspective, those signals still look too hot for a genuine return to 2% inflation. So even if inflation is no longer spiraling, he thinks the Fed is nowhere near a comfortable destination.

◆ The consumer is resilient — but affordability is broken

One of the more useful distinctions in the conversation is between macro resilience and lived affordability. Dale agrees the U.S. consumer has been surprisingly resilient. But he also says that does not contradict the fact that life feels wildly expensive. Cars, diapers, groceries, gas, event tickets, family-sized vehicles — Pompliano and Dale keep using ordinary examples to argue that the practical cost of middle-class life has detached from official narratives. Dale goes further and treats inflation as a moral issue: if money is just stored human time, then devaluing money means devaluing people’s lives.

▶ What makes the economy “K-shaped” in practice

His model is straightforward. The bottom half of the K gets hit by rising delinquencies, weak real income, and day-to-day cost pressure. The top half benefits from asset ownership, residual cash piles, and the freedom to spend because they do not need to save defensively. He uses his “West Village / Montauk effect” as a cultural shorthand: people with large family wealth or balance-sheet cushions can spend aggressively because they already have a stock of savings behind them. That creates a world where luxury and experience prices can explode even while a large part of the country is under real stress.

â—† The uncomfortable portfolio message: you have to participate

Pompliano’s key push is that many people now feel the only way out is to invest, and Dale mostly agrees. His logic is not cheerful. It is defensive: if you do not align yourself with the wealth-creation engines operating at the top of the K, you risk getting left behind by the Cantillon effect. In plain English, the people closest to money creation, assets, and policy transmission keep outrunning everyone else. That helps explain why AI and equities feel simultaneously dangerous and unavoidable.

★ MAG 7, AI capex, and why the winners may broaden out

On equities, Dale does not say the AI story is dead. He says leadership can rotate. His view is that investors may keep selling parts of the MAG 7 to fund broader AI adopters across the rest of the market. He also raises a classic capex warning: big booms often lead to overbuilding, and asset-heavy businesses usually end up with structurally higher maintenance capex than investors first assume. So the risk is not that AI disappears; it is that the cash-flow math for the current mega-cap leaders may disappoint while the rest of the market catches up.

â—† From affordability stress to political instability

The darkest part of the episode is the leap from economics to social order. Dale argues that when you combine popular immiseration with elite overproduction — too many elites competing for too few elite seats while the public falls behind — societies become unstable. He cites Peter Turchin’s work to argue that the U.S. is tracking a dangerous historical pattern. His point is not just that people are angry. It is that a country where families cannot keep up, while visible wealth keeps compounding at the top, starts to lose trust in institutions fast.

â—† Search for the alpha

The hidden takeaway is that this is really a conversation about policy-induced distribution, not a generic inflation debate. Dale is saying the system can keep looking “fine” on the surface while becoming socially corrosive underneath. For investors, that means two things can be true at once: risk assets may still be necessary, and the political backdrop around those assets may keep getting uglier. That tension is the whole episode.

  • Macro alpha: watch whether the Fed keeps talking tough while still tolerating sticky inflation in practice.
  • Consumer alpha: official resilience data matters less if household stress keeps showing up in delinquencies and daily-life prices.
  • Equity alpha: AI may keep working as a theme, but the winners may broaden beyond the current mega-cap concentration.
  • Political risk: the more the K-shape hardens, the more markets have to price social anger and policy backlash.
Theme What Dale argues Why it matters
Fed policy The Fed will tolerate above-target inflation if the alternative is market instability. That means “2% inflation” may be more signaling device than real destination.
K-shaped economy Top-of-K households still have assets and cash; bottom-of-K households face crisis-level stress. Aggregate strength can coexist with real social damage.
Affordability Cars, diapers, groceries, and family life all feel structurally more expensive. Public frustration can intensify even while GDP and stocks hold up.
AI / equities AI remains important, but leadership may rotate away from the MAG 7 into broader adopters. The theme can survive even if current winners de-rate.
Social stability Popular immiseration plus elite competition is historically dangerous. Economic inequality becomes a political and market risk, not just a moral one.
The twist: Dale is not making a standard bearish call. He is making a distribution call. His real point is that the system can keep generating wealth and asset upside while simultaneously making the country harder to live in for a huge share of people. That is what makes the K-shape dangerous.

â–º Chapter Summaries

1. Intro (0:00)

Pompliano frames the interview around the Fed, affordability, AI, and the wider question of whether America’s economy is splitting into two very different realities.

2. Kevin Warsh & the new Fed (0:56)

Dale argues Kevin Warsh is a dove who has to sound like a hawk, because the Fed still needs market credibility even if true 2% inflation is probably out of reach.

3. Energy prices & the consumer (10:27)

Lower energy helps, but Dale says the bigger story is still a surprisingly resilient consumer and an economy that gives the Fed more room than many people think.

4. The affordability crisis (12:58)

This section lays out the K-shape clearly: the aggregate economy looks okay, but household pain is highly uneven and much worse than top-line statistics suggest.

5. Real cost of living (cars, diapers, groceries) (17:30)

Using concrete examples like diapers, used Hondas, and family cars, they argue that the cost of ordinary life has moved far beyond what many households can realistically absorb.

6. Economic data & future outlook (25:31)

Dale says people increasingly feel forced to invest and participate in asset markets, because standing still means falling behind the top of the K.

7. Mag 7 & the AI CapEx bubble (31:35)

He expects broader AI adoption to matter more over time and warns that mega-cap AI leaders may face overbuild and free-cash-flow pressure during the capex cycle.

8. Political instability & societal collapse (34:55)

The conversation ends on the biggest risk: if the K-shaped split hardens further, economic stress can mutate into elite conflict, political backlash, and a much more unstable society.

Generated with algorithm v2.1-anchor-first · model openai-codex/gpt-5.4 · 2026-06-25T23:05:18Z

