Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news.
Welcome to Meren Talks Money, the podcast in which people who know the markets explain the markets.
I'm Maren Sumset Web.
This week we discussed the return of Donald Trump to the White House and what the strength of his victory means for the American economy and just as important for this program, possibly more important for this program, which is second term, could mean for the UK, for Europe, and for global markets. With me economists also and former advisor to US President George W. Bush, Pipper Malngram and Helen Thomas, founder and seer Blonde Money and Independent Service, which provides
commentary on politics, macroeconomics and finance. Regular listeners to the podcast will note both of these brilliant people already. Hello, Helen, Hello, Popper, Hello, Hello.
Now.
One of the reasons we've asked you both on beyond your obvious brilliance, is that you both called this right in a world which most people were calling it wrong. You both predicted that Donald Trump would be POTUS forty seven. You were both correct. Now, I don't want to dwell on that. There's been an awful lot of broadcasting over the last day or so about how this happened, why he won, why the Democrats didn't want, what went wrong for them, what went right for him, etc.
So I don't want folks on that.
I just want to say to both of you, well done, and then move on to talking about what it actually means. So Pepper, you're in Washington, you're right there, scene of the crime. Tell us what your immediate expectations are for the UK economy as a whole as a result of this.
Oh okay, well, first, that was a big question.
I'm sorry that was a very big question. But it's just getting us going.
No, I get it. The thing is, first we have to understand what just happened. And in a nutshell I would say, yes, Donald Trump won, but actually it's kind of a it's a tech broke coup of the country. So we now have the Silicon Valley tech bros are really going to be running things, and that was orchestrated by Robert F. Kennedy and Nicole Shanahan, who got zero coverage during this election. But it was their youth vote
that swung the vote into Trump's camp. So once we understand, okay, their goal is to come in and to bring all of their high tech tools to the government databases and extract the maximum information so they can reveal what is really going on versus what is the perception of what is going on. And they are all over getting to
innovation outcomes that would give us abundance. So we're going to see a much faster move into, for example, new forms of clean green energy, new ways of managing the budget and the deficit, with the knowledge that AI analysis brings with it. That's where we start. Now what does it mean for the UK? Well, it didn't help.
Okay, hang on, hang up, Pep, But let me take you back one little bit, because that was really interesting. So what you're saying here is we haven't really got a Trump presidency. We've got a Musk presidency.
We've got a Trump Musk presidency, and between the two of them, Musk is going to be much more important and influential on the actual outcomes.
Okay.
So that sounds from an economic point of view, incredibly positive. So we bring the tech bros in, you get that wave of innovation, you get I mean we're being very optimistic here, you get massive efficiency drive inside government. So maybe you end up with the smaller state, possibly not in terms of services, but certainly as a percentage of GDP, and that leads you, as it should, to very good economic growth.
Indeed, and add to that, there's a really important element of this, which is Trump wants to move the United States away from income tax and back to what we used to have in the old days, which was revenue generated by tariffs and now value added tax. Now, the thing that's always prevented the US from having a VAT is that every single state argued about how much of
it should go to them. But now with the sweep that we have, it's going to be easier to get a negotiated outcome of what's the split between federal and state. And so the market needs to think, what does America look like if it has less reliance on income tax and more reliance on a combination of tariffs and VAT.
Okay, fascinating, Helen.
Does that description of what's happened and where we are now resonate with you?
It does, because I certainly agree on the optimism here on the macroeconomics about you know, higher growth and probably higher inflation. But the two of those going hand in hand are no bad thing. I think the key element here on this, As you say, we don't want to dwell on of what's gone before. But the important message to take is that there is a mandate. There is
a mandate. Now we don't have all the results in, but obviously there has been a significant rise in the Republican vote across all different kinds of demographics, and that is significant because with the mandate you can start to do some of the revolutionary things you just heard Pipper talking about. This is so important when you take it in the context of how much bigger the state has become since COVID everywhere you know, everyone has incurred these
massive amounts of debt. So you know, what are you going to do about that? When interest rates are higher and the interest you're paying on that debt is eating away?
