Salaries are for Suckers

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "Salaries are for Suckers"

Everybody's Business (Bloomberg & iHeartPodcasts), Feb 20, 2026
Hosts: Stacey Vanek Smith & Brad Stone (filling in for Max Chafkin)

---

Overview of the Episode

This episode of "Everybody's Business" explores the shifting fault lines in the world of wealth, work, and generational influence. The hosts unpack the current "AI panic" rippling through tech and financial markets, debate the logic (and the logistics) of wealth taxation in California, and examine the surprising values and economic muscle of Generation Alpha. With expert guest Prof. Ray Madoff and original Gen Alpha reporting from Max Chafkin, the episode provides rich, witty, and accessible insight into the perennial question: who gets rich, who gets taxed, and who’s already redefining the economic rules.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The AI Panic: Market Fears and Realities

[03:22–10:30]

• Market Sell-Offs & AI Anxiety:
  The panic in sectors like travel, finance, legal, and software is driven less by real changes than by speculative “vibes.”
  • "It's vibes based, as we say initially." – Brad Stone (03:49)
• Automation & Disruption:
  AI can automate routine tasks, but the narrative that it will render entire service sectors obsolete is heavily questioned by the hosts.
  • "The idea that it displaces data governance, security, compliance, vendor support...feels far fetched to me." – Brad Stone (03:54)
• Boom-Bust Speculation:
  The emotional arc of AI echoes previous tech bubbles (e.g., the “Minority Report” era of Big Data hype) but at higher financial stakes.

Memorable Quote

• "It's easy to write off vibes as being sort of silly or ephemeral, but we're talking about billions of dollars...being sucked out of the economy because of fears or just pumped in because of excitement." – Stacey Vanek Smith (04:19)

2. AI’s Engagement with the Government: Ethics vs. Business

[06:56–09:36]

• Government Contracts:
  AI companies are pursuing lucrative federal contracts, especially around autonomous weapons and surveillance, potentially at odds with their stated missions (e.g., OpenAI’s original pledge “to benefit humanity”).
• Use of AI Voices & Lawsuits:
  Lawsuits emerge over the use of recognizable voices in AI products; Google is sued for allegedly using NPR host David Green’s likeness.
  • "The reason they're using Steven Inskeep's voice or David Green's voice is because there's a lot of authority in that voice...That credibility is built over years." – Stacey Vanek Smith (08:17)
• Human Emotion & AI Voices:
  The hosts reflect on the primal trust and emotion we place in voices, and how easy it could be to manipulate trust using AI-generated voices.

3. How the Rich Really Get Rich (and Avoid Taxes)

[11:30–26:26]

Interview with Prof. Ray Madoff (Boston College Law School)

• The Salary Shell Game:
  The richest Americans avoid salaries (and thus income/payroll taxes) in favor of wealth accumulation via stocks, which isn’t taxed until sold.
  • "Salaries are for suckers. Because salaries are subject to lots of taxes...frequently over 50%. So they don't want anything to do with that." – Ray Madoff (14:27)
  • Example: Jeff Bezos takes a salary so low he qualified for the child tax credit, living lavishly via stock-backed loans.
• Wealth Tax Proposals in California:
  California proposes a 5% tax on families with over $1.1B in assets, sparking fierce debate and causing potential tax exodus among the ultrawealthy.
• Structural Barriers to Wealth Taxes:
  • People can move to avoid state-level wealth taxes.
  • Challenges in valuing complex, non-public assets (e.g., layered partnerships).
  • Potential for businesses to avoid public markets, harming retirement savings for regular Americans.
  • "If we were to do it large scale...it would incentivize a lot of our wealthiest Americans to stay out of the publicly traded market...not good for all of us who depend on the public market for our retirement." – Ray Madoff (18:58)
• International Context:
  European countries have largely abandoned wealth taxes due to enforcement/compliance issues.
• Political Power and Narratives:
  The wealthy have more power and are now less hesitant to wield it, fueling a “greed is good, to the nth degree” era.
• Real Solutions:
  Ray Madoff advocates for more feasible reforms:
  • Taxing capital gains at transfer (by gift or at death).
  • Including inheritances in income tax.
  • Adjusting philanthropic rules to close loopholes.
  • "Wealthy people need to pay taxes just like the rest of us...right now our rules allow the wealthy to acquire just exorbitant amounts of wealth entirely tax free. For them it's optional." – Ray Madoff (22:02)
• The Power of Public Discourse:
  Even if flawed, California’s proposal raises awareness and pushes for fairer tax systems.

Notable Exchange

• "So, Stacey, my takeaway is that we're the suckers earning salaries." – Brad Stone (26:07)
• "Paying our taxes, that's gonna haunt me. 'Salaries are for suckers' is gonna haunt me." – Stacey Vanek Smith (26:12)

4. Generation Alpha: Influence, Skepticism, and Surprising Values

[27:36–39:15]

Segment featuring Max Chafkin’s Gen Alpha focus group

• Economic Muscle:
  Gen Alpha (born 2010–present) wields outsized influence on family spending despite not yet earning money themselves.

  • "They have all the control...they get interested earlier in cultural trends, in beauty products and influencers. And so they are a force that companies have to understand." – Brad Stone (28:25)

• What’s “Cool” | Rapid-Fire Focus Group (29:18–31:01):

  • Minecraft: "Okay"
  • Roblox: "Bad"
  • Taylor Swift: "Slay"
  • TikTok: "Poison for your brain"
  • Skinny jeans: "No, they squish my legs."