Transcript

[0:00] The job of the Fed is to boil us alive
[0:02] without us hopping out of the pot. If we
[0:04] hop out of the pot, then we have
[0:05] financial stability concerns and then we
[0:07] have all sorts of issues that cause
[0:08] problems in the real economy and asset
[0:10] markets at the Fed that will be worse
[0:11] than just having, you know, sticky above
[0:13] target inflation. And so, you know, this
[0:15] is the lesser of two evils in the
[0:17] context of the fiscal dynamics that we
[0:18] continue to highlight uh in the US
[0:19] economy. What's going on, guys? Today,
[0:21] we got a great conversation with Darius
[0:22] Dale. He's here in person and we talk
[0:24] about what's going on at the Federal
[0:25] Reserve. Kevin War stepping into the
[0:27] leadership role. How you should think
[0:28] about inflation expectations in
[0:30] relationship to actual inflation. What
[0:32] does this mean for your portfolio for
[0:34] public stocks or how should you actually
[0:36] think about the impact of AI? On top of
[0:37] that, we dig into the affordability
[0:39] crisis that is hitting millions and
[0:40] millions of Americans. We talk about
[0:42] some anecdotal examples of exactly what
[0:44] it means. I literally look up live some
[0:47] prices of items that are going to shock
[0:48] you. And Darius explains some of his
[0:50] life experience and where he's actually
[0:52] started to meet people and what he's
[0:53] learned from them. All of that much
[0:55] more. in this conversation with Darius
[0:56] Dale. All right, Darius. Uh Kevin Worst
[0:58] now has taken over the control of the
[1:00] Federal Reserve. He's the big dog at the
[1:02] uh central bank and he seems to be want
[1:04] to run the place a little bit different.
[1:05] What's your take on his original press
[1:07] conference and kind of what he's doing
[1:08] differently than his predecessor?
[1:10] >> Yeah, look, before we even get started,
[1:12] man, I just want to say thanks for
[1:13] having me. Love this set, man. This
[1:15] studio is gorgeous. Uh I feel like I
[1:18] feel like I'm part of history in here,
[1:19] man. So, let's make some history today.
[1:21] Um, I'll say the first thing I'll tell
[1:23] you is that, you know, we think Kevin
[1:25] Walsh is a dove in Hawk's clothing.
[1:29] >> What does that mean?
[1:30] >> A dove invest clothing. Someone who
[1:32] ultimately wants to have easier monetary
[1:34] policy. Uh, maybe because of his
[1:37] relationship with the administration,
[1:38] but I I doubt it. I think he genuinely
[1:40] believes that AI is has massive
[1:42] dissolationary potential. However, he
[1:44] has to wear the armor of a hawk in order
[1:48] to create the scope, the landing space
[1:50] for the Fed to get to that outcome. Um,
[1:52] and so ultimately what we think we're
[1:54] going to have to do here over the next,
[1:55] let's call it two to three quarters
[1:57] perhaps, uh, is the Fed has to either
[2:00] tighten monetary policy or use this
[2:02] communication tool to signal to the
[2:03] markets that it may tighten monetary
[2:05] policy or both in order to create that
[2:07] scope for much of
[2:08] >> why do you think it needs tighter
[2:09] monetary policy? like if you look at uh
[2:11] inflation expectations maybe over the
[2:13] last couple weeks has it started to come
[2:14] down do you think that that changes uh
[2:16] that need for them?
[2:17] >> Uh yeah so uh what I'll say on inflation
[2:19] expectations we've done a big
[2:20] statistical analysis on on the drivers
[2:22] of inflation the things that lead and
[2:24] lag inflation and inflation expectations
[2:26] have very little you know statistical
[2:28] relationship with future inflation
[2:29] outcomes. Uh what has a meaningful
[2:31] impact on future inflation outcomes uh
[2:34] are uh things like the monetary drivers
[2:36] of inflation. So the rate of change of
[2:38] of money supply, the uh expansion andor
[2:42] contraction of the money velocity that's
[2:44] important. Uh there are policy drivers
[2:45] of inflation most notably uh deficit
[2:48] spending uh the Fed's monetization and
[2:50] then to the extent that there's um you
[2:52] know uh meaningful deregulation in the
[2:54] banking sector which there currently is
[2:56] uh the credit growth uh cycle can be a
[2:58] leading indicator of inflation. And then
[3:00] there's ultimately these sort of you
[3:01] know I don't necessarily agree with them
[3:03] u there's these sort of like output gap
[3:05] drivers of inflation to the extent that
[3:07] the economy is growing above potential
[3:08] or uh the unemployment rate is below uh
[3:11] the inu the non inflation accelerating
[3:13] rate of unemployment those are all the
[3:15] kinds of things that kind of lead
[3:16] inflation nothing perfectly leads
[3:18] inflation but when you put all those
[3:19] things together on net they are sending
[3:22] a very hawkish signal uh to policy
[3:24] makers and to the markets that the Fed
[3:26] has to do at least a little bit of
[3:28] something to get this you because these
[3:30] signals you're basically saying these
[3:31] signals are saying hey inflation is
[3:32] going higher according to these uh
[3:34] different data points and therefore if
[3:35] inflation goes higher then they're going
[3:36] to have to act.
[3:37] >> Yeah. Well, what it's saying is is two
[3:39] things. So uh it was saying inflation is
[3:40] going higher. It may be saying inflation
[3:42] starting to peak but peak at very
[3:44] uncomfortable levels and trend at very
[3:46] uncomfortable levels. What they're
[3:47] currently saying is that that we are no
[3:49] we are not at all on a credible path
[3:51] towards disinflation and certainly not
[3:53] on a path towards achieving the Fed's 2%
[3:55] target anytime soon. So, let's unpack
[3:57] some of those drivers of inflation. Like
[3:58] we just started, we'll start with the uh
[4:00] out, you know, output gap nu that output
[4:02] gaps at about 110 basis points, usually
[4:05] at about 200 basis points. You're
[4:06] talking about a Fed that has to tighten
[4:07] the economy into recession. So, we're
[4:09] halfway there, basically, a little bit
[4:10] more than halfway there. Uh Nou, we've
[4:13] seen the unemployment rate get
[4:14] meaningfully more meaningfully below
[4:16] NAU. It's currently about 20 basis
[4:17] points below NEU. you know, you get it
[4:19] to about 100 basis points below
[4:20] neighbor, which I'm not sure we're going
[4:21] to do in the context of AI, but that's
[4:23] when the Fed typically has to tighten
[4:25] the business cycle into a into into a
[4:27] downturn. Uh on the policy drivers of
[4:30] inflation, uh you look at the
[4:31] year-over-year rate of change of FedE um
[4:34] uh uh de uh deficit spending, uh that's
[4:36] growing at about 8% well above trend.
[4:38] You look at the year-over-year rate of
[4:39] change of Fed uh monetization, that's
[4:42] growing at about uh 8 7 8%
[4:44] year-over-year, well above trend. And
[4:46] then you look at bank credit growth uh
[4:48] which is also growing at about 7%
[4:49] year-over-year well above trend. These
[4:50] these the growth rates of these
[4:52] statistics are very inconsistent with a
[4:54] 2% inflation environment. Um and so
[4:57] ultimately and you also have the lagged
[4:58] impact of 175 basis points of of rate
[5:01] cuts that are flowing through the
[5:02] economy right now based on our uh uh uh
[5:05] business cycle model which confirms that
[5:06] there's about an 18-month lag between
[5:08] changes in the policy rate and outcomes
[5:09] in the economy.
[5:10] >> You think they've given up on the 2%.
[5:12] >> Oh for sure. You and I have been talking
[5:13] about this for almost half a decade at
[5:14] least. you know, at least 6 years
[5:16] almost. Uh, yeah. Now, the Fed doesn't
[5:17] want 2% inflation, but the Fed has to
[5:19] signal to the bond market that it wants
[5:20] 2% inflation, otherwise it's going to
[5:22] lose control of the long end of the
[5:24] curve in a way that will be
[5:25] counterproductive to their uh dual uh
[5:27] their, you know, maximum employment and
[5:29] price stability mandates. Uh, so
