Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have personal?
Indeed, we do many interesting things happening this morning and this week. So we got to bring you some of this Trump interview with the All In podcast folks, completely changing tune on immigration to please his new donors.
It is incredible. I love it.
Sager hates it. So little reversal there and be interesting to get into that one. Meanwhile, he says that he has picked his vice presidential nominee, so and he also says that person will be at the debate, So we've got lots of speculation there. Commerce and Rocana is going to be in studio to talk about why he will not be at Benjamin and Yahoo's speech here to Congress a lot we want to ask him about with regards
to that. We also have some other updates with regard to Israel, that massive Lebanon war against Hezbola looking more and more likely in the US, basically giving a green light for that. We also had an uptick in deadly strikes in the Gaza strip over the weekend. Meanwhile, we're taking a look at the economics of various generations.
Looks like gen Z even though millennials.
Graduated into horrible economic crisis, it actually looks like gen Z has it even worse than millennials did when we were young and coming out of college.
So we'll take a look at those numbers.
Sager has a great look at Saudi involvement in nine to eleven. A great friends there comes, of course, as we're considering this big defense path so important context. And we also have New York Times calmnists and author Peter Goodman who is asking whether global trade was a mistake in a new book that I took a look at it.
It's an excellent book. I really recommend its out how the supply chain went completely haywire during COVID, Getting down to the granular specifics of you know, trucking and ports and shipping and all of that. So very excited to talk to him as well. Before we get to any of that, though, Sagar. This week is debate week.
That's right, kind of crazy debate night, the earliest presidential debate in modern American history. We'll have live coverage here at the desk with all of the crew. We're gonna have a special section for our premium subscribers. They're going to be able to ask questions during that debate. So go ahead and sign up if you want to get in on that Breakingpoints dot Com. We're really excited. We've got all the coverage plans, special graphics, et cetera. So
just yeah, programming update. Then on Thursday, Thursday morning, we're not going to have our normal show. We will go live what is it around eight o'clock something like that. We'll keep everybody updating and we'll go all the way through after the night, we'll bring everybody some analysis and all that.
So staying up late for you guys, Yeah, that's right, major sacrifice.
It starts at nine pm, right, which is already an attack on both of our lifestyles. Boddy that's that's the sacrifice that we do for you. All right, So let's go ahead with that and get to the show. As Crystal alluded to, Trump sat for the All In podcast popular technology podcast for those not familiar, hosted by for venture capitalists.
And two of them are donors to him, by the way, we said, no.
Two of them. Well, I don't know about I think Tamath. Yeah, you're right, Tamath is a donor. David Sax certainly. I've had David here on the program. You can watch that interview if you're interested. All of them are very wealthy, near billionaire status, if not billionaires literally themselves. Here is a question from Jason Calcanus. Jason is kind of the center left host of the All In Podcast, and he asked Trump about high skilled immigration visas being stapled to
green cars. This has been a major priority for tech oligarchs for more than a decade now at this point. And just listen to how Trump answered the question. Let's take a listen.
We need high skilled workers in this country. Yes, we need to recruit the best and brightest from the world. Every time we get somebody super intelligent from India or Europe, any country three are immigrants, sir, Yeah, and three or the four here are immigrants, the ones without the tize and we can get these great people into our country. And that's a loss for our adversaries and our competitors, and it's a game for us. But I've never heard
you talk about this. Can you please promise us you will give us more ability to import the best and brightest around the world to a mirror.
I do promise, but I happen to agree. That's why I promise, Otherwise I wouldn't promise. Let me just tell you that it's so sad when we lose people from Harvard, mit from the greatest schools and lesser schools that are phenomenal schools. Also, what I want to do and what I will do, is you graduate from a college. I think you should get automatically as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country.
And that includes junior colleges too. Anybody graduates from a college, you go in there for two years or four years. If you graduate or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country. And you know more stories than I do, But I know of stories where people graduated from a top college or from a college and they desperately wanted to stay here. They had a plan for a company, a concept, and they can't. They go back to India, they go back
to China. They do the same basic company in those places and they become multi billionaires, employing thousands and thousands of people. And it could have been done here. It was such a big deal. Somebody graduates at the top of the last they can't even make a deal with a company because they don't think they're going to be able to stay in the country.
That is going to end on day one.
That's going to end on day one. Let's just say this is probably as big of a flip flop as it gets there from Donald Trump. Look personally, I think this policy incredible, idiotic, and stupid. Basically, we just continue to turn universities into foreign visa farms. There's a lot of reasons why we shouldn't go down that hill. That being said, the most important part of this interview is
just to show everyone how Trump is very comfortable. I think that's a kind way of saying it flip flopping on previous held, long standing positions through his administration through his advisors and others in exchange for basically campaign cash. I mean, as crystal you said chum Off. Polyhopatilla and David Sachs both hosted a Trump fundraiser in Silicon Valley which raised big bucks, a lot of billionaires, A lot of people who previously had not really entered the frey
in politics attended the fundraiser. This is just a preview again into how Trump is conducting himself in this election. And I want people to understand, like, whether you think about the policy or not, Trump unambiguously was against his policy back in twenty sixteen and in twenty twenty. The reason he's changing his tune is this is the number one priority for tech oligarchs. I have been involved in
these circles now for quite some times. There are entire think tanks stood up here in Washington, specifically by the technology industry to lobby for more H one B visas and more of these student visa specifically because these are the people who go to work for them. Yeah, that's what they want. They want more. And look, let me say also this, It's not that I'm against immigration. This is not fair even for many of these people So just to explain, in the H one B system, for example,
they're your sponsor. So like let's say Facebook sponsors you. Well, if you get fired, you lose your visa. So what does that mean? You really don't want to get fired. It also means maybe you're going to take eighty five percent less than an American citizen who can leave if he wants, and everybody wins. Right, you get to get paid less, you get a nice visa, you get to stay here in San Mateo, and you get to buy
a house. It's cool. Same with these universities. You think that these universities aren't going to just start charging one hundred two hundred thousand dollars per year to every rich kid from China and to India because they get automatic green card. What does that mean again?
Oh?
US citizen, he's a problem, she's a problem. You gotta Oh she can leave if she wants to. Oh you know, Oh well what if she decides not to graduate or something like that, they have you buy a chain. You're like a slave. That's what a lot of these systems eventually evolve into, not to mention just outright visa fraud. So these are all things that you could go listen to Stephen Miller, say, for example, but now you know, because these tech people are putting money into his pockets.