• Screen Skepticism:
  Despite being “digital natives,” Gen Alpha is surprisingly critical of apps like Instagram, TikTok, and even AI.

  • "Although Alphas do have a lot of screen time...they've also kind of internalized a lot of the skepticism about screens that their parents have as well." – Max Chafkin (31:26)
  • Surveys show teen sentiment about social media has flipped from “mostly good” to “mostly bad” in just a few years. (Pew: 2022 – 11% mostly good, 48% mostly bad)

• AI Aversion:
  Gen Alpha is wary of AI and automation, often expressing a sense of nostalgia for pre-AI eras (e.g., CDs, 1980s movies).

  • "Well, you haven't had your brains poisoned by AI." – Alice, Max's daughter, age 11 (35:46)

• Societal Response to Tech:
  The “anti-tech” messaging seems to be working among kids, echoing the path of anti-smoking campaigns, which succeeded partially via demonizing corporate manipulation.

  • "That sense of a big company getting one over on you is a message that maybe could potentially break through among teens and younger kids." – Max Chafkin (40:19)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:49 | Brad Stone | "It's vibes based, as we say initially." | | 04:19 | Stacey Vanek Smith | "We're talking about billions of dollars...sucked out of the economy because of fears..." | | 14:27 | Ray Madoff | "Salaries are for suckers...they're subject to lots of taxes...they don’t want any of that."| | 22:02 | Ray Madoff | "We need to adjust our rules because...the wealthy...acquire just exorbitant amounts of wealth entirely tax free."| | 26:07 | Brad Stone | "So, Stacy, my takeaway is that we're the suckers earning salaries." | | 28:25 | Brad Stone | "They have all the control...they are a force that companies have to understand." | | 31:26 | Max Chafkin | "Although Alphas do have a lot of screen time...they've also kind of internalized a lot of the skepticism..."| | 35:46 | Alice (age 11, guest) | "Well, you haven't had your brains poisoned by AI." | | 40:19 | Max Chafkin | "That sense of a big company getting one over on you...maybe could potentially break through among teens and younger kids."|

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• AI Market Panic – 03:22–10:30
• AI in Government & Voice Likeness Lawsuits – 06:56–09:36
• Wealth Tax & How the Rich Avoid Taxes (Ray Madoff interview) – 11:30–26:26
• Generation Alpha: Focus Group & Trends – 27:36–39:15
• Anti-Tech Sentiment & Societal Messaging – 39:15–40:50

---

Final Thoughts

The episode weaves together skepticism, humor, and sharp business analysis. It demystifies the structures behind outsized wealth and exposes the unease—even among digital natives—regarding our rapidly changing tech landscape. With clear, colloquial storytelling and memorable lines ("Salaries are for suckers"), “Everybody’s Business” proves why what’s happening with money, markets, and the next generation isn’t just for the experts—it’s everybody’s business.

---

Transcript

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

The news doesn't stop on the weekends.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Context changes constantly, and now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Hi, I'm David Gura. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg this Weekend.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I'm Christina Raffini.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

We'll bring you the latest headlines in

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

depth analysis and big interviews, all the stories that hit home on your days off. And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg this weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people and culture.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

On Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Then on Sundays, we speak with journalists, columnists and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Watch us on Bloomberg Television, listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg Business app, or listen to

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

the podcast that's Bloomberg this Weekend. Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7am Eastern on February 28th. Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, Radio and wherever you get your podcasts.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio news.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Hi, Stacey, Brad Stone.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Welcome to everybody's business. Thank you so much for filling in for Max Chaffkin as he is whisked off to the Alps from what I understand.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Right. And not as a competitor, I don't think, but as a spectator.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Yeah, I think he is actually going to see some Olympic events.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And he's missed a crazy week. Right. Just a brutal week and a reckoning in the world of AI.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Yes, investors in a lot of big software companies, including Salesforce, Oracle, ServiceNow, they have been kind of swept up in this panic that's happening in the industry. And even while all of this is happening and all of these reckonings are coming down, there is still no question in anybody's mind that there is a lot of opportunity and money to be made in AI.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Right. And speaking of wealth, there's something surprising happening in the conversations about it. California and New York City are having a kind of brutal debate over how we tax wealth.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

People who earn money pay very high taxes, whereas people who have money don't.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

That's Ray Madoff and Stacy. We're going to speak with her today about the way we tax or don't tax the very rich in this country.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

And after that, we are going to switch gears a little bit because before Max left, he and I had a conversation about Generation Alpha. That is the topic of the latest issue of Business. Particularly, we tend to think of Gen Alphas as a very on screen generation. But as it turns out, there are a lot more skeptical than we might think.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Don't do scroll kids. Horrible poison for your brain.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

This is everybody's business. From Bloomberg Businessweek, I'm Stacey Vanek Smith.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And I'm Brad. Vanek Stone.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I welcome you into the Vanek clan. For this week's discussion, we're gonna fire up the LLM and look at the effects of AI on the economy. But first, Brad, let's take a look at the headlines. As we mentioned, we're seeing a different kind of AI panic. One by one, sector after sector is being pushed by this sell off in the markets.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Right.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Travel services, financial services, legal services, software as a service, it's all being slowly eaten away by fears that AI tools are going to render these companies useless.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I mean, what's so interesting to me about this is that we really don't know how things are gonna shake out yet. I mean, these are just very early days. But the panic seems to be about the speculation almost as much as all the exuberance was about the speculation.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