What the state can do? What should the state do?
You know, we're having these really big questions that we had maybe thirty forty years ago that we thought had been solved, and now they're back. But where I'm optimistic for America as a result of this election, and look, I'm not. I don't have It doesn't matter what I think in terms of my particular politics. It's about the cold hard facts of what can be done. You have an administration now that he's going to be able to approach the economy in a more revolutionary way, that's for sure, okay.
And that revolution will involve this technological invasion of government, and it will involve and that the tariffs are interesting. You both talk as though being able to put tariffs on important goods is a positive rather than a negative for America.
That doesn't fit with global economic theory.
No, no, no, it's not that it's a positive. It's just a fact that that is where Trump is going to go. And he sees tariffs as a negotiating tool, so you know, hit China with big tariffs, but if they agree to comply on other subjects, then he can always lift those And then they start to be a combination of not only a useful negotiating tool, but and they generate revenue. So I'm not saying, you know, tariffs and keep them in place. These will be used in
a fluid method. And no, they're not great. Jeff Bezo sold a ton of his stock right before the election because you can see Amazon's going to get whacked by these tariffs, right. It's not great from a trade point of view. But it is where this president is, and it does matter if your revenue sources shift from income tax to more in the tariff camp. So I'm just saying this is happening, and not necessarily that it's good. It's just occurring.
Also the case with tariffs, you know, they are a multi round game, so you know, in one round you could really benefit. And as Pip is saying, there, then it you know, the game keeps going and maybe it's shifts. And also you know there's some elements with the US where you know, perhaps if there is more bringing more manufacturing home, or there is more innovation done domestically, then it's one of those you know, this beg of our neighbor idea, But if you're the front runner, then you
can you can gain some of the advantages. I mean, I would just I would broadly say that although yes, economic theory generally would suggest tariffs a battle round and we're all end up as net losers, some people will lose more than others, and the strength and the muscles of the US economy and someone who's prepared to do deals could well still see America be more of a benefiting from that than others.
Okay, absolutely, I'd throw into that as well. We're in a very different world now where the US is able to manufacture competitively again, and China has lost its edge. It is no longer the cheapest and highest quality place to produce things. Mexico has become that location, and so the corridor between Mexico and the US that is the
most important supply chain in the world. Now. It's funny because everybody talks about the immigration from Mexico being such a big problem, but nobody mentions all the people getting in private jets flying down to Mexico to complete what is the most sophisticated, highest quality, the most deeply integrated supply chain into US manufacturing. And Trump has been crystal clear about providing all kinds of government incentives for manufacturing
to happen inside the US. So then the issue of tariffs is very different than it was ten years ago when the US had given away all of its manufacturing to outsourcing.
I mean, you and I've talked about that on this podcast before. Bit brand.
Over the years, it's been a relatively fast shift to the US fully revamping its industrial base.
Well, you know, I was involved in manufacturing drones in the UK roughly ten years ago, and you know, everybody thought I was crazy, because you know, why would you even think about competing with the Chinese? And yet what I learned is that you can manufacture in the UK because the labor component of modern high tech goods is ever smaller all the time, So you're not really trying to work out the labor piece, you're trying to work out the intellectual property piece. And also, you know, there's
an incentive to make things in the West. In a world where you're, let's say, not at war with China, but you're in a really hostile confrontation with China, you don't want to be reliant on stuff that's made there. And so suddenly the whole game shifted towards actually, we can manufacture again, and we are in the West.
It's interesting you both were very clear on your belief that Trump was going to win this, and a lot of people believe that the Trump trade was to a degree in the price. But as the results became clear yesterday, markets moved very dramatically. So equity market moved very sharply. Bond markets also moved very sharply. Is this temporary or do you think we're about to see. Let's take equities first to market that we've been talking about for a while.