[5:31] ultimately, you know, we've been saying
[5:32] for for years at our company 42 macro,
[5:35] that to our to our global investor
[5:36] community that look, we're all frogs
[5:38] being boiled alive in a pot of financial
[5:40] oppression and monetary debasement. Mhm.
[5:42] >> The job of the Fed, you know, Kevin
[5:44] Walsh, in my opinion, I think he's a
[5:46] pretty credible Fed chair in terms of
[5:47] doing this particular job of this aspect
[5:49] of the job. The job of the Fed is to
[5:52] boil us alive without us hopping out of
[5:54] the pot.
[5:54] >> If we hop out of the pot, then we have
[5:56] financial stability concerns and then we
[5:58] have all sorts of issues that cause
[5:59] problems in the real economy and asset
[6:01] markets that the Fed that will be worse
[6:02] than just having, you know, sticky above
[6:04] target inflation. And so, you know, this
[6:06] is the lesser of two evils in the
[6:07] context of the fiscal dynamics that we
[6:09] continue to highlight in the US economy.
[6:11] Now, when we look at uh the Fed right
[6:14] now, inflation, it's hanging in there,
[6:16] right? It's higher for sure, but it's
[6:18] not like it's significantly uh at least
[6:21] some of the signals telling us it's
[6:22] going to accelerate from here. PCE came
[6:24] in though, and I think people are
[6:25] looking at that and they're saying,
[6:26] "Wait a second, this is a little bit
[6:27] higher than I thought it was going to
[6:27] be." And market sells off and there's
[6:29] some concerns there. So, it almost feels
[6:31] like there's different data points
[6:32] telling us different things, which means
[6:33] that it's complex. It's confusing for a
[6:35] lot of folks. Is that why the Fed is
[6:37] just saying we're not going to do
[6:38] anything? We're not going to hike, we're
[6:38] not going to cut, just keep kicking the
[6:40] can down the road. Let the complexity
[6:42] work itself out and let us get a clearer
[6:44] picture before we make a decision.
[6:45] >> Yeah, I think that's part of it. Um, and
[6:47] you're spot on about the complexity
[6:48] theory and and you've seen our you you
[6:50] get our research. You know, it's it's
[6:52] never one data point. I've been doing
[6:53] this for almost two decades and tried to
[6:54] build every model like like if there was
[6:56] an AAMS razor way to pinpoint to the
[6:58] decimal what inflation was going to be
[7:00] at every print or what the non-farm
[7:01] payrolls point uh print would be at
[7:03] every print, then we'd have figured that
[7:05] out by now. I mean if we can build AI we
[7:06] can certainly figure out what the
[7:07] non-farm payrolls number is from a
[7:09] statistical standpoint but the problem
[7:10] is is that the variance and the standard
[7:12] error on all these time series uh is
[7:15] these often revised time series is is is
[7:17] too wide. So you have to have a mosaic
[7:20] approach when you're approaching
[7:21] financial markets and and and modeling
[7:22] the economy. It's never just one data
[7:24] point. What it is is an amalgamation of
[7:26] data points that are sort of moving
[7:28] together like a swim of fish or or or a
[7:30] bird a pattern, you know, a flock of
[7:33] birds.
[7:33] >> Yeah. Yeah. Swim of fish. Yeah.
[7:34] >> Yeah. Totally 100%. And so that sum of
[7:36] fish in my opinion is sending a message
[7:38] to the Fed uh alongside the financial
[7:40] markets that hey your policy is not
[7:42] restrictive. Certainly you know stop
[7:44] thinking your policy is restrictive.
[7:46] That was step one. I think the Fed has
[7:47] gotten that message. We know the Fed has
[7:48] gotten that message according to the
[7:50] latest summary of economic projections
[7:51] and the dot plot. Uh the next step in
[7:53] our opinion and this is you know not
[7:55] consensus yet. The next step in our
[7:56] opinion is that the Fed it might have to
[7:58] um take a step further than that in
[8:00] terms of actually tightening monetary
[8:02] policy or signaling that they're going
[8:03] to tighten monetary policy in a
[8:05] meaningful way, i.e. making a a big
[8:07] pivot with their balance sheet, which we
[8:08] can talk about, or um you know, kind of
[8:10] ratcheting up for guidance through the
[8:12] dot plot because we know Kevin Wars
[8:13] doesn't like the actual um talking.
[8:15] >> Yeah. What's interesting to me is he got
[8:17] rid of forward guidance, which you might
[8:18] as well just said, hey, we're going to
[8:19] stop bullshitting, right?
[8:21] >> You said it, not me.
[8:23] And by the way, like that
[8:24] that's okay because the market was like,
[8:26] "Hey, everyone kind of sort of knows
[8:27] this isn't real. It's a, you know,
[8:29] guidance, but uh we got to listen to
[8:31] them because it's another data point
[8:32] they're giving us." And so almost in a
[8:34] weird way by subtracting that data point
[8:37] from the market, they're trying to be
[8:38] additive, I get the sense of, and clear
[8:41] up some of the complexity because
[8:42] they're taking away a thing that really
[8:44] had no standing in terms of accuracy.
[8:46] And so by taking it away, does that help
[8:47] investors?
[8:48] >> Uh, it it won't in the medium term. I
[8:51] think over the long term it will. In the
[8:53] medium term, removing the fans
[8:55] handholding of the bond market, you're
[8:56] essentially taking off the trading
[8:58] reels. And so ultimately, what that
[8:59] means is that there's going to be a
[9:01] wider range of probable outcomes with
[9:03] respect to the expected path of the
[9:04] policy rate, which should push up the uh
[9:06] um term premia. And there's going to be
[9:08] a wider and as a function of that wider
[9:09] range of of outcomes, the the bond
[9:11] market's also not going to know how
[9:13] serious the Fed is on inflation to some
[9:15] degree. It's going to pull back on that.
[9:16] And so ultimately, you wind up with a
[9:18] higher real term premia, a slightly
[9:20] higher inflation risk premium. So it
[9:22] should inflate term premium in the bond
[9:23] market. But the benefit of that of of
[9:26] going through that pain because this is
[9:27] not a costless exercise but ultimately
[9:29] there is some good on the other side of
[9:30] this. The benefit of that as Kevin Walsh
[9:32] alluded to uh last Wednesday is or in in
[9:35] that in that FOMC statement is the the
[9:38] once you were take the training wheels
[9:40] off of the bond market the financial
[9:41] markets get back to do what they're
[9:42] supposed to be doing which is pricing
[9:44] risk and and and and assigning units of
[9:47] risk and return. Uh, and so once the
[9:49] financial markets get back to doing
[9:50] that, then the Fed can actually start to
[9:52] lean on financial markets as a
[9:54] forwardlooking signal of what they
[9:57] should be doing from a policy
[9:58] standpoint. Right now, if you're sitting
[10:00] at the you're one of the 19 members of
[10:01] the FOMC, you have to be sitting there
[10:04] going,
[10:04] >> should I tighten monetary policy cuz the
[10:06] 2-year went up or is the two-year going
[10:09] up because it expects me to start
[10:10] talking more honkish. Like right now,
[10:12] you don't know what the chicken or the
[10:13] egg is. And so if you cut off the
[10:15] communications channel, you be you
[10:17] create more of a clear distinction
[10:18] between what the markets are signaling
[10:20] and what the Fed may or may not do,
[10:22] which allows the Fed to then tap into
[10:24] the collective wisdom of the crowd,
[10:25] which we all know is much better than
[10:27] any committee.
[10:28] >> What about energy prices? Like those
[10:29] spiked obviously, now they've come back
[10:31] down. We even saw below $70 a barrel uh
[10:34] for a few hours, I think, in the last
[10:35] couple of days. um if energy keeps
[10:38] staying somewhat muted or even falls
[10:40] further, does that put less pressure on
[10:42] inflation and therefore that would be
[10:43] good for uh for the American consumer?
[10:45] >> Uh yeah, of course it is and we saw we
[10:47] saw that uh in some modest uh resilience
[10:49] in the PC report today. I think we