Trump just like on several other issues either that he doesn't care about or previously had flippedtopped on like TikTok. If it's it's up for sale to the highest bidder. That's why it's ridiculous.
I mean, I find it so entertaining because.
It's funny, like don't getting wrong, it's just.
So it's just such a shameless cash grab. It's incredible.
I really recommend you go and listen to the interview we did with Matt Stoller, who was really he was early to recognizing not just the different policies that Trump has promoted, but he is His rhetoric is completely different from twenty sixteen.
I mean, he.
Doesn't go after corporations at all. For those of you who were all about the like bud Light boycott or whatever, Trump.
Got out there and was like, stop boycotting cud Like.
Guys are money. Yeah, that's right. The Anheuser family literally cut them into check.
Even on something that's just like a core hot button culture war issue, he took the side of the corporation.
It's incredible to me.
I mean personally, I support this policy, but you're one hundred percent right, Zager. Just I support higher immigration levels. So what will happen here is he goes even further than Hillary Clinton did back in twenty sixteen because her program, I think we have a five.
We can put up a five on the screen.
Hers was just critical with regards to STEM graduates. Trump says, no, no, no, we want to staple the green card to all, including junior colleges. So yeah, what would happen is, you know, you'd have a lot of junior colleges or diploma mills that set up like this is now your way to get a green card, this is your way into the country. Again, I fully support it because I support higher levels of immigration.
But it could not be more of a one and.
Eighty degree flip from where he has been and especially the reason it's so funny because many flips on issues all the time, He's like all over the map on critical things like the Ukraine War and our policy vis of e Israel, all kinds of things. He can be all over the place, just depending on what audience he's trying to please at the moment. But you know, the assumption had always been there were maybe a few things that he actually cared about. Immigration was at the top
of that list. This man doesn't care about anything. He's decided the number one priority is getting the cash from Wall Street, which he's.
Doing very successfully.
And we're gonna have some of the numbers there and the big one that doesn't get as much attention as Silicon Valley, and that is reflected certainly with this policy, but also with his flip on say crypto, which is another area where he's done a complete one eighty in service of getting donors. And this is also we're going to get to, you know, who he's thinking of for VP. This is also why I think there's a chance that Doug Bergram, former Microsoft executive, does end up as Trump's VP,
because what does he bring with him. He's you know, no drama, he's sort of people say he looks like George Washington. My daughter said he gets patriotic eagle. But anyway, I could see Trump liking the look of him. But Number one, he brings a lot of money and a lot of Silicon Valley comfort to the table, and clearly that's a thing that's important to tell.
It's amazing.
Yeah, Miss Bergham is himself a near billionaire. Crypto is another good example. By the way, I support crypto, so like, I'm fine with it, but like you just said, it's one of those where it's like, dude, you're obviously doing this for cash. Because Trump came out and this was famous in the crypto bitcoin community, he was like, I'm against bitcoin, this is bad. His administration actively lobbied against Facebook Libra. If anybody wants to know, could go back
and look into that. I mean, he was a vocally anti crypto, along with Steve Mnuschan, who worked in the government, much through the chagrin of a lot of people in the bitcoin world. Then just the other day, the Winkle Vi who you may remember from the Social Network movie. They're actually real, by the way, and they became fantastically wealthy themselves because they were very early to bitcoin. They
opened their own exchange called Gemini. Well, both of the winkle v endorsed Trump just like a couple of days ago, openly because they're like, yeah, he supports bitcoin, I mean, and so it's it's just naked. Biktok is a great example. Yeah, I reckon. I so Jeff YaST you know, is American billionaire's worth some twenty four billion dollars. I think he's a mar Lago club member. He wasn't nearly as involved back in twenty twenty. This time around he makes his
inroads to Trump. He's one of the largest single shareholders in byte Dance, which is the Chinese holding company that owns TikTok. A substantial portion of his own net worth is up in byte Dance. So what does he do. He donates huge amounts to the Trump campaign ingratiates himself, and now all of a sudden, Trump is pro TikTok.
Now again, each of these policies, you can evaluate them on their face, like crypto TikTok, immigration, whatever, that's fine, But what are we doing here whenever it's so naked and it's out in the open. So for all of those, you know, like ultra pro Trump people, I just think, look at the very least he got to make your peace with this and understand that whoever's got the cash is actually who's going to win. Not all that different last time around, but at least there was some rhetoric.
And this is the thing too.
He's dropped even the rhetorical allusions to any sort of a different like populist Republican.
He tried to pull himself out more recently at a faith and fam was like Freedom Coalition or whatever event talking about He's like, we need some migrant UFC events. Let's take a lesson Dana White.
Did anyone ever hear of Dana? He's a legendre UFC, ultimate fighter, ultimate fighting, and he is He's a fantastic man. I said, Dana, I have an idea. Why don't you set up a migrant league of fighters and have your regular league of fighters, and then you have the champion of your league. These are the greatest fighters in the world, fight the champion of the migrants.
I think the migrant.
Guy might win, that's how tough they are. He didn't like that idea too much, but actually not the worst idea I've ever had.
So it's like he's trying to pull himself out. He's trying to get with the immigration hawks. And that's another one where I had no respect for people whose major issue is like immigration, for example. And then when Trump, who is like their god king, you know, betrays them, they don't say any thing, So shout out to you know, there's a lot of real ones out there, people like Ryan Gerdoski knows they really care about the issues. They're
actually consistent. They'll criticize people whenever they actually go against the grave. But here you have Steve Bannon, who is you know again, he's like the so called ideological godfather Maga of Jacksonianism. He's like the major defender of the policy. Just listen to the most milk toast criticism here of Trump whenever he outrighted flip flops on this. Let's take a listen.
The exit visa should be clipped to the to the to the diploma, the exit visa. We can't make the world okay, We can't keep the world on our shoulders and keep spending money on all these forever wars in this international apparatus, in this empire. We want the nations of the earth to also make themselves great again. People buy and large want to live back where they come from and where their folks are and what their culture
and society is. Yes, let's take them in a selective basis, trade them up, let them root for college football and get all that. You know, you look at the college football stands the diversity, it's fabulous. But then it's time to go back home and make your country great again. Work for your country and make it great again. That is the way we go as as nations of the earth,
as nations of the earth, and we move together. We can't suck it all in like Britain, and you can't do that, then it's going to be these are gonna be shells of each other.
Well what you know what word I didn't hear? You know what word I didn't hear that entire time. Trump, the guy who said the policy, this is what I'm talking about. It's like if you this is if a Democrat said this, if Mitt Romney said this, if Mike Penn said this, it would be slaughter out in the open. He wants to replace us, He wants to just.