It's much too expensive on every single historical measure, much too concentrated, and certainly on this podcast incorrectly we've been saying people must diversify away from America's sharpers. Are they're going to be in a whole pile of trouble because they're buying at the top of the market.
Where does it go from here?
Well, I would jump in and say again this you talk about the historical valuations, but the there is a historical moment here where we're having We've had the technological revolution. You're hearing from Pipper about how this is kind of going into a it's changing.
Gears now under the under the new administration.
So I think you can look once more at evaluations getting even more extended. To be honest with you, at least in the short term. I mean, I could you talk about it being in the price but not. I mean, no, it couldn't. It can't ever really be because there was so much other information being flown around there. I mean, I'm surprised at how people thought it was going to be close. We never thought that it would be particularly close,
particularly in the electoral college results. But I think you know markets that they never go fully all in on something. Apart from that guy on the polymarket trades, the French trades, he loved it, but you know that, I think. And also, of course you had to see what was going to happen, and we still don't exactly know about the House representatives, but you know, you had to see the whole sweep happen and truly believe in it. So I think there's an element of it wasn't all in the price because
it couldn't be. Some people didn't agree with it, some people use different data, and people are only just really coming to terms with what it actually means.
Does this give you a newfound confidence in the US equity market and so in any particular areas.
Yeah, I think that people have not understood what's coming. So for example, Trump was crystal clear that he is giving Kennedy the mandate to go after pharma and big food and he will do that aggressively. So there needs to be a repricing in that sector because people haven't understand what a big deal that is going to be. At the same time, he immediately said, but Bobby gets that, but I get to drill, baby, drill right. I'm going after the liquid gold, and so that gets repriised because
we have a presidential commitment the oil sector. I think people haven't understood that the tech bros Are actually in charge now and therefore, I mean, yesterday the price of everything Elon Musk is involved with went up, and that makes sense because he's now on the inside of government effectively. So I think it's not just up or down, it's also within the market what things are overpriced and underpriced.
I would say this too. This is a moment where artificial intelligence and the tools and the capabilities that it brings are now going to be unleashed on government efficiency, and therefore we're going to see some dramatic changes in government policy. People don't understand what those changes are going
to be. That's a big thing. And a second factor is the Chevron decision which the Supreme Court gave us before the election, which basically said, whatever Congress passes legislation, it then is up to the agencies to interpret what the heck does it actually mean. Well, that administrative guidance, which has been central to the valuation of companies, is no longer permissible. The Supreme Court has said, you cannot interpret anymore. You have to go back to Congress and
ask them what did you mean? And of course Congress is not going to reopen everything to answer administrative type questions, so there's going to be this blockage impasse as the private sector is like, wait, wait, what is the rule? Right? What do we actually do? What does this legislation mean? And I'm sure there are valuation changes that will arise from this new phenomena that people haven't thought through.
Okay, but across the board, you now have what sounds like the perfect combo, which is going to be AI plus very cheap energy.
Yeah, oh yeah.
And this is one of the things that makes America special, certainly makes it special at the moment, is not just cheap energy, but a doubling down on cheap energy to drive to make it cheaper and cheaper. Of course, we think exactly the opposite in the in the UK, and we can come to that later. But you know, that combo sounds like it might be rather interesting.
I think this is really an incredible moment in American history, again not because of Trump, but because of the door being open to technology. Being brought to bear on a very rickety, old fashioned, you know, non modernized architecture of government. If we can make all that more efficient, there are going to be incredible benefits. And this sort of attitude to the private sector of telling the American public go build, go build, go build anything that you think is going
to work, and government's going to support that. It's going to be friendly to entrepreneurs, it's you know, going to be friendly to reshoring on shoring. Yeah, all that has to be reflected. And let me add one more thing. Also, we have a president who said I will cut a deal with the Russians on Ukraine and the war will end, and just before the election said again, the US doesn't have a national security interest in Taiwan, so let's cut
a deal with the Chinese over Taiwan. Well, all of a sudden, and we've already had these announcements, which I keep wondering are they actually are accurate. And much as people might really dislike Trump, for no doubt many good reasons, this piece is probably the most valuable. If we end up in a peace dividend environment, markets are going to go up, no two ways about it.