[10:51] accelerated uh we have a weak positive
[10:52] impulse and real personal consumption
[10:54] expenditures to a slightly below trend
[10:56] rate of 2.1%. Trend is about 2.5%. So uh
[10:59] but again this is coming at the context
[11:01] of having a massive inflationary uh
[11:03] surge and and ultimately in the context
[11:04] of real disposable personal income down
[11:06] about 1.5% through monthual eyes well
[11:08] below trend. So you know the fact that
[11:10] the consumption is slight only slightly
[11:12] lower than trend uh and we have a a
[11:15] sharp decline uh sharp contraction in in
[11:17] in the income real income tells you that
[11:20] the consumer is being very resilient
[11:21] which is something you know I first
[11:22] called out I think on your program in
[11:24] the summer of 2022 when everybody was
[11:25] talking about recession. Recall that on
[11:27] this program in the fall of 2021, I
[11:31] said, "Hey, there's going to be
[11:32] something that nobody's talking about
[11:33] that everyone's going to start to talk
[11:35] about over the next, let's call it 12
[11:36] months." I said, "The Rword." And then
[11:38] by the summer, by the fall of 2022. I
[11:40] said, "Everyone needs to stop talking
[11:41] about the Rword because the economy is
[11:42] going to be resilient. They're talking
[11:43] about the wrong Rword." And so, um, you
[11:45] know, we think all this data really does
[11:46] support our resilient US economy theme,
[11:48] which ultimately gives the Fed a little
[11:50] bit more scope to tighten monetary
[11:51] policy. Not meaningfully, but but but
[11:53] they can. Today's episode is brought to
[11:55] you by Fountain Life.
[11:57] >> Your body is incredibly good at hiding
[11:59] disease.
[12:01] >> Unless you look
[12:14] true wealth isn't measured in
[12:15] possession.
[12:16] It's measured in the time you gain,
[12:19] the energy you feel, and the life you
[12:22] create. It may be the smartest
[12:24] investment of your time you'll ever
[12:25] make.
[12:32] >> Life is so very, very precious and I
[12:35] want each of you to be truly awakened to
[12:39] your aliveness and live longer without
[12:42] limits.
[12:48] Your number one job is to educate
[12:51] yourself and Fountain wants to help
[12:53] educate you.
[12:58] >> Now, when we go and we look at what's
[13:00] happening in the economy, obviously
[13:01] asset prices have taken off once again.
[13:03] The American consumer is resilient, yet
[13:06] they're all complaining, saying that
[13:07] everything's unaffordable. And my take
[13:09] is that all three of those things are
[13:10] true. Like, it is unaffordable because
[13:12] of how much price appreciation's
[13:13] happened over the last five or six
[13:14] years. But we live in an economy where,
[13:16] oh, the Knicks are going to the finals,
[13:18] like I get a ticket, right? Oh, this is
[13:20] person on Instagram just bought this
[13:21] thing. I need two of them. Uh, oh, this
[13:23] trip is going, "Yeah, that looks cool.
[13:24] Let me get the photo." Right? Like, that
[13:26] is the economy that we live in. And so,
[13:28] then the question kind of becomes, do we
[13:30] just live in a world where everything is
[13:32] about output? As a consumer, I want to
[13:35] output capital into investments. I want
[13:37] to put output into consuming material
[13:39] goods. Like, is that just the new
[13:41] normal? Uh it's been the normal since we
[13:43] outlined that resilience economy theme
[13:45] back in the uh fall in September of
[13:46] 2022. Pomp, you're a parent of four
[13:49] beautiful children, you and Bolina. Um
[13:51] tell me this, is there a median or
[13:54] average statistic that you could use to
[13:56] describe and set policy for all four of
[13:58] your children?
[13:59] >> No, of course not.
[14:00] >> Exactly. And so when you think about
[14:02] that from the perspective of the broader
[14:03] macroeconomy, you have to recognize that
[14:05] this is, you know, we look at aggregate
[14:07] statistics because they are useful for
[14:09] forecasting financial markets and and
[14:10] policy responses, but there's really
[14:12] nothing, you know, homogeneous about
[14:14] those aggregate statistics, you know,
[14:16] and you know, they're very heterogeneous
[14:17] when you start to break it down. So, you
[14:19] know, our analysis um you in terms of
[14:21] the research we've published to our our
[14:22] global investor community highlights the
[14:24] K-shaped nature of the economy through
[14:26] two channels. On the low end of the K,
[14:28] we see that uh delinquency rates, 90-day
[14:30] plus delinquency rates, you know,
[14:32] heading for charge off for credit cards,
[14:34] autos, student loans are either
[14:36] exceeding or right near the peak rates
[14:39] that we saw, you know, at the at the
[14:41] height of the global financial crisis
[14:42] and great recession. Like right now,
[14:44] right now, even with, you know,
[14:46] reasonable consumption growth, stock
[14:48] market booming, you know, economy
[14:50] growing well above trend on a nominal
[14:51] basis and earnings growing at a level
[14:53] that's, you know, historically
[14:54] unprecedented in a in an economic
[14:56] expansion, uh, a multi-year economic
[14:58] expansion, we have basically global
[15:00] financial crisis level delinquency rates
[15:02] on an aggregate basis, which tells you
[15:04] how bad it is for the households. At the
[15:06] bottom of the K, at the top of the K,
[15:09] we, you know, we obviously, you can
[15:10] very, we're killing it. Look, I hate to
[15:12] say it, we're killing it. Um, and one of
[15:14] the core drivers of that is something we
[15:15] talked about last time I was in your
[15:16] program. Uh, the West Village Monttok
[15:18] effect, uh, thesis. You and I have some
[15:21] remind people about this,
[15:22] >> some boots, some boots on the ground
[15:24] knowledge on that. Uh, so uh, the the
[15:26] the kind of the key takeaway from the
[15:28] thesis is when you have a high stock of
[15:31] savings, uh, you don't need to save as
[15:33] much as uh, you don't need to save as
[15:36] much of your of income. Uh so you have a
[15:38] low flow of savings from a savings rate
[15:40] perspective because you already have a
[15:41] high stock of savings. And how we how I
[15:43] arrived at that conclusion was just
[15:44] boots on the ground research out in
[15:47] Montalk and West Village over the you
[15:48] know the past you know 10 20 years. Uh
[15:50] what I noticed is that the people at
[15:53] these establish you know well
[15:54] established places you know hard to get
[15:55] in places like a surf lodge or a common
[15:57] ground you know they the people who
[15:59] spend the most money at those places
[16:01] aren't necessarily the people with you
[16:02] know gray hair balding hair and folks
[16:04] like you and me. It's the people who are
[16:06] in their mid to late 20s who have rich
[16:09] parents. Uh and it's not it's not
[16:11] pjorative. I'm not saying this in a
[16:12] pjorative manner, but what I'm saying is
[16:13] that because they don't have to save for
[16:15] retirement, for a rainy day to take care
[16:18] of their parents like many people do,
[16:20] they then can go spend a greater share,
[16:22] greater proportion of their income into
[16:25] the economy month after month because
[16:27] they don't need to save. And so taking
[16:28] that that that same lesson from my you
[16:31] know from my personal experience and
[16:33] applying that to the macro economy, we
[16:35] see that the stock of cash checkable
[16:37] deposits plus money market fund exposure
[16:40] on the aggregated household sector
[16:41] balance sheet in the US economy is up to
[16:43] just shy of 12 trillion from a starting
[16:46] point of $3.5 trillion just prior to co.
[16:50] So we've grown about $8 trillion in
[16:53] cash.
[16:53] >> It's crazy. basic more than tripled in
[16:55] terms of the amount of cash on the
[16:57] household sector balance sheet since
[16:58] just prior to co and so you apply that
[17:00] same West Village Monto effect thesis to
[17:02] the whole economy now the folks at the
[17:05] the households at the top part of the K
