Support for the show comes from Schwab. With Schwab investing themes, it's easy to invest in ideas you believe in, like online music and videos, artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, and more. Schwab's research process uncovers emerging trends, then their technology creates relevant stocks into themes. Choose from over 40 themes by all the stocks in a theme as is, or customize to better fit your investing goals, all in a few clicks. Schwab investing themes is not intended to be investment in the world.
It's a device or a recommendation of any stock or investment strategy. Learn more at Schwab.com slash thematic investing. The story, a man after killing his partner, and then eating his partner took his dark for a walk. How come you just knew that guy lived in Florida? Not a joke. Not a joke. Go, go, go!
Welcome to the 300 fifth episode of The Prof G Pod. I am still in the South of France, the Kim Line Festival. My Pivot Co-host, Cara Swish and I recorded live on stage at the Ad Week House. You can hear that episode over the Pivot Feed tomorrow. It was lovely. It was lovely. We had Rosé after. It was very nice. Also, the Olympic torch came marching through. Does anyone care about the Olympics anymore? I got invited to the Olympics and I said to my kids, hey, do you want to go to the Olympics?
What are the Olympics? Literally. Do we have football tickets? Soccer? No. We're not interested. We don't want to see 100 hours of diving, swimming, and discous throwing. It's such an interesting case study and I don't know the answer and why the Olympics have fallen so far in the World Cup as ascended at such an incredible pace.
Anyways, I'm making the rounds. I like it here because people come up to me and say hi and I purposely take my boys in the town because I'm desperate for their affirmation. I want them to see that what I do actually get some recognition.
What are we doing? We're skipping our news headlines and busting right into our conversation with Ruchir Sharma, the Chairman of Rockefeller International and Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Breakout Capital and Investment firm focused on emerging markets. We hear all about Ruchir's new book, What Went Wrong with Capitalism. Ruchir, where does his podcast find you? I'm here in New York and midtown.
Nice. Let's buzz right into it. In your new book, What Went Wrong with Capitalism, it's really a critique of capitalism, a capitalist critique of capitalism, as you say. Tell us, how has the system been ruined? I think as I'm showing the book here, Scott, which is the fact that if you look at what's been happening in America pretty much a lot of the Western world over the last few decades, is that we have progressively seen greater and greater government intervention.
In the economy, the suite of habits extends to just more than government spending. Government spending of the share of the economy has gone up from a century ago, it just 3% in the government would do little more than deliver your mail to about 36% today.
But it's not just that. It is if you look at the regulatory state, we look at the impulse to bail out the proclivity to manage the business cycle. Just across the board, we have seen a massive increase in government intervention in the economy with the consequence that it's destroyed the creative destructive fiber of the economy and productivity growth has been declining for the last few decades as well.
So that's the point I try and make, which is that there are lots of perverse consequences that have come out of this systematic intervention in the economy and those consequences include declining productivity, rising inequality, and also this feeling amongst most Americans that the system they have in place is not working. 70% of Americans want the economic change or want the current economic system to be torn down.
So let's break that down. So it's impossible to deny the government spending is not out of control, right? $7 trillion on 5 trillion receipts. There's been unbelievable or staggering bailouts. I think what $6 trillion code relief. The only thing I would push back on and require or would double click on is this notion that we're over regulated. My sense is that some of the biggest industries are under regulated and we've have monopolies form your thoughts.
Yeah, so again, yeah, let's look at the data, right, which is the fact that America is introducing 3000 new regulations a year and that's gone up over time. And I argue in the book that in fact regulation tends to be pro incumbent and pro big business because when you introduce new regulations, the existing people are able to gain the system much better, get the regulations they want.
And also it makes it that much more expensive for new companies to come up. So therefore it's one of the reasons I think that the number of startups in America has been declining right up until the pandemic. We saw a big decrease in the number of startups in America over the preceding two or three decades. So I would say that yes, that we possibly can do with better anti-trust regulation, which is what I think that you're alluding to.