Okay, interesting, So let's go back a little bit to Helen. You were speaking about inflation earlier, about how you get growth like this, you will also get inflation.
Does this idea of.
A productivity boom alongside cheap energy, does that allay your fears in any way?
Well, I was going to say yes.
My note of caution will be of course the long end of the US bond market, because we're going to see a steeper yield curve. That's what you get in a reflationary environment. There is an awful lot I talked about debt. There's going to be even more debt.
That is.
That is the way that it goes when you know when you're in this environment. But what's quite interesting, and this is why the mandate element is interesting. Of what I was saying about about Trump is that if you've got a mandate to pursue productive growth, if you can credibly grow the productive capacity of your economy, you can deal with that debt because you can service it and you can grow it and everyone can share in that.
This is if you like.
This may raise a little eyebrow from listeners in the UK, but you know, this is sort of like the Trust budget, but with a mandate, and very importantly, with the dollar being the world's reserve currency, I mean, this is the thing. Right, people have to hold dollars, people will have to hold US treasuries. You know, they do have this ability to do it. So I think that is the real key
to this. But having said having said that, the long end of the US bond market, it is a risk because with all of that debt issuance, if there is any sort of dip in this picture that we're both painting I think of a higher growth future, it's difficult to make a mistake because once you untether the long end of the bond market, then you have serious, big problems, and it won't just be a problem for America, be a problem for everybody.
Actually, Helen, let me follow up on that, because I think you're right what's happening as America is going to attempt to grow its way out of its current debt problem. But people think that means government stimulus. They don't understand it can mean weightlifting. And what's happening is the leadership is saying we're now going to lift weights. We're going to get stronger by actually building stuff. Now, will that involve some stimulus in some way, no doubt, but that's
not the reason why this will happen. And when interest rates go up, you know, I always say, it's it's like, you know, when interest rates are zero and free money is being given away, it's like you got to eat donuts for free for you know, that whole period, and everybody kind of gained weight. Then interest rates start to go up, and they're basically being told you've got to get on the running machine. And nobody likes it, but
it makes them healthier. And the reality is the US has adjusted to higher interest rates extremely well, and markets have invested less in unicorns and more in what i'd call workhorses, companies that have genuine, unimpaired cash flows, that actually have customers that really make money. And is that healthier that we are spending less on the possibility of a maybe of some twenty two year old with an idea,
and more on a business that actually is working. Yes, So people are afraid of higher interest rates, but the US has a history of being able to manage with extremely high interest rates at times. So should we be afraid if interest rates are going to go up a bit? On all this, the answer is not. If we learn to run on the running machine better and we will lift those weights better, you will end up stronger.
Peppa, What do you think the main risks on here? Oh?
Well, yeah, I don't want to mean it's into negative territory, but there has to be some pretty big risks of this optimistic view.
Well yeah, I mean, of course, we still have a nation and a world that cannot comprehend what has just happened, and so there's a danger that we end up not in a civil war in the streets, but an uncivil war in terms of law fair and the parties, you know, the two sides of politics attacking each other. And I do think that fight is very real, but I would characterize it as we're no longer in a battle between
the left and the right in America. We're in a battle between the old establishment and the new establishment and establishment which is you know, the tech guys but also the younger people in government circles. They want innovation and change, and the old guard is like, we don't want any changes. We got to protect the bureaucracy at all costs because that's what I built and that's what's protecting me. So
that fight is very real. That's a war zone. Now, how much impact will it have on markets is a different question. I think it's one of those things where it's like an invisible war until some event happens and then suddenly you get visibility of it. It frightens you, markets go wobbly for a minute and then and then it goes away. So it's a volatility creator rather than a directional outcome creator.
Yeah, I would, I would pick up on that because I've talked there about you know, many times about this mandate. But the fascinating element of the US political system is, you know, it's effectively it is two parties.