A debate stage during the Republican primary.
The only difference is always have been like, yeah, that's stupid either way. But these people, they have no integrity, Like you know in general, they are just willing to go along because they know if the clip goes viral, then Trump will find out and they're going to be out of as good graces and they'll stop being Maga warriors. So there are very few out there who are being genuine, you know, in their critics here. But the nakedness of it,
it's just too much. It's too much. And you you know, we have this political story which just details you know, so many key instances like this where Trump keeps flip flopping his policy positions after meeting with rich people. For example, the Alam podcast is what they start with. They point to the TikTok ban, they point to the cryptocurrency. But there have been other just cartoonish elements here with Trump,
for example, recently had a fundraiser. He's like, anybody who donates a million dollars can come and take this microphone right now and speak at my event. And they had like three people do it. Yeah, three people just walked up there like, yeah, I'm ranted about whatever. You know, Israel, you know anything wants. Miriam Adelson cuts him one hundred million dollar check. It's flying around Nicky Haley in her Gulf Sands jet and what is it? What does Uh
Trump say on the policy? He's like becoming even more pro Israel and basically tacitly agreed that he will allow israeally total control of the West Bank. He won't even rhetorically push against it. Yea, So how is that not foreign interference in our elections? That's right, all of these cases buy in our foreign policy. Starting their people is basically for sale to the highest bidder of whatever they want.
And again, you can have policy which you agree with disagree with, but that's not how you know, at least allegedly, this entire drain the swamp ridder from twenty sixteen. What happened. Man, It's gone. It's just totally gone.
Absolutely gone. But you can't say it's not paying off. Of course, a six up on the screen. You know, Biden had a big cash advantage and has been able to run a bunch of ads and you know, sort of get started early. Apparently they used to have a one hundred million dollar cash advantage. But Trump has outraised Biden by eighty one million dollars in the last two months.
And now the gap between the two of them when you look all together at both the direct campaign contributions and the outside groups, which are just important in terms of fundraising, Trump.
Has effectively closed the gap.
So his shameless Wall Street and Silicon Valley and Miria madleson cash grab definitely paying off. And I also want to say there was also a huge fundraising surge in smaller dollar contributions to Trump after he was found guilty. So it's not all just because of the shameless cash grab. It's also partly because of the cult of personality.
But there you go.
So it's it's working for him in terms of those goals, and I think he rightly he sees this landscape. Who he famously said, I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, they still be It's the case he could shoot his own original policy in the head on Fifth Avenue and people would still oh, well if Trump, if Trump said, it must be fine and all good.
Here's the question, how many of these boomers who are going to he listened to the Steve Bannon podcast whatever, it's war room, right, how are they even going to know the Trump flip flop? If that's the way that you milk toast criticize, They're not going to know same on Fox News. It's like, are they really going to cover this over on Fox for real? This is going to be part of the Jesse Waters monologue, Like not a chance. I'm waiting and I'm hoping that somebody will
actually have have some integrity on this issue. But you know, I'm not delusional. And the more that we look at all of the you know from this from the campaign so far, is this really is a road to help Because it's not just Trump, you know, who's holding big dollar fundraisers. Biden is doing it as well. Biden on these glitzy stages. He just had George Clooney and Julia Roberts. The art of the mega campaign fundraise seems to be more overt today than ever before.
True, right, there's not even a pretense around it. I mean, the Democrats don't even pretend like they're going to do campaign finance re forma right.
They just rent out what is it what they have that New York City place and they have three presidents up there and you get to pay fifteen hundred dollars or whatever a take and they raise twenty five million bucks in a single night. Why should they even tweet or hit your campaign in box. Sure they're gonna make some money, but the vast majority of the dollars have been coming in late for the Biden people. For him,
he doesn't want to go out there actively campaign. He just wants to go hit a room full of rich folks. Read Hoffman for example, another Silicon Valley billionaire. He's hold raising huge fundraisers for the Biden campaign. And I mean, don't get me wrong, by the way, eighty five percent or whatever a venture capitalists are still donating Democrat. It's just that there's also super ultra wealthy ones on the
right now as well. So in both cases, everybody is just getting in on the game, and it's more of a club of elite's at the top than ever before.
Really, So I'm not even sure that's true with the regard to the venture capitalist anymore.
If you look at Wall Street overall.
So Obama was the first Democrat that like won the Wall Street donation bid war right, he was able to outfunder him, and this was touted is like a positive thing at the time. By the way, anyway, since Obama, obviously with Hillary than Biden last time around, the Democrats have been sucking up more Wall Street cash than Republicans. Yes, right now, Trump is ahead of Biden, and it's the first time again since before since back during George W.
Bush.
So he has flipped that dynamic very successfully, and it's not only through these things. And we also covered how you know, he's just very naked. He'll go into room full of billionaires or you know, very high net worth individuals and tell them, listen, you got to give to me because I'm going to give your tax cut, like I'm going to make sure that there's a return on
investment in that cash. He went to oil executives and told them, hey, you need to raise a billion dollars for me, because I'm going to make you lots of money, and I'm going to roll back any sort of regulation I'm going to take. I'm going to completely unleash it. Like you do whatever you want. You're going to make a ton of money. It's going to be worth it for you. So there's a culture of just brazenness that I think has really developed. I mean, you know, Trump
always takes things to the next level. But the Supreme Court is basically said that unless you're literally like Bob Menendez, taking gold bars in exchange for explicit business promises, then it's all fine and good. So this is the hell that they have unleashed, where foreign policy is up for sale to the highest bidder, tax policy up for sale of the highest bidder, immigration policy up for sale of
the highest bidder. The funny thing too about the immigration policy, which again I support because I support higher immigration levels, and I do think that what Trump is talking about here would open a massive pathway to a lot more immigrants. And I do also think he makes a good point about no. Part of the reason that this country has been as strong and successful as it is is because we have been a magnet for the brightest minds around
the world through our university and education system. And to then say, okay, well, now that we've trained you up, you have to leave, I think is counterproductive in the terms of the national interests. But you know, the funny thing about it is to your point, soar if Biden proposed this, not a fucking chance, not a chance, not a chance would this be allowed through Trump could actually get it done, though, because you see the slavishness of the level of devotion to him, the cult like you know,
approach to anything that he utters. So if he actually I don't know if he will, I don't believe a word this man says. Who knows what he actually would do in office? But if he actually decided he wanted to deliver for David Sachs and about Paula Halpatilla and the other his other Silicon Valley buddies. And he's got Doug Bergham on the ticket, then I think there is a good chance.