[17:06] have all this cash they're sitting on on
[17:08] an aggregated basis which means they can
[17:10] take the personal savings rate down and
[17:12] down and down so no matter what happens
[17:14] to income they can always dip into those
[17:15] savings to continue to support
[17:17] consumption that's exactly what we've
[17:18] seen we have a strong negative impulse
[17:20] in the personal savings rate I think the
[17:21] three-month average uh rate on that is
[17:23] somewhere close to 3.5%. The pre-COVID
[17:25] trend was somewhere north of five, maybe
[17:27] 6%. And so that's exactly what's
[17:29] happening. That's exactly what we
[17:30] continue to see.
[17:30] >> And I guess part of that is not only are
[17:32] they spending on, you know, uh, all
[17:34] goods, but you can only spend so much
[17:36] money on groceries. You can only spend
[17:38] so much money on gas, right? What ends
[17:40] up happening is you have that excess
[17:42] savings that you're going to use for
[17:43] consumption. It starts to trickle
[17:45] towards things that you frankly don't
[17:46] need. And so that's where you see luxury
[17:48] prices exploding, experience is
[17:49] exploding. Um, I mean it's just crazy to
[17:52] see I use sports um affordability as a
[17:56] very weird dynamic. I saw uh Frank
[17:58] Michael Smith recently had a a video
[18:00] that he put out and he talked about the
[18:02] idea of like private equity now starting
[18:04] to participate in these uh different
[18:05] sports leagues. What do they do? They
[18:07] need to flip this thing in 3 to seven
[18:08] years. So guess what they're going to
[18:10] do? They're going to start to degrade
[18:11] quality and increase cost so they can
[18:13] extract more profits. And as they do
[18:16] that, that means that valuations go up
[18:17] and that's how they make money. whether
[18:19] you like private equity or not that
[18:20] they've been doing this for decades and
[18:22] decades and decades
[18:23] >> at the same exact time the pool of
[18:26] people who have capital I mean when the
[18:29] Knicks finals happen in Madison Square
[18:31] Garden you have a city full of 9 million
[18:34] people that doesn't even include Knicks
[18:35] fans all around the world who then say
[18:37] wait a second I think uh MSG's got like
[18:39] 20,000 seats there are 20,000 seats that
[18:42] go to this thing let's say that there's
[18:43] a couple thousand that are not going to
[18:44] be sold they're going to give them away
[18:45] or whatever okay so maybe you got I
[18:48] don't know 15,000 seats.
[18:49] >> Yep.
[18:50] >> You put them in front of 9 million
[18:52] people, some who have been waiting 50
[18:54] years, 50 plus.
[18:56] >> No wonder the get in ticket price is
[18:57] $7,000 for the nosebleleed seats.
[19:00] >> Shocked it wasn't higher.
[19:02] >> I'm actually shocked it wasn't higher.
[19:03] >> And so you look at this dynamic of you
[19:05] you have so much capital that is trying
[19:06] to chase these things. Now that's sports
[19:08] and somewhat unique scarce live events,
[19:10] you know, etc. But that's playing out
[19:12] all across the economy and that's why
[19:13] you start to see some of these price
[19:14] points of different items that come out
[19:16] is crazy. You know, I've even talked
[19:18] about diapers. I mean, you you uh uh are
[19:21] in the heart of being a a parent of a
[19:24] young child,
[19:24] >> changing them every day.
[19:26] >> And
[19:27] I talked to Plenty. She's like, "Yeah, I
[19:29] spent you I bought two boxes of diapers
[19:30] off Amazon. 150 bucks."
[19:32] >> I don't know how people buy diapers like
[19:34] like you and I.
[19:35] >> It's crazy.
[19:35] >> They're sticker shock to us and we make
[19:37] tons of money. And no offense, but like
[19:38] like they're it's ridiculous. How do
[19:40] people afford to have kids in this
[19:42] country? It's horrible.
[19:43] >> That's the whole thing is they're
[19:44] they're not. And then the other piece
[19:45] that I I saw recently is uh you know one
[19:47] of the data points they're now pointing
[19:49] to as to why people aren't having a
[19:50] third kid. Got to get a new car,
[19:53] right? So if all of a sudden you got to
[19:55] get a new car, then go look at car
[19:58] prices. If you go look at
[20:00] >> pick 10 cars that have been around for a
[20:03] while and go look at how much they cost,
[20:05] it's crazy. They make it. It's insane.
[20:08] And go to the luxury side of the market.
[20:10] So, if you're a family and you say, "Uh,
[20:12] okay, I want to have something that's
[20:14] super nice and I want to be able to put
[20:17] my kids in it." So, if you go and you
[20:18] look in New York, there there's all
[20:20] these private drivers all the time. They
[20:21] got Escalades. It's probably one of the
[20:23] most popular cars, right? If you go
[20:25] look, a brand new Escalade is like $130
[20:27] to $150,000.
[20:29] Wait, what?
[20:31] It was crazy, right?
[20:33] I without exaggeration, I'm pretty sure
[20:37] that when I was in like elementary
[20:38] school, middle school, a Ferrari was
[20:41] like 200k.
[20:42] >> Yeah.
[20:43] >> Right. Maybe 175 to 225. Somewhere in
[20:46] that range was probably 20ish 25 years
[20:49] ago. That was a Ferrari.
[20:52] >> A Escalade, a SUV. These things are
[20:54] super super nice, right? But even if you
[20:56] go on the lower end of a large vehicle
[20:58] for a family that's got, you know,
[20:59] multiple kids, etc., you're still
[21:01] talking about 70 to 100 grand for a
[21:04] brand new car. And so you start to look
[21:06] at this and you say to yourself like,
[21:08] "Dude, what is going on? This is crazy."
[21:11] >> Yeah. To thanks for sharing that cuz
[21:13] that breaks my heart. Uh I mean, I think
[21:15] I've tal I'm sure I've talked about this
[21:16] on your program. You know, my very
[21:18] humble beginnings, you know, spend many
[21:20] of a year in homeless shelters and
[21:24] waiting in food bank lines and and you
[21:25] know, that was I had a rough, you know,
[21:27] 0.001 001 percentile uh uh kind of
[21:30] upbringing uh prior to going to Yale.
[21:32] And that breaks my heart what you just
[21:34] said, man. I think the greatest sin that
[21:36] we've seen was the policy makers
[21:40] convincing us that the Fed's $7 trillion
[21:42] balance sheet is not inflationary.
[21:44] >> Mhm.
[21:44] >> Like I what a sin. I mean, if you here I
[21:46] have I've I've long had this this core
[21:48] principle um which allows me to kind of
[21:50] see the world from a political
[21:51] standpoint and a social standpoint and
[21:53] ultimately an economic standpoint uh at
[21:55] a very high level. And I'm about to
[21:56] share this with you guys. If I strongly
[22:00] believe that all money is is just a
[22:02] transferable unit of human time.
[22:04] >> And so you think about the devaluation
[22:07] of money of purchasing power. What
[22:09] you're really doing is you're devaluing
[22:12] someone's lifetime, their time, their
[22:14] their precious time that they have here
[22:16] on this earth. You're devaluing that.
[22:19] And so you have to work more and more
[22:21] hours just to be able to afford a car
[22:22] that can fit you and your wife and your
[22:24] three kids in just to make your ends
[22:26] meet. Um, you know, and and it breaks my
[22:28] heart. You know, obviously the
[22:29] government's been, you know, highly
[22:30] incentivized to under reportport
[22:32] inflation um in terms of the cost of
[22:34] living adjustments for things like
[22:35] Social Security and Medicare. So, you
[22:37] know, we know they're under
[22:37] reportporting inflation. Uh but we can
[22:39] just see going back to those statistics
[22:40] that I highlighted, we have all-time
[22:43] high delinquency rates at credit card,
[22:47] auto, and student loan all-time high.
[22:49] The same kind of levels that we saw in
[22:51] the height of the great recession and
[22:53] global financial crisis on an aggregated
[22:55] basis. So we must be twice as high if
[22:57] you're thinking only focusing on the uh
[22:59] uh lower end of that K. And so, you