I mean there are independent candidates.
I'm sure Pip is going to say something about, you know, RFK with boring from the race. I mean, this is this is the If you want a trend that we have seen throughout electorates across the world, it has been a fragmentation where they don't feel that old establishment Pipper's talking about is working for them. Now, depending on your political system, you could get a whole new party turn up.
And there's a whole new party is just emerged in Germany in January called BSW, who are currently polling at eight percent, and you know they are it's a left wing part. Well, it's so far left that there's a question of whether it joins back up with the right. But interestingly, you know that was founded by an academic who was saying that the left is no longer talking about working class people and it's obsessed by woke issues and it needs to get back to you know what matters.
And well, as we're talking, of course, the German government has collapsed and we're headed for staff elections.
So the interesting part, the fascinating part for me.
Actually coming back to the sort of positive US story, is that their slightly more rigid system has kind of flexed to incorporate some of this and is you can still govern in it.
I mean, look at France, look at Germany.
I mean even in the UK where you know, with God's huge majority for a new government, they only won with thirty four percent of the vote, and you know there's all approval ratings are.
Collapsing for the Prime minister. The budget had an impact on the bond market. It's again I.
Actually think there's there's a there's a political risk premium that's rising everywhere that Pip has touched on there and but actually in the US, I think that it sort of solved a.
Lot of the issues with this election. Amazingly to say.
Amazingly, I agree with that, and it reminds me to
throw into this mix. You ask about the risks, I'll tell you one that I think is really important, but it's going to sound a little out there, and it is that Trump said during the campaign that he was going to create a Presidential Commission on Presidential Assassinations, and he would declassify all of the JFK assassination papers, all the RFK so it's Robert Kennedy's father papers, plus open up the investigation into the now two assassination attempts on
President Trump, which many people think have not been properly examined, And so Kennedy will be in charge of that. Now that is like, that is like opening up a long festering wound in the psyche of the American public. And a bunch of things I think are going to get revealed that are going to force force us all to question trust in government. How do we improve trust in government?
Like?
Who did what? Like there's a reason why Trump had said he would declassify them in his first term, but he didn't and now partly because he's so mad at being shot at a couple of times. He literally he's like, I'm releasing all.
Of it, Okay. So I like the idea that there was a reason he didn't in his first term. Something changed his.
Mind, something changed his mind. And we're getting more information about how he was advised not to release them because it would be so damaging to the government And You're like, what the heck is in there? So I don't know, but I think whatever that is, that is going to be a bit of an earthquake in Okay, America's nazing.
The range of information you get on this podcast is pretty wide. Got to say, right, I need to move to as promised to our listeners, onto international markets and onto the UK.
Helen, what does all this mean for us?
Right?
Well, of course, the thing about the UK is we have this sort of work between the US and Europe, so you know, sometimes that's benefit I think it will benefit us to a degree. Here you're hearing a big growth and reflation story which should have some of a boost to go onto the UK economy.
But the problem is the debt of problem is the.
Huge debt pile, and frankly, I think in the time since well I don't know when this is going to go out, Meren, but basically the fiscal headroom that Rachel Reeves built her budget around has pretty much been wiped
out already by the move in guilds. And I was actually at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday when she was being quizzed, and she was asked, okay, so you know, given what's happened in the US, and you know, they looked at you know, growth forecasts are being changed immediately around the world, what do you think it means for Britain?
And Rachel Reeves just said it's too early to tell, and I thought, well, I mean, politicians say all things, but it's a little bit disingenuous because you know that you're just hearing on this podcast now between all of us, and we don't have a treasury of thousands of civil servants, you, I'm sure can make some decent thoughts and predictions on what it is going to mean for the UK economy.
And I just think it's going to.
Get really really hard, really hard for us with this debt burden, and without growth is not going to be productive enough and when the Chancellor has said I don't want to come back.
I never want to come back again and.
Do a budget like this, that is I mean that would have been hostage to fortune anyway. But with this election in the US, I think that's become a lot more difficult.