That he does it.
And he could actually do it where Biden the Democrats couldn't. It's like the Nixon goes to China thing. It's like, you know, Clinton being the one who could actually end welfare. When you go against the grain of what your party typically stands for, you sort of force your own partisans into line. The other party may already agree with you, and then there you go. So the irony here is that if anyone was going to get this done, it would be Donald Trump.
Yeah, yeah, you're probably right, maybe he will do I will just say, look, we already have an O one visa. It's called a talent visa, and if you're allegedly so great, you can apply for it. Currently has a ninety seven percent acceptance rate. Just so people know, it's not like people are hard up right now for talent visas to the country. Let's go to the next part you alluded to, the vice president. Trump says he has picked his vice president. Let's go and put that up there on the screen.
Donald Trump told NBC News, quote, in my mind, yes, I picked the person that will quote most likely then be at the Thursday debate against Joe Biden. He says, they will be there. I think we have a lot of people come. So Trump said, nobody knows his choice yet. Currently there are multiple people who are in contention. NBC claims Doug Berghm, jd Vance, and Marco Rubio are quote, the possible top contenders. I don't know how much I
would take that list necessarily to the bank. But Doug Bergham, I don't think there's any chance is not near the top of the list. He is blank slate. People can go watch our interview with him, you know, if you're interested. It doesn't look in terms of his political experience and all that. Let's just be kind and say it's not near the big leagues. But he has been making the rounds on television and kind of slavishly selling himself as a Trump defender. Here, for example, is a recent interview
just gave yesterday talking about the veepstakes. Let's take a.
List, but the real thing which we ought to be talking about is Joe Biden's choice for VP, because as you showed earlier in the show with Joe, with him obviously failing right now in front of the world stage, in the national stage, and then he picked four years ago, someone who's got no busines experience, no operating experience.
Between Biden Harris, they've.
Never created a private sector job in their life. And then here we are facing a set of issues that a businessman like Trump can really take care of, which is our economy. Trump's proven that you can take care of the border, and Trump's energy policy is going to change the whole national security scene. So I think that the you know, the focus ought to be on Biden's choice. And who knows if Biden's even going to make it to the starting line.
So who knows if Biden's It's like, what, dude, answer the question. It's like, are you actually in the running for a VP or not. He also went on CNN he said Trump was a dictator or sorry, Biden was a dictator actually when asked a question about Trump. Let's flip this also, and let's go to the next part just to show you there's like multiple competing factions. As I understand it, Apparently Rupert Murdoch has been pushing Doug Bergham,
and he really doesn't like JD. Vance. Donald Trump Junior, though, has kind of his own coacherie of people. Him and JD Vance have become relatively close. JD for example, appeared on Trump Junior's podcast on Rumble Trump Juniors and tweeting about JD Vance. He wants somebody who's more ideologically aligned
with the quote unquote America First agenda. This is one of those where I just don't know who is going to win out All's look, it's certainly possible Trump picks somebody who ideologically could be his enforcer, somebody like JD. It is also equally possible that he picks somebody like
Marco Rubio. Now, one of the reasons that I've heard about Rubio Crystal is that they are very excited about the burgeoning Hispanic vote and they want somebody who can genuinely speak Spanish, who can cut ads for them that they could play all across South Texas, Florida, et cetera. The other one is that Trump himself right now is so beholden and so excited by cash and by billionaires
that Doug Bergum both has traditional Reaganite policy. Obviously he'll just say whatever he needs to say, you know, to take the job. He himself has got a lot of money, so he could both write checks and he can get a lot of rich friends, yeah, to donate. And he's not offensive in any way. Like he makes the billionaires very very happy and right now obviously they're in his ear and Trump has been taking a lot of advice
from them. Everything I've read currently is that the like old guard GOP, he has been donating a lot of money Trump. This time around, they're pushing Trump somebody like Burgham and Tim Scott very heavily. So we will find out. I doubt well, actually, I'm actually I'm curious. What do you think. Do you actually think he's going to tell us on debate day?
No?
Yeah, I don't think so. Why because you wouldn't want that to upstage whatever he's about to do. Yeah, maybe it'll be the day after. I'm not sure, but I.
Think he's going to wait till the RNC, I think to announce. I mean, I just think he'll want the bill, but exactly he wants the show. I mean to announce it, like at the debate or after that it's just kind of like lack the pop that he would that he would want. I don't know, I'm feeling the burgamentum who knows.
I think you're right.
I mean Tim Scott is another one where like the donor class really loves him, So I could see the logic there. Listen, Trump last time made a very strategic choice. He needed to back in twenty sixteen. He needed to solidify standing with evangelicals who were a little shaky with him. Mike Pence was the perfect pick, and I think was you know, really responsible for helping to get him over
the top at then, especially after Access Hollywood. It was a very clever choice, and Pence was incredibly loyal to him all the way up until basically January sixth, so you know, on every level, it was a tactically wise choice for Trump. I think he will make another choice that he feels to be in his tactical interest because remember, this man is not just fighting to get back in the White House. He really is also fighting for his
like freedom. Because there is a good chance that even though these various case the Document's case, for example, even though they've been slow rolled and are not going to come to some sort of conclusion before the election. If he doesn't win, he's facing tremendous legal jeopardy, and so I think that's something not to lose sight of, which is why I mean, listen, who knows. I don't have any special insight into the mind of Donald Trump, nor
do I want to. But I just find it hard to believe he's going to pick someone like Jade Vance because what does he bring? What does he bring? Coalitionally, you know, he doesn't bring. There's not a demographic group that Trump's gonna imagine he brings to the table. There's not a group of donors like the donors to If anything, they don't really like JD. Vans, like the Rupert Murdocks of the world, are uncomfortable with him. That's true, he
is friends. But the other thing is that like Jadvans is trying to channel what Trump said in twenty sixteen, and it's no longer actually an ideological match. Even so, I don't know, we'll see what direction he goes in. But given the ideological direction he's moved in, given what he's prioritized in terms of this campaign, I don't know there's a lot there in terms of like a Tim Scott or Doug Bergham, someone who really is ASoP to the donor class. And we should also say too and
give Biden his you know, his credit. It's not just that they've grown more comfortable with Trump and he's given the Hey, i'll give you your tax cuts, I'll give your deregulation. I'll you know, flip flop on TikTok, I'll flip flop on crypto, flip flop on carried interest, like whatever you want, I'll do before immigration. It's also that Wall Street really
hates Biden's Anti trust division. In particular. They hate it because so many Wall Street like rank and file workers, they get their bonuses based on mergers and acquisitions, and Biden's anti trust division has really put a lid on all new mergers and acquisitions. So that is a big part of why Wall Street really dislikes Joe Biden in particular, really dislikes Lena Khan, who he has sort of turned the policy over towards and has really charted a much
better course in terms of anti trust enforcement. And they absolutely hate that. I'm sure they're not in love. Also with the you know, the new labor organizing in the way Joe Biden's n L RBS positioned. But I do think anti trust is sort of like the key rub for them. So it's not just that they're more comfy with Trump. It's also that they're unhappy with some of the Biden economic policies and the way it's hurt their bottom line.