I totally agree. It's vibes based, as we say initially.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

It's vibes based.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Yes, right. I mean we know AI automates routine work. They can handle workflows and coding, but I mean the idea that it displaces data governance, security, compliance, vendor support, all the things that these Companies, Oracle, Salesforce, ServiceNow do so well, I mean, it feels far fetched to me and more a market reaction than an underlying reality.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I feel like we're seeing this effect of AI in so many parts of the economy though. I feel like it's the same exact thing in the job market. There's just so much speculation about. I mean, I think there's enormous amount of promise. You're really in the heart of it where you are, Brad. But there's so much promise and excitement over what AI can do and so much fear about what it's going to do as well. It's just really interesting to me, kind of the, the emotional arc of AI in our economy right now. And it's easy to write off vibes, I think as being sort of silly or ephemeral, but I mean we're talking about billions of dollars being like sucked out of the economy because of fears or just pumped into the economy because of excitement.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

It's a strange time, it's a weird moment. And part of it is the fears of kind of AI disruption and part of it is simply the sheer scale of the capital investments that are being made as these companies build out data centers, enter into costly partnerships with companies like Nvidia, or simply do the work to build up their own AI agents and try to integrate them into their core products.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

It reminds me of back when I was a reporter at Marketplace. One of my beats was Big Data, back when Big Data was a. Was a beat. And what everyone kept saying to me over and over was, I don't know, did you ever see Minority Report?

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Of course.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Do you remember the scene when Tom Cruise is running through the mall and there are all these holograms being projected as different brands? Yeah.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Very personalized.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

They're like, it's time to replace your whatever. Nike Pegasus or like, would you like a Rolex? Or whatever it is. And everyone kept saying that is happening. Like that is just around the corner and. And it never happened. Like, it still hasn't really happened. I mean, it happened in a different way. And I think about that moment all the time right now because I feel like that is happening with AI, but there's so much money behind it now and so many market forces behind it, it seems like it's really kind of shaking the foundations of our economy in a really profound way. And, you know, in another development this week, Brad, these AI companies are now setting their sights, of course, on deeper pockets. The US government. I feel like all big business event turns its gate. It's like the Jupiter of the finance world. Right. Is the largest gravitational pull. Everybody wants a US government contract, but now there is a lot of excitement and investment around developing autonomous weapons and also using AI in service of kind of mass surveillance. And now there's a big discussion about putting protections in place around that as well.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Right. This week we saw Anthropic talking to the US government about extending its Claude contract. SpaceX talking about competing in a Pentagon contest to produce voice control autonomous drone swarming technology. And Stacey, the interesting thing here is how at odds these potential relationships are with some of the core values that fueled at least some of the AI companies. Anthropic, of course, you know, OpenAI, whose founding mission was to benefit humanity. They're going to the Pentagon. They're trying to draw some lines around the relationship. I don't know how successful that will be.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Voice control drones is very frightening because I feel like when I have tried to interact with AI via voice controls, it just doesn't often go that well. And the stakes in this case are really low. It's like, you know, a recipe for chicken or something. But if we're talking about like drone Strikes. It just seems like the Department of War needs to get it right.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And Stacey, one more development this week. NPR host David Green suing Google for using a likeness of his voice and its product notebook. LM now, you know, you're a longtime radio personality. David Green says that is his voice. It's his intonations and filler words. What do you think?

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

You know, this is interesting. I mean, I feel like there's quite a bit of crossover here between, you know, the, the debate happening in Hollywood over people's likenesses. I do think it's true. I mean, this happened at NPR in other iterations as well. I remember there was a, a bunch of excitement over an AI launch that used a voice that sounded very similar to Steve Inskeep's voice. And it was a podcast that would generate itself if you said, like, hey, I want to learn about, you know, any fiber and the importance of fiber in your diet in a podcast form. And then they would have an inscipian, like, voice interviewing a reporter, and it would just immediately generate it. So when I was at npr, we were both sort of delighted and excited by this. Cause it was just so funny how fast it was able to put it together. But it did feel kind of terrifying. And the point that I had a colleague make, and I think this is a really good one, and to answer your question, is that, you know, the reason they're using Steven Skeep's voice or David Green's voice is because there's a lot of sort of authority in that voice. And that's from a lot of years of reporting and, you know, trying to get it right. And a lot of hours and time and investment went into that credibility.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And we should say Google insists it's a paid actor. But it's hard to believe it's a total coincidence.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

It is hard to believe it's a total coincidence. I mean, this happened with Scarlett Johansson's voice, too, right? Like, they were, they appropriated that. I mean, I think because we have associations with these voices. And I feel like for us as humans, like, we hear voices before we're even born. Like, this is very primal for us. And we have very emotional associations with voices. It is a little tricky when an AI can just generate a voice you trust. I mean, imagine if it's like a family member or, you know, someone you. You absolutely look up to or someone you absolutely hate. And just like the emotions that get evoked around that voice telling you something, I think it is quite powerful and is definitely worth a look. And I'M glad this lawsuit is happening because I think it will force a deeper dive because in this country, like that's how things happen, right? Via litigation.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