Okay, so we can be pretty sure that she's going to come back with another one of her horrible budgets, and we can also be pretty sure that for now, at least, we're not going to be following any of the things that we've been talking about in the US, any of the you know, nice productivity and growth enhancing policies.
They're not coming to the UK in a hurry.
It could be a change.
I mean, Lord O'Neill, Jim O'Neill, who's been you know, talking to the government about this and everyone i'm sure will know him as the mister Bricks originally, but I mean, you know he's been talking about this, you know, productive growth. You know that it would be better perhaps to improve childcare and spend money on childcare that could then get you know, parents back to work, and that would improve productive capacity economy better than what may or may not need to be done.
In hospitals and schools.
But at the end of the day, I'm sure a lot of voters, well I'm sure everybody would like all of those things to happen and not have to be making these choices. And that is the difficulty that the you know, the Britain finds itself in.
And of course what we really need to do is exactly what Trump has just suggested. We need to build, build, build, but we're not very good at that.
It's not really our thing.
Well, the labor government are, you know, they're doing a lot on planning reform. We've yet to see exactly what it is. I mean, I think I think part of the issue here is that the government it's a bit unfair, but it feels a bit slow, you know.
It feels that then we knew that we were going to do planning.
Rachel Reeves gave a Maze lecture in March this year saying it's all about planning to improve the economy. But you know, here we are in November. We haven't got anything yet, and you know, I get it.
It is difficult, but she has It's also had plenty of time that either been in opposition a while.
There's been time to think about this stuff.
It's not trying to be even handed. Merin, I was trying to be even there.
Don't bother, Helen, just tell us what you think.
I think it's yeah, I think it's good to be extremely difficult.
Oh so, but sorry, I started by saying that, you know, the UK, it's sort of you like, there's a high beata debt play onto what the US is doing without the growth. But then you come to Europe with its completely dysfunctional governments that we've just been talking about, big debt piles, in deflation, disinflationary things happening in Europe, and they've gotten the pid, have no chance of growth or
chance of their government's passing anything. So perhaps it's the sort of least ugly world and in some respects the UK has some advantage over Europe.
Okay, well, thank you for that optimistic take, Helen.
So well, yeah, mine's not going to be as optimistic. So well, first of all, you know, things are off to a bad start because Donald Trump and his team believe the cure. Starmer and the Labor Party sent a bunch of volunteers over to help Kamala Harri in the election, and the idea that Britain, that America's closest defense ally would come over to so visibly be supporting, you know, domestic political outcomes inside America. This was like not a
good start. And so I think you're going to hear that. I think Trump is going to cold shoulder Britain as long as Labor is in charge, just because of that. Just they're just offended right by that. But also, you know, Britain is still everybody's still agonizing one way or another over Brexit. And you know, I was in the UK during that period. I was an advisor to the Department of Trade and Industry on their board, so I had
a front row seat on how that all went. And the thing is, the British keep being stuck in this mentality of we're a small nation and we don't have much influence in the world. And I'm like, guys, you're not. You're a big nation with huge influence in the world. And in the past you mainly did business with the EU just because it was easier under the EU relationship. But the fact is you have a long history of
trading with the entire world. And I was literally on and I still am on the King's Enterprise Awards judging panel. So we look at a whole bunch of businesses across the UK and I saw it, like two years before Brexit, all those businesses were clocking that the whole relationship with the EU might change, and they started selling to China, to Japan, to the United States, to Latin America, to Africa.
And I'm like, listen, the British are perfectly capable of figuring out where the profits are and they can sell internationally, not just to Europe. We don't, you know, we live in a world of you know, the Internet exists. So this idea of proximity to Europe was the key to success doesn't wash right. China built a massive economy with no proximity to anybody. So I do think there's a lack of imagination, a lack of belief. And you know, having lived there for most of my adult life, you know,
I love Britain. I love Britain all of it, you know, And I'm not a typical Londoner. That's like those people in the countryside have no idea what they're talking about. I think there's wisdoms spread throughout the country. But I also think it is true that Britain's greatest export is pessimism.