But I think that we sort of have to see that in every industry otherwise we have seen regulations increase and that tends to hurt small and medium sized businesses from coming up. I know it's a personal experience that the cost of let's say setting up a new fund is up in times over the last 20 years.
So that makes it very difficult for someone looking to set up a new funding breaking even compared to some large fund, which is already there as the resources, as the legal compliance departments to deal with all this. So it makes sense that certain industries such as financial services where are more compliance, you know, starvines, oxley, whatever you want to just gets harder and harder and harder to compete or to start up.
My understanding is was there were more new business applications or permits filed last year than in history into. It does seem though that some of our biggest industries have figured out a way to weaponize government or weaponize lobbyists. But what you're saying is the majority of industries are over regulated in this suppresses economic growth. Do I get that right?
Absolutely. So I'd say you know like here and you're correct that we did see like a spike up in new businesses or so over the last couple of years. But a lot of that was because during the pandemic many had to shut down. So that's a bit of a churn which is going on. That's not being the true trend over the last 30 to 40 years. So I think you have to keep that in perspective.
And the second point as you say is that yes, you know, there's been some deregulation. For example, there's been financial sector deregulation which is why financial markets have exploded a lot. But I'd say for most industries in things like hospitality and things like restriars and stuff, the number of regulations that any small business has to deal with has gone up a lot.
And that shows up in all sorts of ways. For example, if you look at the number of lawyers in America, America's always had a very large legal population. The number of lawyers per capita is about the largest in the world. But again, that this growth has exploded in the last 20 years or so. So it's clearly in terms of who's benefiting and even in terms of lobbyists that you point out, which is that the number of lobbyists in Washington.
They have been captured by all the big tech firms, the big tech firms dominate the number of new lobbyists in Washington or just total spend on lobby. So in your book, you say in the 2010s, economies worldwide began to slow. Why did this happen and where are we today?
Yeah, so productivity growth across the world has been slowing. And so I think that this is what in fact looks America a bit better, which is that the productivity growth in places like Europe has been slowing even more than what's happened in America. But the point I make in the book is that's partly because there the kind of state intervention they have the regulatory for lengths that they have is much greater than even here in America.
So that's not the right benchmark. But in general, I make the point that productivity growth has been slowing everywhere in the mix of what is otherwise such a powerful tech boom. And this is a trend that three dates, even in 2010, it's been like going to decline apart from a, you know, like a brief surge in the late 1990s and early 2000s when you had the internet revolution.
And the revolution productivity growth has been generally slowing everywhere and ideal with this productivity paradox in the book extensively saying that what could be causing this, you know, all these arguments that it's because of mis-marriage and mental, but that's not true because, you know, like in the late 90s on the back of the internet boom, you did see a temporary surge.
And the reason economic growth has been slowing a lot has to party to with demographics that he has population growth across the world has slowed down that does not much we can do about that. But as far as productivity growth is concerned, that too has slowed down significantly despite some tech innovations that have taken place and now we are hanging our hat on AI boosting productivity.
But I think that the, as I said that the capital is creative destructive final of the economy has been undermined because we're keeping a life so much deadwood. I mean, today, the number of zombie companies, as I say, that we have in the economy today by some measures is close to 20%. What do I mean by that?
These are companies that are defined as firms that have not or are not earning enough profits to even cover their interest payments for three years in a row, but keep going back to the market to refinance themselves. And when we do that, we sort of obviously undermine productivity growth in the economy. Yeah, I'm a big believer that you need churn for robust economy and that the incumbents don't want churn.
Just to let me put forward a thesis and I'd like to get your response that one reason why we've seen a decline in productivity is because of low corporate tax rates. And that is corporations have a memory and when they can get 80 cents on the dollar out to a shareholder, they will choose to distribute earnings.
Whereas if the tax rate is say 40% and they're only going to get 60 cents out and they get sort of a 40% reduction in the price of reinvesting in the company and plan property equipment to grow the top line that the incentive is to or the hurdle rate for a go on investment is lower when tax rates are higher. Is there any truth to that?