Yeah, certainly, Look, don't get me wrong, they don't like him, you know Trump Also it helped if Trump is like, yeah, sure, whatever you want. In terms of the polity last time around it was a little bit different. We will see. Certainly, I think Jdy' still got a decent shot just because Trump Junior really likes him. And do you think do.
You think the dad cares what Trump Junior thinks?
I just really kind of doubt what I think is at FaceTime at mar A Lago matters with a man who's constantly pulling people around him, and I know JD's basically benness.
I get a vibe of a lot of disrespect towards Don Junior from Dad.
I'm more saying that's how he's been able to get in. Look, he likes people who go on TV. JD goes on TV and defends him, So does Doug Burgham, so does Tim Scott JD actually is articulate versus some of the other candidates there who are in the race. Coalitionally, it's true. I mean, Ohio, You're gonna win Ohio no matter what. Again, it really feels about how comfortable he is in a victory and what it's going to look like, and also the optics that he wants on television, because Trump himself
doesn't like to go in and do all. He likes the spar but he just want to do the daily hits, Whereas I think the VP candidate, just like all of these people have been all over television. He wants them on TV constantly defending him like a surrogate. So who he thinks will representatively do a really good job against Kamala Harris and also just on television constantly defending him. That is what's going to come into play because he's always about the optics and about how it's going to
look going into the race. So I'm curious too to see what he does. I would give all of them a relatively egal shot, I do think Burgham. I don't know, I'm just feeling Doug Burgham, Yeah, yeah, as well, maybe I'm.
It would be so funny because you guys got to go back and watch the interview.
I never in a million years would have thought he had shot at anything.
Is just go watch it. Just go watch it. That's all I have to say.
All right, let's move to the next part. And this is very relevant to many of the things that we talk about here on the show, just about how gen Z may actually have it worse off financially than millennials. Millennials who graduated into a terrible economy with sluggish employment. Well, it turns out inflation plus sluggish employment may be the worst of all worlds. So let's put this up there on the screen. We have here the article, but let's actually go to the next part with the charts, because
this really demonstrates to everybody. So here we have gen Z inflation adjusted change for sixteen to twenty four year olds who are spending one hundred and forty percent more on vehicle insurance, one hundred and ten percent more on housing, with a real wage increase of just twenty five to thirty percent, so barely keeping up with the level of food inflation, with housing and with car insurance dramatically outpacing it by almost fivefold. If you go to the next part,
you can actually see this as well. The average credit card balance has increased the most for people who are Gen Z forty two point nine percent, right up there with our fellow millennials at forty two and a half percent, twenty nine percent for Gen X, just fourteen percent for boomers, and seven percent for the Silent generation. Next part please as well, you can see here being hit hard the
war inflation. The way that they calculate that is just about the level of price increase over the course of your working life. So obviously you can see there for millennials and for gen Z, but there's also a lot of goods and services that people need to spend on necessities whenever they're younger. That's going to take up a huge,
more bigger portion of their income. And that gets us to the last chart, if we can put that, please, the outside share on necessities, where you can see that compared to all ages, rent is twenty percent of a Gen Z overall spending just six percent eight percent for all ages, so almost three times more over there for rent. Dining out is roughly similar, car insurance roughly similar, but gas is higher. The rent equation and housing just shows us again how much worse it is for the younger
that you are. You're not in a house, which means you are subject to the worst single part of inflation with housing, with rent and your inability also to s save to buy that house. So it all comes back to housing. As they say, and as we continue to say here on the show, it.
Really is astonishing when you think about it, when you think about, you know, millennials, we're basically like in college or graduating into this massive economic crisis where the bottom just completely fell out, and that impacted impacted millennials employment, It impacted their earning prospects. Really that lingers actually throughout
an entire career for sure. And so even though you had this massive economic crash, just the fact of how much housing, food, car insurance, health insurance, how much those costs have gone up, has actually made it so that even without this you know, singular financial crash type event, gen z is doing worse than millennials at the same point in their lives. It really is quite eye opening,
it truly is. And just to get go over a couple of the numbers again, gen Z workers, they're more likely to go to college, they're more likely to have jobs, and they make more money right in nominal terms, not of inflation and justine nominal terms, than millennials did. So you look at that and say, okay, well, they should be doing pretty good, right wrong, because they're paying thirty one percent more for housing than millennials did when they
graduated college after ingesting for inflation. Car insurance by people sixteen to twenty four more than doubled over that time period. Health insurance spending forty six percent increase from when millennials were coming out of college and having to figure out health insurance. So when you add all of those things up and then you look at tepid wage growth that does not even come close to comparing, it is quite astonishing.
And it also obviously dovetails with our politics. And you know, all these people, oh, the economy's great and non employments low, stock market is a lot. You think these people have investments in the stock market. They're just trying to be able to afford a grocery bill. They're just trying to be able to make it in terms of rent. I mean, that's really one that's such an incredible burden. And so of course they don't feel like the economy is good.
Of Course they don't feel like this economy was designed to work for them, because it's not. And it's also really explains why you've seen such an age divergence in terms of perceptions and reality of the economy.
And then that's.
Trickling down into political choices obviously, but it's quite something to see it laid out like this.
Yeah, well we have some of that. Actually, CBS News just put out a new pull about young people.
Now.
Whether we agree with the actual numbers on Biden or Trump or not, they had good insight into what the outlook of this generation is. Let's take a listen.
We're going to look at all the key groups in this election, but I wanted to start with this one. What's interesting about them is they feel like they've already been tested in their lives. This is a generation the younger part of them who were in high school or college during COVID and the lockdowns, and most of them tell us that interrupted their education. They also look back say they were more concerned about gun violence during those
years than older generations. But what's really interesting here is they are also feeling like the older generation has handed them, has left them a world that's more dangerous and a climate that's worse, and that motivates a lot of the issues that they care about. Having said that, Margaret, you can look at polling from the sixties when the Baby Boomers were the young generation, then from the nineties when it was Gen X. There have always been generation gaps
in America. But for this generation today, they're the most racially diverse generation that the country has ever seen, and that comes out in their politics too. They tell us they feel that politics would be better not just with more young people in it, but also with more minority voices in politics, with more women in elected office, and they feel that way much more so than the oldest generation does.