[23:01] know, this goes back to where we started
[23:02] the conversation, which is we don't
[23:04] ultimately think the Federal Reserve is
[23:07] serious about 2% inflation, but they
[23:09] have to at least pretend that they're
[23:11] serious about 2% inflation for two
[23:13] reasons. One, you're going to lose the
[23:14] long end of the curve in terms of the
[23:16] bond market. Uh, if you don't, and more
[23:18] importantly,
[23:20] come on, can we give the folks on the
[23:21] bottom of the K a break? No. You want to
[23:24] know why? Why? I just looked up what do
[23:26] you think a 2026 Honda Civic costs? I
[23:29] hope not more than 15 20 grand.
[23:31] >> Okay. 29 to $32,000.
[23:34] >> Wow.
[23:34] >> For a 2026 Honda Civic. Now, they got,
[23:37] you know, hatchback sport, sedan sport,
[23:39] all these kind of different variations,
[23:40] but 29 to $32,000 what I'm seeing just
[23:42] by googling Honda Civic. Now, let's say
[23:45] that that's New York, right? And the
[23:48] surrounding areas. Okay. What does that
[23:50] mean? What what is it in, you know, the
[23:52] middle of Missouri or Iowa or, you know,
[23:54] in Arizona? Is you think it's that
[23:56] different? Probably not.
[23:57] >> Probably not.
[23:58] >> Right. And so you start to say to
[23:59] yourself, okay, hold on a second here.
[24:00] You know what's interesting? The poverty
[24:03] line in America is still officially
[24:04] $15,000 for a single person. 30 I think
[24:08] 30 or $32,000 for a family. Try to go to
[24:11] McDonald's and eat for 365 days a year
[24:14] with $15,000. You're going to run out of
[24:16] money by August.
[24:17] >> It's crazy, right? So then you say to
[24:18] yourself, okay, well, hold on a second.
[24:20] That that's a brand new Honda Civic,
[24:22] right? So some people may say, well, I
[24:24] don't necessarily want to do that. I
[24:26] again, I just Googled Honda Civic. The
[24:28] first used car that I see show up in the
[24:30] sponsored section is in Jackson Heights.
[24:33] A 2022 Honda Civic. $21,000. Are you
[24:36] kidding me? So, you start to look at
[24:39] this and again, people can play, you
[24:41] know, anecdote versus anecdote all day
[24:43] long, but we're talking about pretty
[24:46] simple things, a car, diapers, uh, gas,
[24:50] groceries, all this kind of stuff. So
[24:52] then the question becomes, okay, if that
[24:54] stuff is continuing to tick up, then I
[24:57] think a lot of people in the economy
[24:58] have basically convinced themselves the
[24:59] only way out of this thing is I got to
[25:00] invest. I actually agree with that.
[25:02] >> I agree with that.
[25:03] >> But then they're faced with, hold on a
[25:04] second, these AI stocks are flying, but
[25:06] every time I turn on the TV, all these
[25:08] people are telling me the end is near, a
[25:10] big crash is coming, the bubble,
[25:13] you know, like all this crazy stuff. And
[25:14] so I think a lot of people are saying to
[25:15] themselves, wait a second, I know what
[25:17] I'm running from, right? I know I got to
[25:19] get away from the affordability stuff.
[25:20] And hopefully they got enough common
[25:22] sense and their head screwed on right
[25:23] that they're not turning looking at the
[25:24] crazy extreme socialism nonsense and
[25:26] saying that's the solution. They're
[25:27] saying I I got agency. I'm going to go
[25:29] and fix this with my portfolio. How do
[25:31] you look at the equity market and AI is
[25:35] this amazing thing but also there's
[25:37] people who are really scared. They're
[25:39] like you know watch out below.
[25:41] >> Yeah. Look man uh I think you're asking
[25:44] the question which is you know you need
[25:46] to participate right everyone. You have
[25:48] to participate. If you're not trying to
[25:50] put yourself align your income and and
[25:53] wealth creation with the income and
[25:55] wealth creation activities of the folks
[25:56] on the top part of the K, then you're
[25:58] going to be left behind. Uh you're going
[26:00] to be suffering from a historic Cantalon
[26:02] effect. That's in my opinion, I think
[26:03] that's the number one cause of the uh
[26:05] the the political angst that we see in
[26:06] this country is there's a Cantalon
[26:08] effect, a mass.
[26:08] >> Oh, you mean the richest counties in
[26:10] America all around Washington DC?
[26:12] >> Yeah. Well, that's that's part that
[26:13] happened. That's part of it 100% by
[26:16] bipartisan sucking from the teeth of big
[26:18] government. You want to know another
[26:19] interesting stat I saw recently? This
[26:20] one blew my mind. 89% of seen of uh
[26:24] people over the age of 65, they are in
[26:26] support of raising taxes on young people
[26:29] so they can continue to get paid their
[26:31] benefits.
[26:32] >> That's wild.
[26:35] >> My question, how is it not 99%. Well,
[26:39] some people care about their grandkids.
[26:42] >> Only 11% do 89% of people over the age
[26:46] of 65.
[26:46] >> Well, they're probably suffering from
[26:48] the same dynamic in terms of everything
[26:49] we're talking about from a cantalonic
[26:51] spec perspective. The the the rapid
[26:53] increase in everyday items that you
[26:55] actually need to survive. They're
[26:57] suffering too there. A lot of these
[26:58] folks are on fixed or limited income
[27:00] certainly relative to where they were
[27:01] midlife. And so I understand their angst
[27:03] and and and I I empathize with them and
[27:05] and I and I I support, you know, their
[27:07] desire to improve their own situation,
[27:09] but the problem is isn't raising taxes
[27:11] on people who barely make any money and
[27:13] have no savings. Um you know, I don't
[27:15] want to get political here, but the
[27:16] reality is we know that we have a wealth
[27:17] pump on. Peter Turin talks about this in
[27:19] his work. Uh Ray Ali alludes to this in
[27:21] his work. Um my former colleague and
[27:23] mentor know how alludes to this in his
[27:25] work. you know, we have a, you know,
[27:26] just we for a variety of reasons, mostly
[27:29] because of campaign finance, we've
[27:31] allowed, you know, the elites, I guess
[27:32] technically speaking, we're part of that
[27:34] class. We've allowed our class of people
[27:36] to change regulation in ways that is
[27:38] very harmful for the the common man.
[27:40] We've allowed the folks in our class to
[27:42] change uh fiscal policy uh in ways,
[27:45] particularly tax policy in ways that are
[27:47] very harmful for the common man. And
[27:49] then we ultimately allowed them to
[27:50] change monetary policy in ways that are
[27:52] very harmful uh for the common man. you
[27:54] know, the Federal Reserve's, you know,
[27:55] balance sheet and interest rate policy.
[27:57] I mean, you know, if you look at, you go
[27:58] back to 2021, just using this as an
[28:00] example, you know, the Federal Reserve
[28:02] kept the policy rate in 2021 prior to
[28:03] the big upsurge in inflation that we're
[28:05] still talking about today, uh, they left
[28:07] their interest rate, uh, at a level that
[28:09] was about a,000 basis points below what
[28:11] the Taylor rule would have said at the
[28:12] time, which is the most common kind of
[28:15] u, you know, you know, uh, model based
[28:17] uh, estimate of the policy rate. So
[28:20] thousand basis points compares to 700
[28:22] basis points for author Burns in the 70s
[28:24] at at the height of his malfence. You
[28:26] think about the balance sheet took up to
[28:27] 90 36% of nominal GDP. We're at 21% of
[28:30] nominal GDP now. Why is it at zero? Why
[28:33] does the Fed need to constantly be
[28:34] expanding its balance sheet and
[28:35] devaluing creating more supply of money
[28:38] in a way that devalues the purchasing
[28:40] power of money uh that is obviously very
[28:42] clearly being under reportported. Um,
[28:44] you know, if you look at measures of,
[28:45] you know, e economic angst, you know,
[28:47] financial hardship, all those types of
[28:49] measures, they're going one way while at
[28:50] the same time, the equity market and
[28:52] wealth of the folks like us is going
[28:53] another way. You know, the only way out