Well, the evidence again definitely back it up right because if you look at what's happened in Europe, you know, whatever, you know, like the corporate tax rates have been higher, they haven't been able to sort of get higher productivity growth either. So I just don't see the evidence of that. Yes, I do feel the fact that the tax system could do with a big old all I think we all agree with it.
There's too much of a disparity in the way that W two wage journalists tax compared to how much capital gains taxes are. So yeah, there are other distortions which I completely agree with. But I think that in the book, whatever you focus on is the fact that what happened to capitalism, what did the founders have in mind is the system today, what we have capitalism and why is so many young people in places like America dissolution with the world capitalism.
As I say in the book that the surveys show that most young Americans, particularly Democrats say they would rather have socialism than capitalism. That's a really big statement for a country that was the founder of world practical purpose is a capitalist system. We'll be right back.
Support for property comes from mint mobile. Have you ever given your house a good, deep clean and then thought to yourself, wow, how have I been living like this? That's the same feeling you might get when you switched a mint mobile and you realize you've been paying a fortune for wireless.
And mobile has phone plans for $15 a month after you purchase a three month plan. You'll look at your new bill and think, wow, how was I ever affording this? When you switched to mint mobile, you can get unlimited talk, text, and data for $15 a month. That means saying goodbye to overpriced monthly bills and unexpected overages. All plans come with high speed data delivered on the nation's largest 5G network.
You can get this new customer offer and your new three month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month. Go to mintmobile.com slash profg. That's mintmobile.com slash profg. Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash profg. $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 a month. New customers on the first three month plan only speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply seem mint mobile for details.
Support for profg comes from ad lasian. Ad lasian software including Gira, Confluence, and Trello help power the collaboration for teams to accomplish what would otherwise be impossible alone. Because individually we're great, but together we're so much better. That's why millions of teams around the world including 75% of the Fortune 500. Trust ad lasian software for everything from space exploration and green energy to delivering pizzas and podcasts.
Whether your team of two 200 or two million or whether your team is around the corner or on another continent altogether. Ad lasian software is built to help keep you all in the same page from start to finish. That way every one of your teams from engineering and IT to marketing HR and legal can stay connected and moving together as one towards shared company wide goals. Learn how to unleash the potential of your team at ad lasian.com. It's at l a double s i a n dot com ad lasian.
Support for the show comes from fun rise for decades. Nature capitals. It's also borderline impossible for most people to invest in. But a new fund is trying to change that and they've already raised over $100 million. The fun rise innovation fund allows you to invest in a portfolio of some of the world's top tech companies before they go public.
With a minimum investment of just $10, now practically anyone can invest in venture capital. It's your turn to get in early and build a portfolio of tech leaders, disruptors, and pioneers. The fun rise innovation fund the future is open for investment. Check out the innovation funds impressive list of investments for yourself by visiting fun rise.com slash prop g.
Carefully consider the investment objectives risk charges and expenses of the fund rise innovation fund before investing this and other information can be found in the funds perspective at fund rise.com slash innovation. This is a paid advertisement.
So let's assume that we agree that most people agree that we need to cut government spending. Where do you think we cut it? So that's the point, right, which is that how do you prioritize that? I mean, what is the Biden administration done? It'll just double down on its spending. So now it's spending on everything it's spending on industrial policy, it's spending on the chips act.
I think on an individual basis when you look at government spending, we all think that yes, you know, like in terms of each one is justified. But I think the thing is like we need to prioritize that don't we need an title when reform should we really be spending on industrial policy because our priorities are different.
If you want a welfare state, if we want to give people lots of, you know, like in terms of even cash benefits as some people want to do, I think it's about prioritizing that what can we do realistically and is thinking that debt and deficits don't matter because so many people for so long have been crying wolf about this right, which is that in New York, we have had these.
We have debt clocks, which have been up for decades and it's because nothing has happened. We think that what's the problem we can go on spending this way and weaker and there is no real consequence to that and what I try and sort of show you is that yes, there is a consequence.