So there you go. Also, the funny thing is as usual media, they're like, oh, race and all that, Like, yeah, what about some diverse opinion. That's really what I think a lot of people are thinking as well. So as usual people, they can see it on the surface, but then they never estimate their own culpability. But we can't put our own people off the hook. We don't vote, you know, even close to the same numbers. Not enthused, not excited, not engage, in the political process, lack a
lot of more community roots. There's a lot of reasons for that, but structurally it just means you're not going to have as much of a voice, you know, in the system, and thus the system chugs along for the old for the boomers, and for the silent generation.
Yeah, I mean, they're certainly not wrong that the way the economy has been set up and the ideological project, you know, predominantly of the boomers has it's massively inflated asset prices.
So what does that mean.
That means that they're like, Okay, my parents were able to get a home. Remember the concept of a starter home, you know, the idea that you like, get a job and then you can buy it. Likes that's dead, that doesn't exist. I don't know if I'll ever be able to buy a home, is what they're thinking. They're looking at the cost continuing to go up and up and up. Mortgage rates obviously have you know, made it so much
more expensive. You're competing now against Wall Street buyers who are coming in or people who are already you know, wealthy and older who can put plunk down all cash offers. You just feel like you don't stand a chance. You feel like your parents' generation had a lot more opportunities open to.
Them than you do.
And you know that's really antithetical to our self conception as a country, like the idea of the country, the sort of like you know, the core American dream ideas. Things just keep getting better, and you know, we as parents too, like it'll even I'll be able to pass forward something to my kids that will be even better
and they'll have more opportunities than I did. Young people don't feel it that way, and they haven't felt that way for quite a while, really since the financial crash, I think and everybody who has come after, and inflation has been such an incredible burden for this generation.
To be able to cope with.
The wages have ticked up some, but it's not nearly an enough to deal with when you look at things like health, insurance, housing, etc.
Well, you referenced starter homes. I was telling you. I read that book about Grand Expectations about America. It was really inspirational. Honestly, it was a cool country. We used to build a lot of stuff. We had these things called Levittowns. They're very famous with starter homes. So I'm looking in Levittown, New York, in the neighborhood that was supposed to be starter homes, which were very available to
the average middle class. The cheapest house that I can find in Levittown is four hundred and fifteen thousand dollars. That is a complete starter up, and it's a condo. It's a one bed, one bath if you want a fourteen hundred, fourteen hundred square foot house, which is like kind of redone but still done in the nineteen fifties
whenever it was born. Six hundred and fifty k good luck, good luck pains, six hundred and fifty five thousand dollars four house that was built what in the nineteen fifties starter home fourteen hundred square feet which was considered a starter home at that time, and no garage parking. That's the country that we live in right now. And that's like, I mean, we're not talking about Manhattan, We're talking about Levittown, you know, far away. It's probably still what in hour
driver something like that. And there's a couple of other Levittowns across America. I think one inn PA as well, similar in terms of their prices. There's a good ride up there about how all the old starter homes from the nineteen fifties to the nineteen seventies are now are selling for orders of magnitude more in terms of percentage of income than they did at a time. So we have a crisis and nobody just seems to care about it.
And that's why, you know, the rent piece of this for the younger generation, I think, you know, they're going to be the most like pro housing generation ever just because they got more screwed than anybody else. Yeah, it's going to take a long time before a lot of the boomer political power phase away.
Yeah, no, that's right.
Very excited to be joined today by Peter Goodman. He is the global economics correspondent for the New York Times, and more importantly for our purposes, let's put this up on the screen.
He's the author of.
A terrific new book, How the World Ran Out of Everything, that takes a look at the catastrophe of the supply chain on every level during COVID and also takes it back to, you know, the origins of what created so much fragility and some lesson learns, lessons learned from moving forward. Great to see you, Peter, congratulations in the book.
Great to see you guys. Thanks so much so.
I just gave my little synopsis. But why didn't you talk about why you wanted to write this book? Because you were covering all of these major backups, nawfoos, shortages, et cetera as they were unfolding, right.
I mean, I never expected to write about such a wonky subject as the global supply chain. I mean, it's kind of in everything that I've written about for the last three decades. But to go hard at it, I mean it happened really because we all discovered that this system that we don't think about it. I mean, it's a series of overlapping systems, a whole army of people who make our products and get them to our door.
It just kind of buckled and collapsed right when we needed it most.
I mean I was living in London and lockdown Down had a baby born in the first wave.
Of the pandemic.
Our son was born on April eighth, twenty twenty, and my wife was pretty stoic about the fact that, you know, I couldn't be in the hospital an hour after he was born. We couldn't get the usual national health service checkups, and her parents couldn't fly in from New York to help with the baby. But where we all just kind of lost it was then we get home and we discovered that we can't find hand sanitizer anywhere, and we can't even find the ingredients.
To make hand sanitize her.
And this was just sort of cosmically bewildering, and I think most people can relate to that. So as I found myself writing about all of the constituent components of this collapse, the container shipping crisis, the supposed shortage of truck drivers and warehouse workers, which was really just the result of downgrading people's jobs to the point where we ran out of people willing to do them in the middle of a pandemic, I realized that this was indeed a book, right.
I mean, no, you did a fantastic job here, and we have this book review, which I think is really hits at the crux of what we're talking about. We can put it up there on the screen. Was global
trade a mistake? You can tell us whether you agree with that question or not, But most importantly you focus in on just in time manufacturing and how the entire modern consumer economy was constructed around this global exchange of goods, and that with a supply shock like the pandemic, it threw things for a loop that had devastating consequences for a lot of American consumers. So where do you follow on the question and specifically here with just in time manufacturing.
Well, I don't think global trade or just in time manufacturing and mistakes. I think the mistake was allowing a system to be constructed by publicly traded, profit maximizing corporations that were largely deregulated to do these things while we're in the thrall of this kind of ruthless form of efficiency that, as I demonstrated in the book, isn't actually
that efficient. We can get into this in detail, but you know, one of the most incredible things I discovered in the book was in the middle of the pandemic, rail companies were actually sending cargo to the wrong destinations, intentionally resulting in delays and product shortages because they were so obsessed with proving to Wall Street that they were lowering their dwell time. You know this metric that had currency on Wall Street, that's how long cargo sits in any particular place.