This is Tom Keene inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

It's about making you smarter every business day. I'm Paul Sweeney.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

We bring you complete coverage of the US Market open. We cover stocks, bonds, commodities, even crypto. All the information you need to excel.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

And I'm Alexis Christopheris. Bloomberg Surveillance also brings you the analysis behind the headlines.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

We do that through conversations with the

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

smartest names in economics, finance, investment and international relations.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

We do all this live each and

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

every weekday, then bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast. Search for Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple, Spotify, YouTube or anywhere else you listen on

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

the east coast, listen at lunch and on the west coast, listen as soon as you wake up.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

That's the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast with Tom

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Keene, Paul Sweeney and me, Alexis Christophers.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Bloomberg Surveillance essential listening each and every business day.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Brad Stone, you have a big story running in this issue of Business Week. Can you talk a little bit about it? It is about taxes, but it's very, it's super exciting and interesting. I feel like some people don't always

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

think that about nothing more interesting than taxes, right? I, I wrote the opening essay of our March issue, how to tax a Trillionaire. You may have heard, Stacey California tearing itself to pieces over a proposal, a one time tax of 5% on wealthy families with over $1.1 billion in assets. This has not even qualified for the ballot yet, but politicians are coming out for and against. Billions are being raised by super PACs to fight it.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

People have threatened to leave the state and that's it.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Famous founders Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg buying homes and establishing residences outside the state.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

This is a fascinating topic and certainly one that has been really top of mind I think for the last few years now as people have discussed wealth and the disparity between the wealthy and lower income people getting wider in this country. And we are very lucky to have someone you spoke with for your article. Ray Madoff, professor at Boston College Law School and author of the Second how the Tax Code Made an American Aristocracy. Ray, welcome to everybody's business.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Thank you so much. It's a real pleasure to be here with both of you.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

So Ray, you wrote the book on how we tax or how we don't tax billionaires. I really relied on you as I reported out this story. So tell us, what do you think of wealth tax proposals like the one in California.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

It's interesting because wealth tax proposals are in some ways an obvious solution to the current situation. The current problem that we have now is that the wealthiest Americans have found many easily available effective ways to avoid the income tax. And when they avoid the federal income tax, they also avoid the state income tax. And so wealth taxes seem to provide the perfect response to this problem, which is, fine, let's just tax their wealth. The problem is, like a lot of solutions, the devil is in the details. They might work in theory, but I am very concerned about their ability to work in practice.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

So this might seem like kind of an obvious question, but I think it is quite interesting. When we talk about taxing someone's wealth as opposed to their income, what do we mean? And why is this a solution that people like to talk about when dealing with the wealth or the income gap

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

in the U.S. yeah, and I think the answer is because of the failure to tax income. I'm gonna start on the income side because I think that's the tax that most people are most familiar with, right? Most people who are well off are well off because they get salaries and other forms of taxable income. And the more taxable income you get, the higher taxes you pay. The thing is, for our richest Americans, all these guys in Silicon Valley, they have found ways of avoiding taxable income, and they do it by following what I call the tax avoidance playbook. And the first step, they avoid salaries. So all these guys that are like the greatest of all time, they're taking extremely modest salaries. So Jeff Bezos gets a salary of $82,000, so low that he actually qualified for the child tax credit, which he took. And you know, and he never takes more than that. And it's not just cause he's not child tax credit, and it's not cause he's just a modest, humble guy, right? It's because he knows that salaries are for suckers. Because salaries are subject to lots of taxes. They're sub to both income taxes and payroll taxes. And together those taxes are frequently over 50%. So they don't want anything to do with that. And so what they do is they don't take salaries and instead they rely on the growing value of their stock. And the growth in value of their stock is extraordinary. Bezos, again, probably on his own, his stock has probably gone up $150 billion just since 2023. So you're talking about massive growth of wealth. The thing is that growth of wealth also avoids taxes because we don't tax growing wealth until the property is sold. And our wealthiest Americans have found a way to access this property without actually selling it. And what that way is, is that they use it as collateral to borrow money. And all of our richest Americans have borrowed huge amounts of money to support their most lavish lifestyles. And what it means is that they are able to live off of this without paying any taxes on it. Now you're a state like California and they have no salaries, they have no capital gains, they have no income, and yet they have massive amounts of wealth. And so of course, the natural thing is to say, well, let's just tax them on their wealth. We know they have hundreds of billions of dollars, so let's tax their wealth much like one would tax a house, right? A house is taxed not because it produces income, but based on the value of the house. And that's what they're to do in California and in other places that have proposed adopting a wealth tax. It would be basically a 5% tax on all the property interests owned by the various taxpayers who fall into this group, which I think it's a billion dollars, is the current proposed cutoff for the California tax.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And so, Ray, let's talk about the California tax. I mean, why then is that a bad idea if it is? I mean, we're seeing a lot of billionaires taking their toys and leaving the state. Nevada, Miami Beach, Florida. And by the way, the reason this is proposed is that the health care union, the largest healthcare union in the state, looked at the state budget, saw that the one big beautiful bill act is going to open up a massive hole in the state's medi cal budget and thought this is a reservoir of perhaps untapped wealth that we can access. So are these state led measures just a bad idea?