One that because of this, we have already seen a decline in terms of productivity because of the suite of government habits and two that now we are taking this just to a ridiculous extent that America used to run a budget deficit of about 3% of GDP for the last couple of decades.
We have been in line with other developed countries today, we are running that at 6% of GDP way higher than any developed country in the world and our public debt as a share of the overall economy has crossed 100% and is only behind that of Japan and Italy and at this pace will be higher than Italy by the end of the decade.
The problem is this, which is that the argument that debt and deficits will cause a crisis seems very stale now because nothing has happened despite this crisis warnings for so long and there is a real confidence which almost borders on arrogance that because we are America, the world will keep funding it, we have the world's main currency which people use so they keep buying dollars and we will never have a problem.
It is that kind of complacency and arrogance about where is with the money, where it has to come here, which bothers me and we would not that way. In fact, I have still like a lot of great things about America but I think that what has happened now is that we have just taken this to another extreme.
So the Biden administration calls you and says, okay, give us two or three things, magic wand, you would want to see implemented right away in terms of policy or laws or tax policy, what would those two or three things pay? Yeah, I see that in terms of, if I know that nobody listens until they have a crisis so I don't want to get that cold but still I think that we know let's think about it.
I say that in terms of one, you know, like stuff is that think about every time you do a new regulation, who's it hurting and who's it benefiting? I mean, I put a freeze on that. I mean, Trump tried something like that but it was a failure by the end because, you know, you couldn't focus on anything. So, talked about not putting a new regulation but by the end of the administration there were tons of new regulation which were going on.
So I'd say that in terms of focusing in terms of, okay, some tougher anti-trust regulation. Yes, I'm in favor of that but the vast swath of regulations that are put in there really hurts small and big-sized businesses. So think about, you know, putting a new regulation to you have to think about the debt and deficits which is that don't have this callous attitude that nothing has happened.
There's been no crisis so we can keep running deficits. We are at full employment in the economy and there was 6% budget deficit already. Imagine if you have a downturn, it'll be 9 or 10%. So I would say that in terms of, you know, these open-ended chips acts and industrial policy, we need to put a check on that. And I think that the other thing that I would say also is the fact that to make a very clear statement that we're not going to bail out companies at the slightest hint of trouble.
I mean, you know, that statement needs to go out because today you speak to people in private in the private equity world or other places. There is a simplistic assumption that, you know, what the hell do we give it a punt and if it doesn't work, yeah, I mean, you know, the government's there to back us out. So that sort of thinking has to go away. So these are just broad points, I would say, at this stage that you need to think about.
And moral hazard. So you, you have done a great deal of work on India. Can you give us, I would love for you just to sort of us the cliff notes on the Indian economy and what you think the prospects are for the Indian economy over the next several years. Yeah, so in fact, I begin this book like in the prologue by speaking about my journey from India because as you say, I was born there and I and India was a truly socialist economy when I was born then in the mid 1970s.
And so I saw what socialism could do. But fortunately for India, after especially it faced an economic crisis in 1991, it's progressively been getting freer, progressively been moving up the indices of economic freedom. And so therefore, you know, like I've been much more optimistic about the economy as that's happened. But my favorite line about India that I came up with a few years ago is that this is a country that consistently disappoints the optimists and the pessimists.
So there's a lot of optimism I have, but I would keep it in check to know that this is a pretty complex country. It's not a homogeneous country like China, which moves in one direction. It's very heterogeneous, very diverse. So you got different things and different, you know, places which play itself out. But generally I remain optimistic. I feel that the trajectory is positive. And of course, we can't not have this conversation and speak about the landmark election result.
And then you know, that's a very hopeful sign, which is the fact that it's a country, you know, which believes in its democratic tradition. And I think that that's something which also helps the long term because this is a lot of research that I've done that, you know, like under Modi, there was a real fear that India was moving towards an authoritarian direction.