So I found this engineer in Idaho who.
Is just appalled to discover that he's hauling things to the wrong destinations because some guy running a railyard in Nebraska is just attaching cargo to whatever the next train is that's moving out of there, never mind who happens to be waiting for that cargo. So the mistake was
allowing monopoly companies, you know, to develop. I mean, a lot of the industries that I'm writing about, transportation, meat packing, have you know leaders who have market share that would make the robber barons blush and just in time was this idea pioneered by Toyota at the end of the Second World War that instead of just making as much stuff as we possibly could a la Henry Ford, just make what you need to replenish the cars that you've
already sold. Get your suppliers to bring parts and raw materials to the assembly line just as you need them. That worked out very well for Toyota. It dropped consumer prices very low. It did reduce a lot of waste,
But along comes again the paramounts of shareholder interest. I spent a lot of time looking at the role of McKinsey and other consultants in turning Just in Time into this crude imperative for companies to just slash inventory to the bone, take the money that they used to waste as they see it, sticking parts and warehouses as a hedge against trouble like the pandemic, and then just give them money to themselves through executive compensation, through bonuses, through
dividend and share buybacks that make the investor class unhappy, but leave the rest of us running out of all sorts of vital things, you know, basic chemicals to make medicines, protective gear in the middle of the pandemic, computer chips, which means we can't make medical devices. I mean, we are still right now paying the costs of this successive embrace of just in Time.
I think one of the most important reasons to read your book also is to really wrap your head around some of the ways that we were really lied to during this period of time. For example, a sort of micro example, you know, we were told, oh, there's this shortage of truckers, like people just they don't want to work, They just don't want to work hard.
So there's not enough truckers.
So you know what we need to do is actually get Congress to fund these education programs that, by the way, way the trucking companies are going to nobly run. And I'm sure that's not you know, that's not a kickback whatsoever. Instead of actually looking at the fact you've made it so people cannot live on these jobs, you're putting them in massive debt. Of course you have a short of
strucker because you've made the job so incredibly miserable. And then at the macro level, So that's a sort of micro example that I'd love you to talk more about because I think it's a really really important one. But also at the macro level, you know, the big story about inflation.
Wasn't they did.
They'd say something about the supply chain, but the real problem was that people got money during the pandemic. Oh, they got the child tax credit, they got those direct checks, and people went out there and they were spending money like crazy. And that was the That was the one and only cause of inflation. Was this spending that benefited
average people. Your book really takes a look at the way that that at its core was also an incredible lie in service of you know, people who in service of people's ideological project in service of hiding these corporate shenanigans also, and just a sort of greedy profit maximization that you expose as well.
Yeah, I really agree cciate that. Careful read. It's true that time and again.
I mean this to me is sort of reminiscent of how you know, the subprime mortgage crisis gets blamed, or really the derivatives crisis that then trashes the financial system, that trashes the regular economy that all of us depend on, that gets blamed on.
Poor people, you know, who were greedy.
About buying houses and instead of the Wall Street players who gorged on synthetic derivatives. And you know, again we're told to your point, Crystal, that yeah, inflation is you know, the cause of is the result of having you know, helped people who were thrown out of work or who couldn't pay their bills, and you know, they went out and just extravagantly blew it all on pelotons and the supply chain couldn't handle it. Now we're dealing with inflation.
I mean, the reality is that engineered scarcity is part of our global economy, and monopoly power is not some sort of accident. It's the result of corporate strategies. And you know, in fact, I tell the story of how the Trump administration used an executive order to keep workers laboring in slaughterhouses, even when it was very clear that they were super spreaders. When local public health authorities across the country said, we've got to shut these plants down.
People are getting sick.
And the Trump administration dropped this executive order that forced, among others, a woman whose story I tell in the book, a refugee from meandmar named Tin I, who kept going to work, was one of five people who died at the Greeley, Colorado plant owned by JBS Foods. This is
the world's largest meat packer. It's run by two convicted felons from Brazil who fraudulently amassed tens of billions of dollars to buy up slaughterhouses for companies control eighty five percent of the meat packing capacity in the United States. And the cynicism of this executive order was premised on the idea that if we don't keep people laboring in slaughterhouses,
Americans are going to go hungry. And in fact, as I reveal in the book, at the time when this order drops, the meat packers including JBS, are sitting on record volumes of frozen product. They're exporting product to China, among other places. So we asked Tini and other slaughterhouse workers to sacrifice their lives in the name of feeding everyone. Where really we were just funneling fattern profits to monopoly companies.
And that is the reveal of this book again and again that we blame, to your point, truck drivers for somehow losing their appetite for driving trucks. We've got ten times I'm sorry, We've got three times as many people as we need with commercial driver's licenses in the United States. Why is it that so many people walk away from truck driving? Well, I spent three days riding along with the truck driver from Kansas City down to Dallas and
back in the middle of winter. And boy, I can tell you from having slept in the bunk for a couple of nights, from being there as this driver is worrying about where's.
He going to park.
He's got to caffeinate enough to not fall asleep at the wheel, but not so much that he has to stop and use the restroom.
I mean, these are the sorts.
Of thoughts that fill the heads of people were entrusting to deliver stuff while we're asking them to be away from their families, to have less and less control over their schedules, to be at the mercy of this just in time system where we basically treat them like their own time and their family time is limitless and valueless.
Yeah, I mean, Peter, one of the things that you write about is that, and also that they mentioned in their view, you know naive enough to think that this is just going to go away, But we are going to have to reach some equilibrium. What does the future look like.
I mean, we're going to we have to welcome this labor mobilization. Because Henry Ford, who's a very problematic character, who I he was quite a bit.
In the book.
He did know a thing or two about supply chains and mass assembly. He said directly, as he doubled wages for workers in nineteen fourteen and was called a communist by parts of the business world, he said, look, I'm a capitalist. I'm trying to make my products, trying to drop the price really low so they can have mass appeal. And I need people showing up for work who aren't worried about paying their own bills and who are happy
to be there and feel part of it. It's a and he specifically said, any business that's premised on low wage labor is inherently unreliable. So we should embrace the fact that, you know, rail workers I traveled with traveling maintenance crews, that they've managed to extract some paid sick leave, not enough, but some through Biden's bleed pulpit, resolving their threat of a strike.
We should we should be happy that dock.