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Yeah, there's a couple of problems with them. As I say, they are a totally understandable idea in theory, particularly when you're talking about people who own publicly traded stock. And we can easily see at least what that stock is worth. But there's a number of practical problems, particularly for states. One problem is, as we're already seeing, is that people can leave the state. Now California is trying to get around it with this bill because they said anyone who was a Citizen on January 1, I think that was the cutoff. They are still gonna be subject to this tax even if they relocate. But I'd say a bigger problem comes with valuation. And that's because when we have publicly traded stock, we can see that type of value. But lots of wealth is held not in publicly traded stock. And a lot of it is held, for example, in partnership interests that are highly complex, like 700 levels D partnerships, owning partnerships, and very, very difficult to track that value. And then add all the other types of things that people own. And the problem is for states is that states normally piggyback their systems on the federal government, right? The federal government figures out what your adjusted gross income is, and then the state just rides on that with these wealth taxes. States are gonna have to, on their own, put in all that they need to try to track value. And it's gonna be a highly complex endeavor. And if we were to do it large scale, like on the national level, I think it would incentivize a lot of our wealthiest Americans to stay out of the publicly traded market and instead to stay in privately held business interests. And we already see that now where a lot of private businesses are not going public. And this would give them one more reason to not go public. But when businesses pull out of the public market, that's not good for all of us who depend on the public market for our retirement and other savings.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I'm curious, because I know a lot of countries have tried a wealth tax, because I love how you said salaries are for suckers. And it's true that a lot of the wealthiest people, especially, you know, generational wealth, it gets tied up in properties, yachts, coin collections, things like that. So a lot of countries have tried to get at this, like France and Austria and Finland, they have all dropped this wealth tax. Like, they all backed away from it. Are the reasons that you're laying out why? I mean, did they have the same difficulty in, like, assessing how much wealth was actually there and people potentially moving?

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

I think it's very difficult to capture everybody's wealth, the wealthy of the wealthiest people, I do think. And in Europe in particular, you have a lot of problems with people moving because, of course, you have freedom of movement, but without a unified system of taxation. And so of course, people can easily move to lower tax jurisdiction. So it's particularly problematic in Europe. And, you know, I think that if one were gonna have a wealth tax system, it is gonna involve sort of a whole new way of thinking about things that frankly, at least in the United States, is kind of anathema to our way of thinking. Just in terms of basic privacy, right. If people were forced to disclose every single thing they owned, I think that a lot of Americans, even those who weren't subject to the tax, might feel that that is too invasive of People's privacy. So I worry about that as well.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Ray, why are the politics around wealth, taxes and taxing the wealthy, why are they so tricky, so hard fought, so, like, bitterly emotional? It's something that we're seeing right now in California.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Well, I mean, of course, one reason is that the wealthy have a lot of firepower, right? And so now you're coming after them, and they have a lot to say about it. So we've been seeing this more and more where the wealthiest are throwing their weight around in ways that I think culturally they were previously probably less inclined to do. Right. There would be concern about the wealthy throwing around their power, that this is maybe anti Democratic, but we're not in that age today. We may be in the future, but right now we're in the age that is embracing throw around your weight, look out for number one. And it's almost like the greed is good. You know, they say that every 40 years a time repeats itself. And so this is greed is good to the nth degree, I think, in the era that we're living in right now.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I mean, do you think that taxing trillionaires or taxing the super wealthy, is that something that is potentially doable?

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

So I think the first answer is to stop focusing on that. We're taxing trillionaires, we're taxing billionaires, because I think that type of framing makes it sound like the rich are already paying a lot of taxes and now we're gonna impose extra burdens on them. And so then it pushes us to have these kind of conversations that are like, are rich people good or bad for society? Do they bring jobs or do they, you know, all of this stuff. But that's really beside the point. I think the bigger problem is that the public at large has been duped about who pays taxes and how much taxes the wealthy actually pay. And so I think what's better is to, you know, wealthy people need to pay taxes just like the rest of us. Not that they need extra taxes that we're gonna specifically impose on them, but they need to. We need to adjust our rules because right now our rules allow the wealthy to acquire just exorbitant amounts of wealth entirely tax free. And for them it's optional. Right? That's why you have to wonder, like, why do we hear things like when Elon Musk says, should I pay taxes or shouldn't I pay taxes? Right? He asks his Twitter viewers, or Warren Buffet says, well, I think I do better by not paying taxes, not paying down the national debt. And Instead giving to my philanthropy. Somebody who earns a salary cannot make that decision that they're gonna not pay taxes and instead donate to charity. So why are we letting our wealthy treat taxes as an option rather than as an obligation that we all have to share?

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Is there any country that's really done a really good job of this, or is it just really tricky to tax people who have a lot of resources?

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

I don't think it's really tricky to tax. I don't think that's the actual problem. We easily could tax our wealthiest Americans by adopting one rule that was proposed by both Barack Obama and Richard Nixon, which was an odd pairing, right? Which was that we tax these gains at whenever the property is transferred instead of requiring sale. We should say when these people transfer their property by gifts, which they're doing a lot of gifting, or at death, they're gonna recognize the gains then. And then the other thing that we need to do is to tax inheritances by pulling them into the income tax system, because inheritances right now are, you know, the current estate tax system is so deeply flawed, it's not even a tax system. And then I think we could also adjust the rules of philanthropy and then we'd have a system that I think does a pretty good job of treating everybody the same, bringing everybody into the tax system and requiring everyone to contribute to supporting the costs of government.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Ray, before we let you go, I mean, these failures in the tax code have been around for decades. Warren Buffett wrote the famous 2011 New York Times op ed, pointing out that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. So, I mean, is there any reason to think that maybe this California ballot proposition, despite its flaws, becomes a kind of inciting moment where we can have a kind of more clear eyed and rational discussion about how the rich pay taxes?