Now you'll argue maybe that's good for its economy because you're moving in an authoritarian direction and you can take tougher decisions. But the research I've done on this is the fact that under authoritarian regimes, you end up getting either getting very good economic outcomes for a while. Or you're not getting disastrous economic outcomes because there's no one to tell you, you know, when you go wrong. And I think that there was a risk that India was moving in that direction.
There's more checks and balances here. And typically over time, democracies tend to compound much better in terms of growth rates than authoritarian regimes do. So I feel relatively optimistic about India. Yes, there'll be some sort of bitter fights politically after the election result last week where the opposition feels emboldened.
But I think that, you know, it's moving in the right direction. The only thing I keep in check is expectation that this is no next China which is going to grow at 90% is going to be more like a 6, 7% type growth rate at best that brings it in India for the foreseeable future.
So now do you care? I live in London and I would just be curious. You obviously spent a lot of time thinking about, you know, how your title, 10 rules for successful nations and breakout nations in pursuit of the next economic miracle. Let's assume this is not going to be an economic miracle. I think that ship is sailed. But what rules are they following or breaking or not adhering to when we talk about successful nations?
Well, unfortunately, I think that UK doesn't rank well, you know, because as you rightly say that I I maintain this ranking of these, you know, like all these countries and you know where they rank on these various metrics and in the Anglo-Saxon world, of course, the country that has been doing the worst, which I think is a lot of the same.
But I think the worst, which I think, you know, but it was surprised and I wrote about that is Canada. That's been the worst really of the last, you know, 10, 15 years and then next comes UK, then Australia and the US compared to these countries has been doing relatively better.
That's the irony of it. You know, in terms of all the problems we've spoken about in America. But in terms of all the problems we spoke about in America, in terms of our much more severe in places like UK that in terms of, you know, what it's been doing with its deficits, although America now is overtaking it in terms of, you know, what it's been doing in the number of zombie companies. So I'd say that in that regard, UK in fact ranks even worse than America on most metrics.
So it isn't, it's really fascinating. Australia, Canada and the UK not doing well. So it take them add in the US. Aren't we all guilty of overspending capitalism on the way socialism on the way down, cronism, bloated government bailouts. But the difference is the US has AI in a tech sector that just creates so much economic value and draws capital from the rest of the world that at least props up or wallpapers over our problems more so than those other three nations.
What do you think? So be correct. Yeah. So that's the, that's my summary that you know, which is the fact that, you know, like it just pains me that in terms of the fact that I don't even compare America to these other countries because America is still the beacon for the world. Right. It's still the largest economy that everyone looks up to to see as to what is the American doing and the American brand of capitalism.
Unfortunately, has been dented, but you're right that these Anglo-Saxon other economies that you pointed out are arguably in worse shape in doing things even worse than America is and America is you point out has the success of the tech engine there.
But again, it's slightly concerning to me that the, like in America, the domination is getting so concentrated that the value has been created, but it's been created in just very few select companies, you know, and I think that that is a real problem. And communities so big. Yes. Yeah. It is really striking. What do you think about the notion of so the one thing we didn't talk about that I think plays a big role in all of this is immigration policy.
Comparison contrasts different immigration policies across the nations you look at and what do you think is sort of if you will the ideal if there is an ideal immigration policy and what is it indicate in terms of America's immigration policy. Yeah, I think that you know, as far as America is concerned, even though it's been a big problem in America and it's a big political issue, America's at least been better at
assimilating immigrants than a lot of European countries in that regard. And I think that countries like Australia and all you know, have been you know like pretty good in terms of as well. So I'd say that generally here the Anglo-Saxon world has been better than Europe in terms of assimilation of immigrants, but again, as I said that you know what is good economics is not always you know what's good politics, which is that even last year.
Like I pointed out that immigration is what really helped countries like America avoid a recession and bring inflation now and much more than in other countries did last year, but the problem is the fact that it's become such a politically issue about tearing apart the social fabric and stuff that word is good economics in obvious terms is not good politics and I don't see that changing.