[28:55] of this mess is to turn off the wealth
[28:56] pump. We're going to have to eat some
[28:58] some some some eat our vegetables for
[29:00] once in the last 30 years at least. Um,
[29:02] we're going to have to eat our
[29:03] vegetables in order to save our country.
[29:05] And I'm not sure that everyone in the
[29:07] baby boomer generation agrees with that
[29:08] or will we'll go, you know, along with
[29:10] that. I think there's a lot of people
[29:12] who say, "Uh, what can I get, right?
[29:15] What can I get?" Today's episode is
[29:17] brought to you by Simple Mining. Bitcoin
[29:19] mining has a reputation for being
[29:20] complicated, risky, and hard to evaluate
[29:22] as a real investment. If you're
[29:24] considering mining in 2026, what
[29:26] actually matters isn't headline
[29:28] profitability. It's uptime, repairs, and
[29:30] whether the operation is run like a real
[29:32] business. That's why I've been using
[29:34] Simple Mining. They're based in Cedar
[29:36] Falls, Iowa, and they run a white glove
[29:37] hosting operation where you own your
[29:39] miners. You choose your own pool and you
[29:42] have Bitcoin sent directly to your
[29:43] wallet. They were featured on the Inc.
[29:45] 5000 list as the fastest growing company
[29:47] in Iowa with over 40,000 machines under
[29:50] management. What stands out to me is
[29:52] execution. They have the number one
[29:53] rated ASIC repair center. And for the
[29:56] first 12 months, repairs are included.
[29:58] If mining margins get tight, you can
[30:00] pause with no penalties. And if you want
[30:01] to resize or upgrade your fleet, there's
[30:03] a marketplace to resell equipment
[30:05] instead of being stuck. to help people
[30:06] think it through whether mining actually
[30:08] makes sense right now. They put together
[30:10] a short resource called the 2026 Bitcoin
[30:12] mining blueprint. It walks through the
[30:14] five mistakes investors make when
[30:16] allocating to mining and they also
[30:18] explain how to avoid them before
[30:19] deploying capital. If it sounds
[30:21] interesting to you, you can get it for
[30:22] free at simplemining.io/p.
[30:26] That's simple.io/p.
[30:29] Go check it out today and see if you
[30:30] should get into the mining game.
[30:33] Today's episode is brought to you by
[30:34] Blowin. If you're actively trading
[30:36] crypto, then you already know the
[30:37] platform matters. Execution speed
[30:39] matters, liquidity matters, and
[30:40] reliability during volatile markets.
[30:42] That definitely matters. That's why more
[30:44] traders are starting to use Blowfit.
[30:45] They built a trading platform focused on
[30:47] fast execution, deep liquidity, advanced
[30:49] futures products, and a really, really
[30:51] clean user experience. They don't over
[30:53] complicate things. You can trade
[30:55] hundreds of spot and perpetual pairs.
[30:56] They integrate directly with Trading
[30:58] View, and they've built a platform for
[30:59] both active traders and people who are
[31:01] just getting started. Security is a
[31:02] major focus. Obviously, assets are
[31:04] custody with Fireblocks. They provide
[31:06] proof of reserves, and they've built a
[31:07] strong reputation for platform stability
[31:09] during those high volatility
[31:11] environments. And to celebrate the
[31:12] partnership with us, Blowfin is now
[31:14] giving away $100,000. That's right.
[31:17] Blowofin is going to give away $100,000
[31:18] in deposit and trading rewards. So, if
[31:20] you're looking for a better place to
[31:22] trade crypto, go check them out today
[31:23] using our link in the description.
[31:25] Again, that's Blofin, the trading
[31:27] platform built for serious crypto
[31:29] traders. Go sign up. pay attention
[31:31] because they're giving away $100,000 in
[31:32] deposit and trading rewards. Now, the
[31:35] the other thing that I think is really
[31:36] interesting is when you look at the
[31:37] equity market is uh the Mag Seven. Yep.
[31:41] >> They were killing it. Yeah.
[31:42] >> They they were they the the pretty girl
[31:44] at the bar.
[31:45] >> Emphasis on were.
[31:46] >> Huh.
[31:47] >> Emphasis on were
[31:48] >> were Yeah. Now I saw someone say it's
[31:49] not the mag seven. Now it's the lag
[31:51] seven.
[31:53] >> 493 other stocks are they're flying.
[31:55] Yeah. And so on one hand that's how
[31:57] indexes work and you know thank god this
[31:59] is a team sport and so you know some
[32:01] carry some at other times. Uh but on the
[32:03] other hand
[32:05] maybe people should be concerned maybe
[32:07] there's cracks in the armor. Maybe the
[32:09] you know the valuations aren't what
[32:11] people thought they were. What's your
[32:12] take?
[32:12] >> Uh on the Mac 7 specifically uh there's
[32:15] two things I would say. Uh one we've all
[32:17] we've been of the view since last fall
[32:18] that the investors will use the Mac 7 as
[32:21] a source of funds to capitalize AI
[32:24] adopters. Uh and there's two primary
[32:26] drivers of that. Uh uh one, you know,
[32:28] this is where the car positioning was.
[32:30] And so to the extent that investors get
[32:32] uh more excited about uh the economy and
[32:34] the diffusion of AI throughout the the
[32:36] economy, they're going to start to look
[32:37] at the other 493 or the other, you know,
[32:40] 3,000 stocks uh and and start to
[32:44] capitalize, use their profits and their
[32:46] proceeds from the MAX 7 to start to
[32:48] capitalize other businesses which were
[32:49] uh very cheap on a relative basis. And
[32:51] then uh the number two point is on the
[32:53] Mac 7 specifically on the on their on
[32:54] their you know own operating dynamics
[32:57] and I'm not an analyst you know this is
[32:58] my not my own um you know analysis but
[33:01] you know there's some real questions
[33:02] about the decline in their free cash
[33:04] flow right you know historically
[33:06] speaking when you have big capex cycles
[33:09] two things tends to happen one you
[33:11] always overbuild uh we've seen this with
[33:13] the railroad the canals the consumer
[33:15] durable goods uh internet technology
[33:18] every time you have a capex bubble
[33:19] there's always some element of
[33:20] overbuilding. And two, uh, whenever you,
[33:23] you know, when you go from an asset
[33:24] light business to an asset heavy
[33:25] business, your maintenance capex starts
[33:28] to get much, um, goes much, it sends to
[33:30] a much higher height, uh, and stays at
[33:32] an elevated level. And so there's a real
[33:34] question about the massive expected
[33:36] recovery and free cash flow for these,
[33:38] uh, companies and and the ultimate these
[33:40] stocks uh, uh, in in the coming out
[33:42] years. I think, you know, if you look at
[33:43] sellside estimates, you know, they
[33:44] basically have a hockey stick recovery
[33:46] and and free cash flow for these
[33:47] companies starting in like 2029 or 2030.
[33:50] And I'm like that seems very unlikely in
[33:52] the context of history, those capex
[33:54] bubbles. And two, the fact that you're
[33:56] going to have to constantly be, you
[33:58] know, ma maintaining these data centers.
[33:59] It's not like you can build a data
[34:00] center and leave it alone for 10 years.
[34:02] You're going to have to continue to
[34:04] reinvest. You're going to put them in
[34:05] space. Yeah.
[34:05] >> And then we can't get them down.
[34:08] >> Well, I think that's another thing. I
[34:09] think Elon's uh pitching this data
[34:11] center in space thing to get away from
[34:13] the pitchforks
[34:14] >> because if we don't turn off the
[34:16] K-shaped regul regulatory policy, you
[34:18] know, the you know, without, you know,
[34:19] the the lack of trust busting we've
[34:21] seen, the the the Supreme Court's um you
[34:24] know, coddling of big business in in
[34:25] recent decades. Um you know, we don't
[34:28] turn off the the K-shaped fiscal policy
[34:30] in terms of the convoluted tax code,
[34:32] 10,000 pages, 10 million words of ways
[34:34] for people like us to get more income
[34:36] and siphon wealth from the bottom part