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Absolutely. Because I think one great thing about this California, and frankly the other states that are doing it, is that it's really shining a light on the fact that the wealthiest Americans are in fact not paying taxes and don't have to pay taxes. And so this moves the needle forward. Right. Instead of having confusion like, are the rich paying taxes a lot of taxes or not? You don't really see those discussions. Mostly people say, oh yeah, the rich aren't paying taxes and how are we going to address it as a problem? So I actually think, while I'm not in particular favor of this wealth tax, I think it is a very positive change for getting a fairer tax system because it's opening up conversations just like this, where we actually see how the wealthy avoid taxes because they avoid taxes on their salaries and on their gains and on their inheritances.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

So, Stacy, my takeaway is that we're the suckers earning salaries.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I know paying our taxes, that's gonna haunt. That's gonna haunt me. Salaries are for suckers is gonna haunt me.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Ray, thank you for bringing that to our attention. And thanks for being here as a guest on everybody's business.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Thank you so much. Wonderful being here. Thank you.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

I'm Barry Ritholtz inviting you to join me for the Masters in Business podcast.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Every week we bring you fascinating conversations

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

with the people who shape markets, investing and business. CEOs, fund managers, billionaires, Nobel laureates, traders, analysts, economists, everybody that affects what's going on in the market.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Market, whether you own stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, crypto.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

You really need to hear these conversations. Sometimes it's behaviorists like Dick Thaler or Bob Shiller. Sometimes it's fund managers like Peter Lynch, Bill Miller, Ray Dalio.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Sometimes it's authors.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Michael Lewis, author of the Big Short and Moneyball. Regardless of the conversation, these are the

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

folks that move market each week. That's the Masters in Business podcast with me, Barry Ritholtz. Listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Okay, Brad, let us set the trillionaires aside for the moment to talk about a slightly different topic. Although another cohort that does command an enormous economic power with perhaps just as

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

much mystique as the trillionaires. Gen Alpha. Stacey. So kids between the ages of, I guess, you know, just born and around 16, we have a whole package on the current issue of Business Week about Generation Alpha as a potent economic force.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

One of the really surprising things about Gen Alpha is that even though most of them aren't earning their own money yet, a lot of them are commanding a lot of money or wielding a lot of economic power within their families. I mean, I know you have Brad. Or do they, like, how much control do they have over how your family spends money?

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

They're a little older. They're not Gen Alpha, but I would say, Stacy, they have all the control.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Really?

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Oh, yeah.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Over, like, where you guys go on vacation, what you eat.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Let's just say streaming services. Let's just say they're formidable. But the thing about Gen Alpha, they get interested earlier in cultural trends, in beauty products and influencers. And so they are a force that companies have to understand.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Well, Brad, before Max whisked off to the Olympics, we did have a conversation about Gen Alpha. Both of Us wrote articles for the Gen Alpha issue, and Max actually talked to his children for the story. And we learned all kinds of things about this generation, its economic muscle, and also some of the traits that it's starting to show, which, of course, companies and people everywhere are very interested in.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Very curious to hear what you found out.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Let's roll the tape.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

I am a, as you know, Stacey, very serious journalist. And so in preparation for this segment, I went out and I did some reporting. I gathered some important tape with some important Gen Alphas that I know. This is my daughter Alice, her best friend Olive, and then my son Saul. These are ages 11, 10, and 9. So the sweet spot of Gen Alpha. And I wanted to just ask them, okay, like, what do you guys think is cool? Because to your point, this is.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

A million corporations are asking a very expensive question.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Discretionary spending. What I have is so valuable, like the CEOs of. Of some of the most important and valuable companies selling this information because he's

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

giving it to us for free. On everybody's incredibly generous.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

So let's give a listen. This is sort of a quick focus group on some trends that are big or not big among the Alpha.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

All right.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Minecraft and Roblox.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Roblox bad. Minecraft. Okay.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Taylor Swift.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Slay.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Bad Bunny.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Good artist.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Kid Rock.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I have no idea what that is.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

How would I know? Pokemon.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Too old for them.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Millennials.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

What? I don't know what that is.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

IPads.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Okay. TikTok don't do scroll kids.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Horrible poison for cyber trucks.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Garbage trucks.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Six, seven.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

That's over.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Cat's eye.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Awesome socks.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Skinny jeans.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

No, they squish my legs.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Boba Te Bo. Gnarly.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Is gnarly good or bad?