So I'd say that yes, I think that immigration is out of control for many people out here in America and so we're going to clamp down on that regardless. I think of what happens in November. But in general, I would say America in the Anglo-Saxon country like Australia have done a better job at assimilating immigrants compared to European countries like France.
Well, let me say something that's I don't know is is rot with with emotion is it that we've done a better job of assimilating or we attract a different type of immigrant.
Well, it could be both I think a combination of both right which is that in terms of what's happening, but I just look at it more from a simulation, but then you start getting into cultural issues in terms of who's coming and what's happening and that just gets a very slippery slope in terms of looking at immigration in that regard.
So looking at all the economies in the world what two or three economies are you most bullish on in terms of you mentioned that Canada is doing really poorly UK is doing really poorly America you would argue is kind of like it sounds like average is slightly above average. Any other role models for you know, I think of certain countries in south east Asia or I think of Singapore where we can look at the way they've managed their economy and think this is this is the role model.
Well, I see yeah, I think it depends on the time frame, but I think that the you know like the economy is that you know, having sort of good again, which is the economy that's doing the best in Europe these days it's Greece right which is that this country which till 10 years ago was like an example of a complete yeah if I can say so basket case.
And you know that by just look at how well Greece has come back it's booming now it was again force this is what crisis does it is one silver lining of a crisis it's that it's the only time when governments reform or change things is when you're crisis so Greece runs out of money it's on the verge of default and then you end up getting a lot of reform so Greece I think has you know been a comeback story in fact in general the club met countries of later be doing better than their continental.
Piers but Greece is an example of that then secondly I would point to is a kind of like in Eastern Europe in general I'd say Poland is a shining example of that which is that it's a country which I think is next classified to becoming a developed country remember that the world today that I'm more than 200 nations only 40 or so classified as developed countries everybody is class else is classified as emerging and many of them from Brazil to Mexico have been emerging forever right so but I just remember that I think that's the way I think it's going to be a big deal.
So but I'd say that it's been a while since a major nation joined the ranks of the developed countries I think the next one to do so could be Poland which is on the brink of you know getting a per capita income of you know $20,000 or so which makes it like a developed country again a lot it's done right from having a very competitive manufacturing sector not too many flashy billionaires and in general I'd say that the election result in Poland last year
sort of also took away some political risk because it's a much more cooperative government that it haven't placed vis-a-vis the EU and the European Union helped to give it some pretty strong institutions. So I'd say that I feel relatively optimistic about these countries outside of the core of Europe from Greece to Poland as you know like for different reasons once a comeback star and the other ones being a consistent star in the post-communist world.
And just before you got we'd be remiss if we didn't ask you about China you thoughts. Well I've been very sure China for a while now because you know in terms of what's been happening to its both the two pillars of growth really which is that it's been relying a lot on you know like when China boom it had great demographics and of course when the boom slowed down it could still rely on taking on more and more debt to keep going those engines are now down.
So I feel that China is in a secular decline on a fundamental basis I don't see China growing in a rate of more than two or three percent for the foreseeable future.
So I'd say that yeah for now it seems that the risk of a blow up in China has you know sort of being papered over because they've again done what it takes to keep the economy afloat but the problem in China is the fact that they can't get away from the basic notion that there is no country in the world which is able to go back to the world.
Which is able to grow rapidly or even grow when it has a negative population growth rate that headwind is just very hard to overcome and then second obviously is the debt issue in China where China has you know took on so much debt over the last decade because it ambitious and wanted to keep its growth rate up.
But now you know it's been forced to pay back that debt in a way you know with the property sector and all which took a lot of that debt in the doghouse so I feel that yeah the China we don't have a blow up or a crisis but it's sort of going the way where the growth rate keeps slipping and sliding and you know two or three percent is the growth rate for China which is a far cry from where it was a decade ago.