Workers, who are often treated as sort of aristocrats or the supply chain, you know, their only move is to threaten to monkey wrench the supply chain to get more job security in the face of automation. We should be glad that they're well paid. I mean, those those are tough jobs. Truck driving has always been a difficult job. But back when the teamsters weren't charge, you know, another problematicgainst, but nonetheless an illustration of what happens to wages and
working conditions when there's strong labor power. We didn't have a shortage of truck drivers back when the teamsters were in charge. So we don't want to go back to the seventies. We don't want the government setting the prices of everything, but we need more transparency in the market. We need the international shipping cartel, something we haven't talked about. You know, there's basically three alliances, like air alliances, that dominate the most lucrative routes across the Pacific and from
Asia to Europe. We need regulations so that these entities are treated more like utilities. I mean, utilities make money, their profit making entities. But we understand that electricity is really vital. We don't think about it much, but when it fails, we sure do. And we need to take the same approach to these crucial components of the supply chain.
I have a media question for you, which is I'm thinking specifically about the meat shortage thing, which I saw covered, you know, credulously across a lot of meat outlets of oh my god, there's going to be a meat shortage, and oh, I guess we just have to keep these letterhouses going.
What are you going to do?
You may have written about it and I missed it, but I didn't see reported anywhere what you just said about how actually they were sitting on this tremendous surplus that they were, you know, selling to China and had frozen and.
Freezers and whatever.
This was never actually going to be an issue. So why is that?
Why was the oh we're going to run out of bacon and we're going to run on a pork story? Why did so much of the media run with that and not actually even do just the basics of checking, like is this even actually true?
Well, I think it would have been hard to check the part about the surplus in real time, because it took Congress actually using its power to demand documents to produce some emails that brought that home. But I will say this, you know, I mean it's not just my colleagues and the media, it's also you know, mainstream economists. I mean, we like to think about supply and demand because we learned about it in textbooks in college and
grad school. And let's face it, supply and demand is a really beautiful model that does explain certainly part of these supply chain shocks. I think that market concentration and monopoly power, you know, these are things that we're kind of trained not to think about. And the economists who are easiest for beat reporters to get hold of generally work for companies that are interested in making equities go up. I mean, that's just the reality. That's not some sort
of conspiracy. That's just the reality that a reporter who's on deadline, who needs an economist to make sense of some arcane subject that they don't really know about they need to get expert enough to write about in the next fifteen minutes, can easily get hold of somebody at a bank that's invested in making equities go up to
go find somebody who really understands monopoly power. There's a good chance to that person is that some nonprofit and they're busy dealing with some sick kid who's home from school, or.
You know, they can't afford child kids.
I mean, there's just friction in the system there, and so it's not something that we're trained to think about much. Once you start to see monopoly power in the economy, you can't unsee it.
Once you're there, you're there.
And I do hope that my book will be part of I think a movement amongst those of us thinking about it to bring that home for people. And I hope no one will ever see a package that lands at their door, you know, the same ever again.
And my last question Peter Is. You know, obviously you learned a lot. Your book is helping us learn a lot about what actually went wrong during the pandemic, about how this almost like religious devotion to cutting inventory created all this fragility that you know, wasn't in the interest of anyone, wasn't even in the interest medium to long term interest of these these companies that were so you know.
Devoted to that direction.
But do you think that in a deeper sense, like the country, those companies, policymakers actually learned anything from what should have been an incredibly searing experience.
I think policy makers have learned something.
I mean, I think it's not an accident that the Biden administration is now engaging in industrial policy, whatever you think about that, and we're spending tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to make sure that computer chips are made in the United States. There's a concerted effort to make sure that the electric vehicle industry has time to develop in the US, which is why there are trade protections against Chinese imports. Again, reasonable people can disagree about
the permutations of this. I mean, I talk to people all the time who say climate change is not going to wait for us to sort out the trading rules. You know, we need to buy what's needed right now to deal with that crisis. But clearly there's been a policy shift in the United States in terms of the people who run publicly traded corporations. Yes, there's a push to diversify away from heavy reliance on China.
I mean, I just came back from a couple of weeks.
In India where Walmart is shifting production that used to be in China.
It's not an abandonment of China.
China is going to continue to be, you know, right at the center of global manufacturing. It's a sort of marginal shift. I mean, fifteen years ago, if you flew down to Bentonville, Arkansas, and you were trying to get your product on the shelf of a superstore, the Walmart
buyer would ask you, well, where's this product made? And if the answer was something other than China, you had a problem because that indicated that you weren't making it at the cheapest possible price or at the most efficient scale. And now if the answer is only China, you have a problem. That's viewed as you're putting us at risk of these geopolitical ships. I mean, you got the Trump tariffs on imports from China. Now the Biden tariffs continued.
Whoever wins the presidential election in November, you could pretty much count on trade animosity between the US and China continuing.
You got the shipping crisis. So these things are changing.
But you know, as I say in the book, I am dubious that the further away we get from the pandemic, this will stick. Because the simple fact is that if you are running a company that's publicly traded and you're suggesting that we move production away from the lowest cost provider, or we think about more redundancy, or let's put more parts in a warehouse, you're essentially arguing, let's dilute the
next quarter's earnings. And Wall Street might punish you for that, and by the time some crisis happens that will reveal that we should all be grateful that you took these steps.
It's a good chance you're out of a job.
Whereas if you're still saying, let's carry on with the same sort of globalization that we've all lived through for the last three decades, there will be a shock. I mean, there will be another pandemic, a typhoon. You know, who knows something we're not thinking about that will reveal that as folly. But with any luck, by then you know, you'll be on some beach, you know, in a hammock hoisting a cocktail.
It'll happen on somebody else's watch.
And that short termism that has driven our particular kind of capitalism and globalization is still with us.
Yeah.
I mean, basically, if you're arguing for those sorts of redundancies, because so much of executive compensation is tied to the stock price, you're basically arguing for cutting your own pay, which they are probably pretty unlikely to go in that direction. I just want to say to people, it is a wonky subject.
It's a very readable book.
You take us through a small businessman in what was in Mississippi trying to get his product manufactured and time for Christmas, and you use that as a story to go through each of these pieces of the supply chain which completely collapsed during COVID, and help us make sense retrospectively of some of the things we were experiencing in our own lives and draw some lessons from the future. I really highly recommend it and I really appreciate you, Peter taking some time with us this morning.
Appreciate Oh, I really appreciate you guys. Thank you so much for your excellent questions.
It's our pleasure, all right.
Thank you guys so much for watching with a great show for everyone tomorrow, and we'll see you all later