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

You didn't catch that reference? That's a. That's from a cat's eye song called Gnarly.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And it's also.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Did not get that.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

And gnarly. It could be good or bad. It means. It means awesome. It means gross. It means all the things they love. Boba Tea, though, I can tell you now, I gotta say. So you reacted to my kids talking about technology and saying that, you know, Instagram and Olive said the same thing. You know, Instagram, TikTok. Poison.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Poison for your brain.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

So I wrote about this.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

This is not wrong.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

I wrote about this in the latest issue of Business Week. And I really think that this idea that Alphas are the most online generation, you see this show up all the time. It even shows up sometimes in surveys. I don't know that that's totally true or it may be missing a part of the story because it's true that although Alphas do have a lot of screen time, and you brought up Covid this, this time where all these kids were just like basically plugged into screens 24 7, but they've also kind of internalized a lot of the skepticism about screens that their parents have as well. And I hear that in my own house. And this is the thing I wanted to write about, which is like, I read a lot about parents and children getting into fights about screen time. And the way it's always described is like a parent saying that I am in a big fight with my kid about screen time. They will not get off TikTok at the dining room table. And these kids are often a little bit older than my kids. But the big fight in my house over screen time is my kids like yelling at me and they're the ones being like, get off your phone, dad, get off your phone. And I really think. And it shows up in some of the surveys. So there's some Pew data about kids feelings about social media. And a few years ago, like three years ago it was kids thought that social media was basically good. And it is totally flipped where now the numbers say just the opposite. I should pull this up really quick. 2022, they asked teenagers, is social media mostly good or mostly bad for people your age? And at the time, 32% said that it was mostly bad, 24% said that was mostly good. So, so slightly negative today, 11% mostly good, 48% mostly bad. So basically a lot of kids are at least aware of this. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're not doing it, that they're not doing it, but I think this is something that big companies are going to have to reckon with. Not only because kids may not be quite as brain poisoned as their parents. Like I think our generation, especially maybe people a little younger than you and I, who really grew up on the Internet, I think we are the ones maybe who have like the least healthy habits around screens. Whereas some of these quote unquote digital natives are actually maybe a little bit better able to, to, to kind of compartmentalize. And then you also have, you know, all of these countries are passing laws now. So Australia just passed a rule saying kids under 16 are not allowed to use social media. The Spain is doing it, the UK is doing it, a lot of US states are doing it. There is a shift happening and I don't think any of us really know where it's going to go.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I wonder What AI is going to throw into this mix? Because I do think just the way people are interacting with AI now, maybe not such young kids, but maybe older alphas, because people have like very personal conversations with AI or ascit advice.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Yeah. When I was reporting this story, I talked to John Haidt, who is the author of the Anxious Generation, which is this like best selling book. He's an NYU social psychologist and he's like the guy who created a lot of the kind of conversation going on right now around screen time. And he says essentially that AI is like social media, but a million times worse. Because part of the problem with social media for kids and for development is that it kind of like takes kids away from like human connections, but with AI, there's no connection at all. It's just a bot making.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Well, you're connecting, but maybe not with a human.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Yeah.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

And so, you know, he told me, you know, I think it's the worst way you could possibly bring up a kid. I do think those concerns are out there. And unlike with social media where there was like a 10 year period where pretty much tech companies did whatever they wanted, they were marketing Facebook and Instagram to, to very young children. And there was an effort that was that, that kind of got derailed, but they, they even wanted to go, you know, younger than 13, they were gonna have like nine year olds on these social media platforms, which when you think about it, I don't know, as a parent, it seems kind of crazy. The conversation now is very different. I also will say when I talk to my kids about AI, they don't like AI, they think it's dumb. And maybe this is partly because, because they're, you know, they're my kids and they, they hear my AI skepticism, but I don't know that that's totally true. I think a lot of kids are actually kind of aware of the limitations. I was talking the other day with my daughter Alice and one of her friends and they were saying, oh, it would have been so great to grow up in the 80s. And I was like, why? Why would it be so great to grow up in the 80s? And they said, well, you could go to movie and talking about these kind of retro experiences. Alice is super into CDs, which is funny. And then she goes, yeah, your generation's so lucky. And I said, why? And she goes, well, you haven't had your brains poisoned by AI. And I said, well Alice, you don't have to use AI. And she goes, it's everywhere. I try to search for a fat frog On Google and I get a bunch of AI. She was really disturbed by the fact that the Google results for Fat Frog was AI.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I now wanna Google Fat Frog. But I think she's right in that, I mean, because companies are adopting it, it may be hard to not use it. And then when you start using, may be hard to not kind of veer into a more personal relationship. But also, maybe there's more of an awareness now than there was when social media started. Cause that was such a new thing. And maybe there wasn't as much of an awareness. Also, I think because you were connecting with other people, maybe there was less of a warning flags going off because I mean, there have been like a million movies and books about Rise of the robots.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

I do think that the kind of screen anxiety that the Jonathan Haidt view of the world is seeping into kids. When I called him, he told me, you know, if you had called me three or four weeks ago, I would have told you your kids are freaks. But he had actually just released like a kid's version of his book. It's called the Amazing Generation. It's a graphic novel and it's, you know, surprisingly it's sold pretty well. And there are all these Amazon reviews of kids being like, I hope I never get a smartphone and things like that. So it may be that kids really have these kind of retro values or maybe just absorbing from us, the parents.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I feel like there can be a gap between knowing what's good for you and doing what's good for you. And AI makes certain things so easy, including writing papers, doing research. I feel like that's going to be really hard to. I mean, it's like it's awesome to have a flip phone or it's awesome to grayscale your phone until you are on deadline.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

I'm so glad you brought that up because even in this Pew survey where kids are saying it's bad for their peers, they don't think they are using it badly. So there is a bit of a.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Now I'm personally not addicted to it. I feel like it's like the thing with the glass of wine.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Exactly.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

So I mean, I have a glass of wine every night, but that's totally different.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

But you know what? Like these public health campaigns, they work sometimes. And as I have been thinking, did

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

say no to drugs work?