Rochir Sharma is chairman of Rockefeller International and founder and chief investment officer of breakout capital and investment firm focused on emerging markets who moved to Rockefeller in 2022 after a 25 year career at Morgan Stanley Investment Management where he was head of emerging markets and chief global strategist. Rochir is also the author of five books including the ten rules of successful nations and breakout nations in pursuit of the next economic miracles.
His latest book what went wrong with capitalism is out now he joins us from the greatest city in the world New York City Rochir thank you very much really enjoyed this conversation. Thanks, Scott. Thank you for having me. We'll be right back. Support for this episode of Prop. G comes from listening.
Do you ever get computerized it's not a medical term I actually just made it up but I bet you know exactly what it means staring at a screen all day long isn't just tough on your eyes it can also wreak havoc on your back and neck leading to lots of issues down the road. If you prefer to listen rather than read just like you're listening to this pod you might want to check out listening.
Listening is an app that can turn any kind of text including PDFs research papers blogs articles are even email newsletters into high quality engaging audio. The listening app uses the latest AI voices complete with emotion and intonation to create a realistic and engaging listening experience.
We tried it out of Prop. G media and simply put we were blown away it gets even sort of the nuance and the idiosyncrasies of a voice down and it feels quite bring or just feels human like the listening app might just transform how you consume reading material.
And now you can give it a shot for yourself risk free normally you'd get a two week free trial but listeners of Prop. G get a whole month free go to listening.com slash Prop. G or use code Prop. G at checkout listening your life just got a lot easier. Support for Prop. G comes from Vanta building a business achieving compliance with frameworks including sock to an ISO 27001 can help you in bigger deals and our new markets and deep in trust with customers.
But it can also cost you real time and money. Vanta can automate up to 90% of the work for the most in demand frameworks helping businesses get compliant quickly and with over 300 integrations you can easily monitor and secure the tools your business relies on. You can join over 6000 fast growing companies that use Vanta to manage risk and prove security in real time.
You can get a thousand dollars off Vanta by going to Vanta.com slash Prop. G that's V. A. N. T. A. dot com slash Prop. G all one word. Support for the show comes from into it. If you're trying to market to small businesses you might want to try into it SMB media labs. So first of its kind B2B media network focus solely on small businesses SMB media labs is powered by the unmatched first party business data of into it.
All this means is that they can connect you with unparalleled audience data in a privacy-productive manner and can help you reach your target market and create scalable campaigns with accuracy and efficiency. Learn more at media labs dot into it dot com that's media labs dot into it dot com to learn more.
The most famous study on happiness actually every study on happiness we never get data that's this clean across geographies cultures income levels shows the same thing if on on the y axis you have happiness and on the x axis you have age happiness is a smile 0 to 25 star wars prom making out 25 to 45 or what I call the shit gets
real years life is hard money troubles relationships someone you love a great deal get sick and died I mean life just hits you in the fucking face it really does you get beaten in the face.
And you think wow this is harder than I thought and what I can tell you is a lot of people out there are feeling the same way and if you're a good person and you work hard I'm not just saying everything will work out you need to make sure you're not stuck right you're still working every now you saying what are the three four things I got to get done to
you get on out you're trying you're showing up you're asking others for help right you're expressing your emotions and then and then when you're in your 40s and 50 something wonderful happens and that is you start to take I don't know you start to find joy in the most mundane things nature food your friendships
so what I would tell you is if you're struggling in your 30s and 40s I'm not suggesting just lay back and everything's going to work out that's that's bullshit but what I can tell you is for the majority of people it does get better and again if you're in your 30s and things are tough you're kind of where you should be and what I would tell you is to keep on keeping on the life does get better that happiness waits for you.
This episode was produced by Caroline Shagrin Jennifer Sanchez is our associate producer and Ju Burrows is our technical director thank you for listening to the Prof.G. Pod from the Vox Media Podcast Network we will catch you on Saturday for No Mercy No Malice as read by George Han and please follow our Prof.G. Markets Pod wherever you get your pods for new episodes every Monday and Thursday please if you can right now and you enjoyed the show go to Prof.G. Markets and subscribe.