[34:38] of the K. we don't turn off the K-shaped
[34:40] monetary policy, then the pitchforks
[34:41] will come out. They're going to come
[34:43] out. They may already be out.
[34:45] >> Well, there Well, no. We would hear it
[34:47] because America has 400 million guns and
[34:49] 300 million legal owners. So,
[34:53] we would you're not you will hear the
[34:55] pitchforks in this country. Um and so,
[34:58] uh you know, I have the great privilege
[34:59] of living somewhere. I used to live in
[35:00] the city obviously for a long time. And,
[35:02] uh I have the great privilege of living
[35:03] somewhere that's, you know, it's not
[35:05] rural. You know, it's definitely nice.
[35:06] um you know, in terms of the the the
[35:08] income stratification, but the
[35:09] surrounding areas are, you know, what
[35:11] you would consider to be what what
[35:12] elites like us would consider to be
[35:14] Trump country. And so I go to church
[35:16] with a lot of folks like that. And I'll
[35:17] tell you one thing, uh I'll tell you a
[35:18] few things uh from this experience
[35:20] because the first time I've
[35:21] >> the first time in my life I've ever been
[35:23] around poor white people, if you don't
[35:25] mind me saying that.
[35:26] >> Like I grew up around very poor black
[35:28] people, very poor Hispanic people, very
[35:29] poor uh Samoan people, Tongan people,
[35:31] very poor African people, immigrants. Um
[35:34] I never seen poor white people. Then I
[35:36] went to Yale.
[35:36] >> Mhm.
[35:37] >> Just a bunch of rich white people. Then
[35:38] I moved to New York. Even richer white
[35:40] people, you know. Then I dabbled in
[35:42] Miami. Rich white people, rich Latin
[35:44] people. Now I live somewhere where
[35:45] there's, you know, still rich white
[35:46] people, but you know, the surrounding
[35:47] areas and surrounding towns are are not
[35:49] affluent at all. In fact, you would
[35:51] consider most you would say these folks
[35:52] folks folks folks folks to be on the
[35:52] bottom of the K. And uh, you know, I'll
[35:54] say a couple things. One, these are some
[35:57] of the sweetest, nicest, kindest people
[36:00] you're ever going to meet. Um the media
[36:02] does them a terrible injustice in terms
[36:04] of how they characterize them as you
[36:06] know racist and and and and you know
[36:09] sexist and and and just you know
[36:11] deplorables if you will to borrow a
[36:14] horribly used phrase. Um so that that
[36:16] deplorables moniker is not true. Uh what
[36:19] everybody wants is the same thing to be
[36:20] able to take care of their family
[36:21] >> 100%.
[36:22] >> That's all anybody wants. Now that I've
[36:24] seen poor black people, poor Hispanic
[36:25] people, poor Samoan people, poor African
[36:28] people, and now poor white people. I
[36:29] tell you right now, everybody wants the
[36:31] same thing, which is to be able to take
[36:33] care of their family. Period. I tweeted
[36:36] this recently. I said, "Politics has
[36:38] become a competition between two extreme
[36:40] groups that are competing to capture
[36:42] votes by promising unsustainable
[36:44] policies to unhappy citizens."
[36:46] >> Yep.
[36:46] >> And so, in a weird way, both political
[36:49] parties are offering a different form of
[36:51] socialism.
[36:52] >> Yeah.
[36:52] >> One is saying, "We're going to give it
[36:54] to the top and it's going to trickle
[36:55] down." The other side is saying we're
[36:56] going to take from the top and we're
[36:57] going to give it to the bottom. 100%.
[36:59] You nailed it.
[37:00] >> I don't know if either one of those are
[37:01] going to work.
[37:01] >> No, it will Well, unfortunately, they're
[37:02] not going to work. And here's why. Uh
[37:04] Peter Turchin, um the the the cleonamic
[37:08] specialist, complexity theorist, um
[37:09] whose work I tremendously admire and is
[37:11] featured in in in our own research.
[37:13] Peter, he's the author of the ages of
[37:14] discord in times. Um you know, probably
[37:16] the the best mathematician, the person
[37:19] who's applied math to this problem, the
[37:21] most uh the best in the world. He would
[37:23] say what you just this dynamic that you
[37:25] just described is is what he call intra
[37:26] elite competition. Whenever you have
[37:28] what he calls elite overp production
[37:30] which is the concept of having too many
[37:32] elite aspirants and not enough elite
[37:34] positions for those elite aspirants.
[37:36] whenever you have a lead over production
[37:38] and popular emiseration, which is, you
[37:41] know, folks not being able to get ahead
[37:42] and, you know, falling behind from a
[37:44] real income perspective, which is what
[37:46] we've been doing for 50 years, ever
[37:47] since Nixon took us off the the gold
[37:49] standard. And we we we put our foot on
[37:51] the accelerator with the the
[37:53] neocclassical era of the Reagan
[37:54] administration. And obviously,
[37:56] neocclassics plus, you know, devalu fiat
[37:58] money equals, you know, 50 years later,
[38:01] you have a country full of very peuh
[38:03] angry people who can't get ahead. And so
[38:04] you have popular miseration plus elite
[38:06] overp production equals unstable
[38:08] society.
[38:10] >> And so unstable societies whenever you
[38:11] have these types of dynamics, they
[38:13] they've studied I want to say I think
[38:14] their database has studied 168
[38:16] civilizations dating back 5,000 years.
[38:19] They've collected data over the course
[38:21] of 10 years to arrive at this
[38:22] conclusion. 75%
[38:25] of those 168 civilizations end in
[38:29] violent collapse. Not collapse, violent
[38:32] collapse. and we are certainly tracking
[38:35] uh at one of the most extremes of the of
[38:37] that of that combination of of of
[38:38] dynamics.
[38:39] >> It's crazy to see just how much we're
[38:41] following the historical trend.
[38:42] >> It's crazy. It's it's actually kind of
[38:43] scary. I'm as a father of a 2-year-old
[38:46] son, I'm hopeful, very hopeful that
[38:50] whatever reckoning that we're heading
[38:52] for, we're vast I think we're fast
[38:54] heading for uh happens, you know, be
[38:57] before, you know, my my son is of
[38:59] military age.
[39:01] >> 100%. I uh I agree. All right. Uh anyone
[39:04] who has not yet checked out 42 macro,
[39:06] Darius is one of my uh not only smartest
[39:09] friends, but uh I think that they do an
[39:10] incredible job in terms of putting
[39:12] together very very um kind of uh uh uh
[39:16] intelligent but thorough. And I think
[39:18] thorough is probably the most important
[39:19] word. Uh research to help investors, a
[39:21] lot of institutional investors, but
[39:22] increasingly a lot of independent,
[39:24] sophisticated investors who manage their
[39:26] own portfolios, help them figure out
[39:27] what's going on in the market, what's
[39:28] going on in the economy, what's going on
[39:29] with monetary and fiscal policy. and
[39:31] then how do you invest your capital,
[39:32] understand different regimes that uh
[39:34] markets are going through or the
[39:36] economyy's going through. So, go check
[39:37] them out at 42mmro.com.
[39:39] I appreciate you coming in, my friend.
[39:40] >> Oh, it's a real pleasure, man. Thank you
[39:42] for allowing me to speak my voice. You
[39:43] know, I think we have a you know, I
[39:45] obviously I'm an investor and that
[39:47] that's what pays the bills. But, you
[39:48] know, as someone who's ascended from the
[39:50] very bottom of of of the the K um to
[39:53] somewhere in the you know, I would say
[39:55] certainly above the middle of the top
[39:56] part of the K um
[39:58] >> you know, I feel like I have a duty. I
[40:00] have a duty to to to heal our broken
[40:02] society. I may die trying uh but I you
[40:05] know it's very important for me. So
[40:06] thank you for allowing me to uh be part
[40:07] of your platform and and and spread this
[40:09] message and hopefully more people uh uh
[40:11] u take it to heart. I think you're doing
[40:13] a great job. Do it again soon. Thanks
[40:14] brother. Appreciate.

← Back to videos list

Scroll to Top