Okay, okay, well, on that note, our greatest export maybe pessimism is true. We're very good at that, and particularly on this podcast, by the way Marin talks money, really we excel in pessimism. But one thing we've been optimistic about for AGES is being the UK stock market. We said, look, it's cheap, it's grotesquely undervalued. We have great companies, there's no reason for us to trade at this discount to the US and to other global stock markets, and so
we've been very positive. But John and I looking at what's happening in the US, and I were like, oh, it's kind of hard to be positive in the UK when you see what is possible elsewhere economically at least. So the question, then, I guess, is, does what we think might happen in the US, what you do think might happen in the US, doesn't make you less likely to want to invest in the UK than you might have been before.
Well, there's an element of truth to that. But here's the thing is that of all nations in the world, the one that could most closely align itself with the uptick in the US economy is Britain. And look we see in the UK tech sector right it's like literally double Germany's tech sector three times larger than France. The UK venture capital market is still a multiple of what happens in continental Europe. So the question is what can
be done to get those startups to scale. And part of the answer is you're seeing already alignment between British high tech startups and the American market, and those are worth betting on because they are clocking that they want to be where the growth is. But they're still British. So it's about the alliances. And similarly, if you look at Europe, as Helen quite rightly said, do you look at the Mario Draggy report that just came out on Europe,
you know where the summary was forty pages. I still haven't got through the whole summary, but basically what the conclusion is is Europe is in such terrible shape. Something's got to change. And the thing that needs to change is industrial policy. Government is going to decide and tell us all where asset allocations are going to be made, so we will pick the winners. And I'm like, ah, we have a long history of knowing that governments don't
do this very well. So if Europe is going into old fashioned communists central planning almost not quite sorry, that'll provoke a lot of people. I don't mean to say that in aggressive way.
I think I think you meant it.
If you're going there, then then Britain has got to look elsewhere for growth. And I think it's going to be easy for the British to do business with the Yanks.
And I suppose the other thing says that one thing that the UK would benefit from and the old world would benefit from, if you're correct about Trump and Gea politics, that we might see this peace evidend. I mean, we've been talking for a long time, Pepper about World War three and about how it's already begun and it's just a silent war as opposed to a very obvious wole. And I think what you're suggesting is that we might be beginning as a world under this phrasing to wrote back from.
That, Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's why you know I wrote an article I think it was October twenty twenty one saying we are already in World War three, we just don't recognize it. And now just as people are like, oh my god, we're in World War three, I'm like, actually we were not. And it's starting to end right, But they're catching up with what's already occurred and not seeing that actually, we're all the superpowers are aligning.
They're all saying, let's come to the negotiating table and cut a deal. She is saying that, Putin is saying that. It's a Lensky is saying that. And the only people who weren't coming to the table was the United States because frankly, the lights were on in the White House, but nobody was home. There was nobody to talk to. You couldn't talk to Biden because he's not basically one hundred percent, and you couldn't talk to Harris because she
was out campaigning. By the way, that's why Jake Sullivan was in Beijing and Xijiping met with him personally, and you're like, wait, what the heck is the leader of China doing meeting with a staff person, And the answer is, there's nobody else to talk to about what is the deal we're going to strike so that we can all stop wasting our time and energy on warring and get back to the real issue, which is the race for the technological future, and that is the real competition between
especially the US and China. And that is the race that you know, whoever wins that gets to the abundance that changes the future. So dramatic.
Okay, now on the tech futua, the one thing that everybody's seem to think as a dead search to be the big winner out of the Trump regime is bitcoin. New high off the new high after new high.
This is the Trump trade.
And I'm assuming that you both think that there will be massive deregulation around this in an entirely different environment for cryptocurrencies, Helen, Does that make bitcoin to buy for you?
Yeah? I think so.
I mean i've I think last time was on your show, Mary, and I think is it the gold versus bitcoin question?
I think bitcoin, funnily.