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

No, but say no to smoking absolutely worked. I mean, eventually. Yeah, eventually. And when I've thought about the conversations that I have at the dinner table with my kids around screen time, they really, really remind me of conversations I had with my parents and members of my parents generation about cigarettes where I was getting all of this kind of anti tobacco information at school and coming home and being like, you shouldn't smoke, you know, and that worked. I mean, you look at the generational shift on smoking and it, it's been profound, like number one.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

But a big number of the generational shift on smoking had to do with taxes.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Sure.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

But it has made a difference. And, and talking to John Haidt about this, what he said is, and, and where he kind of compared it, he said, you know, one of the things I think that really worked on cigarette smoking was in the late 90s, the sort of anti tobacco groups, they started sort of demonizing the tobacco industry and saying it wasn't really about your health, it was about these tobacco companies are manipulating you. They are, they are selling you an addictive product, they are making money off of you. And I think there's some research showing that, that, that marketing that happened in the, in the late 90s was effective. And he thinks that some of the messaging around tech that's, that's pretty similar. That's all about, you know, Mark Zuckerberg's trying to addict you to your phone or whatever, just like you heard in my daughter and her friend's statement, like it's poison, they're tricking you. Like that sense of a big company getting one over on you is a message that maybe could potentially break through among teens and younger kids.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Brad, it is that time in the show when we talk about underrated stories of the week and you brought us an underrated story. What is derivative story for us?

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Well, Stacey, is Stephen Colbert really ever underrated?

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I don't. I like him. I think he is very often underrated.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

I do too. I think we'll be feeling the reverberations from this week's events for a long time. First, on Monday he went on his program the Late show, as you probably heard, and said lawyers at cbs, his bosses had blocked him from airing an interview with US Senate candidate from Texas, James Talarico.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Yes. And from what I understand, he still did get the interview out into the world. He uploaded it on YouTube and it has been viewed 7 million times.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

Then I was told in some uncertain terms that not only could I not

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

have him on, I could not mention me not having him on.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And because my network clearly doesn't want us to talk about this. Let's talk about this. Stacey, this is a three way battle. Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr, who you might remember as Jimmy Kimmel's foil is trying to enforce those old equal time rules on the public airwave. So if you have one candidate, you need to give time to their opposition. CBS is saying they didn't force Talarico off the air and simply insists they gave the Late show options for how to fulfill those equal time obligations. And Colbert, who is set to end the show on May, I think he just doesn't give a F at this point. He went on the air again this week and said every word of a script was approved by CBS lawyers and he's fighting.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Well, I mean, I have to say the big winner in all of this is James Talarico, who says after this interview went viral on YouTube, his campaign raised two and a half million dollars in 24 hours, which is just mind blowing.

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

And that's a way, I think the story could be underrated. He's competing for Senator John Cornyn's seat. He is studying to be a Presbyterian minister. He went on Ezra Klein's podcast. You can kind of see the Democrats falling in love with Talarico. And this incident this week is only going to raise his profile.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

I also feel like there's something maybe a larger theme going on here too about the media and the Trump administration. I mean, we just had huge layoffs at the Washington Washington Post, like you said, Jimmy Kimmel's also had a big run in with the administration. It's really interesting to see the administration like quite directly engaging with the media in a lot of cases, although it's unclear if that actually happened here. It's definitely a theme right now.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Right?

[Brad Stone / Paul Sweeney]

I mean, the question is, are they trying to enforce fairness on the public airways or is this a partisan agenda? And I think that question has all sorts of impacts, including in the battle over over Warner Brothers, which could go to Netflix, could go to Paramount and of course own cnn. So this is the only beginning of this kind of fight.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

This show is produced by Stacy Wong and Jasmine J.T. green. Magnus Hendrickson is our supervising producer. Sam Rogich handles engineering and Dave Purcell fact checks. Special thanks to Jeff Muskus, Julia Rubin, Maria Lynn and Angel Recchio. If you have a minute, please rate and review the show. It means a lot to us. And if you have a story that should be our business, send us an email. Everybody's loomberg.net that's everybody's with an sloomberg.net thank you for listening and see you next week. I'm Carol Massar.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

And I'm Tim Stenovec inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. Now every day we are bringing bringing

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

you reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

We've got insight on the people, the

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

companies and trends that are shaping today's complex economy.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

That's right, Tim.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

We're all over global business, finance, tech

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

news, all as it is happening in real time. And we've got complete coverage of the US Market.

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

Close.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Got to say, basically, if it impacts

[Christina Raffini / Ray Madoff / Alexis Christopheris]

financial markets, if it impacts companies, if

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

it's impacting trends and narratives that are out there, we are on it.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

We also have a lot of fun doing it. Bloomberg Business this week also brings you the analysis behind the headlines through conversations with our expert guests. And we are doing this all live each weekday. And then we bring you the best

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

analysis in our daily podcast search for

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

Bloomberg Businessweek on YouTube, Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you listen.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

Check it out on your way home

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

from work to catch up on the conversations that you miss during the business day and on the weekend. Check it out for a complete wrap up of your business week.

[Stacey Vanek Smith / Carol Massar]

That's the Bloomberg Business Week Daily Podcast. I'm Carol Massar.

[David Gura / Barry Ritholtz / Tim Stenovec]

And I'm Tim Stanovec. Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.