Enough, I think I picked it then for safe haven purposes. I think you do it kind of amusingly, so now you know now to pick it for sort of risk positive purposes. I mean, look, it's sort of almost inexorable really, given the launch of the you know, the ETFs on bitcoin, the way that trad FI is you know, interacting with it. So yeah, I mean, it's it's just gonna accelerate this next stage of of its progress. But hey, I still don't fully understand it. I'm pepper Mano far more than me.
All right, Pepper, is this under POTUS forty seven? Do we have a new age for in particular for a bitcoin.
We do?
And the reason why is because if you if here's what they're gonna do, They're gonna say bitcoin and crypto will be legal, but you have to declare it and you have to have it in your own name. You can't hold it anonymously, and a whole bunch of those guys are.
Gonna go over.
But the whole point was to try to escape the reach of US law. And I'm like, babe, you cannot escape the reach of you know, US law. So but what you can do is by making that legal, you bring the whole dark economy that it has embedded in it into the light and it makes it taxable. So it's the same idea as legalizing marijuana. It's not that your morals have changed, it's just that you're like, wow, we can tax it if it's legal, and that will generate a lot of revenue at a time when there's
a budget problem, there's a spending problem. Plus, it's seen by some of the Republicans as a kind of modern substitute for a gold anchor. In other words, if you're going to have a president who really doesn't care about spending, because after all, he's a property guy, he's like, let's do that, right, that's great. If that's your approach, you need some kind of anchor to hold on to. That's a reference point that starts to tell you, uh, you're
going a bit overboard. Guys. Bitcoin and crypto can be that, especially bitcoin, So I think that's how they view it's And Plus, by the way, the US has probably become, if not the largest holder of bitcoin, certainly one of the largest holders through confiscation. Well, if you confiscate enough of this, if you're the Department Justice and you're sitting on four billion dollars worth of bitcoin, you're like, that's
our budget for like one hundred years. Why don't we find a way to be able to actually use that? And I think these are the motivations.
Last question, Have both of you signed up to truth socials so you can see what Trump's thinking.
I did it the day he launched it. For that reason. And again I've not been at all like in the Trump camp for a bunch of reasons. But look, in politics you have to have visible and if this is can I just say real quickly, it's not just that he launched it. It's that he launched an entirely new way of fundraising for politics, and the valuation of that platform and the capacity to spread his message. This should cause everyone else in politics to try to replicate that thing.
But instead they don't see it that way. They just see it as you know, I don't know, they don't understand that technology platforms when in politics, not just messages.
Okay, so you signed up Peppa and Helen, you're about to well yeah.
But I'm going to Obviously we have to.
We have to and look at much value will be adding for Envie as well.
I tell you one thing with this racing towards innovation at a much faster pace, because the tech community now runs the White House will run the White House, we have to understand what are the implications so commodities, for example, because of supercomputing and AI and we've just seen the Nobel Prize awarded to Google founders of for Alpha folds well,
that same thing is happening in materials. So if you're a guy who plays in copper and iron ore and all that stuff, the fact is we're able to build that stuff adam by Adam by adam, to produce entirely new materials that the world has never known. We have three hundred and eighty thousand new materials already produced by Google,
Sycamore supercomputer, and two point two million crystals. I don't think the market has even begun to understand what can we build with that stuff that was in the past impossible and will make those traditional commodities no longer relevant.
Brilliant Peppa Helen, thank you so much for making this awesome rather exciting.
We appreciate that. We appreciate that.
I think this is probably the only podcast it has managed to make the whole thing sound really very interesting, exciting and optimistic. Thanks for listening to this week's Maren Talks Money. If you like us, show, rate, review, and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts, and keep sending questions or comments to Merrin Money at Bloomberg dot net. You can also follow me in John on Twitter or x I'm at Marinus w and John is John Underscores Epic.
This episode was hosted by me Maren Sumset Web. It was produced by Samasadi, Production support by Moses and and special thanks of course to both our guests Helen and Pepper